The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk

Braindead take in all of these countries you do have the right to run a business collectively owned by the workers. Countries economics are not black or white its never 100% socialism or capitalism

Come on now! China is totally communist! After all when Marx envisioned his ideal state is was an authoritarian police state with billionaires, massive wealth disparities, stock markets and an investor class, right?

I think that in order to have a socialist nation you first need a nation.

And you're not going to get that without being a power hungry lunatic.

We're still a serfdom ruled by kings, and no amount of window dressing has changed that. At best we decide what colour hat the king will wear every four years.

Right-wingers have convinced their flock that anything the government does that isn't pay-as-you-go is "socialism".

Genuinely curious about the standard by which you evaluate whether the means of production are collectively owned. For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production. Another person might say it looks like each industry being controlled by a union representing the workers in said industry. A third could say that it means anytime a person operates a machine, they own it and can decide what to do with it, until they stop using it.

Is there any concievable physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers and in what form? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.

I'm a little out of the loop, why is a social democratic welfare state not socialism?