[happymellon]

You don't appear to understand what Socialism is.

It makes sense with this being an American site, and most Americans think that Socialism is essentially the same thing as Communism (but then why define them as separate things?).

Community, Cooperative, Employee owned are all forms of socialism. None of them prevent competition.

> no market incentive to provide a decent service, nor to compensate workers fairly.

If you owned part of the company you worked for, you would be more likely to provide good service as that would then have repeat business and would directly financially impact you. The performance of the business is the only way you would get paid and as there are no shareholders the company would compensate rather than dividend.

Your comment makes absolutely no sense, socialism doesn't prevent free markets.

[cbeach]

Socialism is state ownership of the means of production.

"Community, Cooperative, Employee owned" are all concepts that can (and do) exist under a capitalist regime.

Socialism is very different, and it does prevent free markets.

[happymellon]

> Socialism is state ownership of the means of production.

This is fundamentally wrong.

You should probably read about it before making statements that make you look foolish.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is about social not state ownership of the means of production. This does not prevent the state being involved either, and even then they can be a joint-stock corporation's.

[cbeach]

As I said, "social" ownership of the means of production can occur in a capitalist country with free markets.

A socialist regime, like the USSR, North Korea, or Mao's China would have state ownership. The founding fathers of modern socialist thought (e.g. Marx) would define socialism in terms of state ownership of the means of production.

But feel free to muddy the waters if you prefer to avoid concrete definitions.