Anybody can google it and find 20 different explanations, I'm looking for one from you, that differs with mine. The general idea is that the means of production is owned by the government and everyone pitches in to help pay for it (taxes). But you have to look at the big picture. What does it take in order to enforce all of that?
The only thing you are correct about is recognizing that whatever textbook definition of socialism there is, it is distinct from the operation of agents attempting implement it or after implementation, the operation of government after it is "socialized". However, it is clear you are not experienced with any true commie or socialist government in operation, unbridled by checks not related to any economic -ism. Only those who already have lived the commie system or have received credible testimony of the operation of the state, like Russians, chinese, Cubans, etc are qualified to discuss the government system practically.
The welfare state part of socialism is generally harmless to the populace in terms of rights, because all it is essentially finances and does not really change the government's ability to exercise power over a citizen. The expansion of power at all costs to obtain some benevolent ideal and the foolish trust that government itself would not abuse such expanded powers, is the problem. That's where the ass-kissing of government sets the legal foundation to a government with no political competition.
In actual fact, the socialist/capitalist dichotomy completely is irrelevant to the operation of government and certain "bending forces" the government is subject to in the Anglosphere. Due process does not exist because of either; due process is the result of the legal operation of the government and reaction against it. Basically, the machinery involved are distant from each other.
Socialism is a pursuit of the correction of [supposedly] economic and social ills...and at all costs and without regard for the need to inhibit the ability of government to exercise power, the latter done so because of perceived trustworthiness of government and perceived necessity. As such, it winds being a way for unintentionally forming the basis of a totalitarian state by mass consent, politically repressive state. Government becomes the one primary company of the land.
Government in general tends towards a steady state regardless of the façade used to get to that steady state, and it's not what is currently present in the English speaking countries. Government also has it's own "mind" even though it's literally an entity on paper.
One of the invisible hands of government is putting land to use. This is whys squatting is allowed. It's penalty for idleness. A judge may personally be sympathetic to a landowner and personally would hate it if they got squatted. But when push comes to shove, the system is preserved. Every actual government social contract starts with "Work, my bitch constituents, I own your ass".
So inevitably, enough of the populace must provide labor in order for the government to feed itself.
Facebook
Twitter