Formal socialism is an economic system where the "means of production is owned in common." The question is what do you call "means of production?" Is it just factories or does it include farms, mines, equipment for those, or even the people working them?

A socialist economic system with no private property is communism, the most radical form. A mild form is a "progressive" system. That usually has privately owned industry and public corporations (owned by everyone buying their common stock) but has protections for workers and consumers.

All of them can have any kind of political system. "Democratic socialism" has a democratic political system. Fascist national socialism has a dictator and "corporatist" government bureaus overseeing each industry. Even communism can be democratic but typically decays into autocracy.

"Social democracies" are usually progressive systems with extensive pubic programs. The US now has a progressive economic system under a republican form of government but is moving ever closer to social democracy.

Below are some descriptions that might interest you. Notice there seems to be very few progressives and socialists around but a lot of "liberals" spouting progressive or socialist policies. That’s why you might not recognize the description of "liberalism." It isn’t me who has it wrong.

True liberalism advocates: individual freedom, weak government, and free markets. Conservatism advocates: moral responsibility, strong government, and protected markets. Progressives advocate: social concern, omniscient government, and controlled markets. Socialism advocates: social responsibility, omnipresent government, and collective markets.

Sorry Gladiator for (almost) copying your question (I hope you don’t mind), but there’s something I want to find out.
@isurvived: All politics is economics.
@A Left-Libertarian: You, and I know that. Most people who answer this question don’t.

Democratic socialism, at least there’s more freedom.

PLEASE, nonbiased answers only. I’m trying to do a serious study on the different forms of Socialism.

Social democracy is a market-based democracy with some socialized institutions mixed in.

Democratic socialism would be a planned economy that is run democratically

I admit it, I advocate democratic socialism. But I am confused if this economic ideology is either a mixed economy or a weak command economy.

If you don’t know that, how can you possibly advocate it?

Mixed.

But don’t let that encourage you – when you establish a common entitlement system, you get abuse. Sometimes the system collapses under its own weight, and the inefficiencies are problematic and hasten the process. This is not so true in good economic times, but in bad times, there is normally no mechanism to trim back entitlements, so the fixed costs in the system outweigh the economy’s ability to make ends meet.

Democratic socialism is also very susceptible to corruption and strongarm behavior. It is hard for the best and brightest to perform in such an environment. Socially, everyone wants to hold them back so that they can ‘get theirs.’

I did, pick your answer

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=democratic+socialism+vs+social+democracy&ei=utf-8&fr=b1ie7

lol

Social Democracy, ie socialism in Europe and Canada, is not authoritarian like Communism or Fascism, has not ever failed economically, and doesn’t lessen freedom. In fact, the Christian right is more authoritarian on the political spectrum than Social Democracy.

Too much public schooling and not enough education.

The people get to vote on what they want produced, there won’t be a Soviet style bureaucracy.

How many of you even own the means of production anyway?
REPEAT: The people get to vote on what they want produced, there will NOT be a Soviet style bureaucracy.

In simpler terms
Soviet = bad
democracy = good.

It’s perfectly democratic if it’s established and maintained through a true democracy. It’s also horrible. Democracy in its simplest form is no guarantee of a good government.

No right wingers answer. you are just programmed to not give either a chance and will just say neither would ever work.

Democratic socialism is the most feasible. We are not ready for it yet, but it is not quite as scary as the right would like you to think.

Democratic socialism has brought a much better quality of life to the people in Scandinavia and France and Germany and Britain, and it has not erased one iota of the political freedoms we cherish in this country.

There are elements of capitalism within each of these countries, but more regulated than here. It is not without problems, and may never be right for us, but it is definitely within the realm of "feasible".

Communism is out of the question, and has no history of working for industrialized countries, although for hard pressed third world countries it has provided temporary relief from poverty, followed by dictatorships.

Describe one main similarity and one main difference between communism and democratic socialism as economic systems.

Similarity: Communism follows the philosophy of Karl Marx, who believed that, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

President Barack Hussein Obama once told "Joe the Plumber" that “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." When President Obama used the words, "spread the wealth around", he was talking about income redistribution – taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor. This kind of "Robin Hood" mentality is similar to the philosophy of Karl Marx. So, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is similar to "spread the wealth around".

Difference: Karl Marx was a communist. President Barack Obama is a socialist. The two philosophies are a little bit different because socialism is not a carbon copy of communism, but a watered down version of it. Communists want almost total control – all or most property is owned by the state. With socialism, people may own some property, but not too much. If they own too much, then the government will want to "spread the wealth around". With socialism, the impulse is also to not totally control, but to strongly influence commerce with heavy-handed regulation, that tends to stifle economic growth.

plz spare definition that is on wikipedia. It just cant make any sense to me…!!

Communism- People living in a community, sharing everything, working together, and everyone is equal. No state.
Socialism- Workers own the means of production. Basically workers control the corporations and businesses.
Capitalism- Private control of the means of production. CEO, shareholders, etc.
Democratic Socialism- Workers vote on what to do with the company.