De, That's an interesting *technical* definition which is not implemented fully in any country I can think of.
Wikipedia, surprisingly, agrees! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
Wikipedia actually makes my point that the label "Socialist" means nothing. "Self-identification is the only criterion used by the list, therefore it includes all countries that have claimed to be socialist, even if their claims are disputed. All countries that have not claimed to be socialist are excluded, even in cases where certain outside observers regarded those countries as socialist."
And, it seems, the widespread use of a bad label (NewSpeak) is probably a strategy...like "Capitalist" and, apparently in the US, "Democracy" (where the real power is held by the Deep State, which tolerates elections only for ceremony).
What most countries practice, it seems to me, is a squishy sort of "ownership" and "control", wherein most companies continue to be privately OWNED, for purposes of title, capital formation, taxes, lawsuits, etc. but where it is implicitly understood that if a PRIVLEGED clique of "stake holders" STATE a preference, that preference is obeyed. And, of course, in EVERY country I am aware of, if the GOVERNMENT says something you had better do what the government says...or else.
Only in the United States does there remain sufficient independence in the Judiciary, and in the individual States, for there to be any serious pushback on social "requests" or Federal mandates. But, even here, it is extremely expensive ... and dangerous ... to not go along with the IMPLIED community "ownership" and government "control". So that is where the term "creeping Socialism" comes in. And, of course, "creeping" subversion is a stealth warfare technique.
Anyway, I am not aware of ANY country which really implements the TECHNICAL definition, are you? Actually, maybe that is not true...? There are many countries where SOME select businesses are nationalized -- and usually given monopoly powers as part of the deal.
By the way, I recently read that Mussolini got the concept of Fascism from an economist and the economist, in turn, got it from a putative “Communist” in Russia. It's all a slippery slide. The "Left-Right" divide doesn't seem to really exist except in the belief system of Lusers.
You've given me more to think about -- and I probably need to do a lot more scholarly reading...although that doesn't seem to help settle the issue too much. So maybe the scholars should be ignored?
| 