v. collectively or individually finding someone/something to blame for a problem, as opposed to brainstorming which connotes finding solutions to a problem

n. the act of finding someone/something to blame for a problem

(from a TV ad for HD television)

When the government does stuff

1. An economic system where the means of production, distribution and exchange is determined by the state/public sector in some form. Can be centralised, decentralised, democratic or undemocratic.

2. Description of a left-wing political position between social democracy (general acceptance of the market economy but thinks the public sector has a vital role in proividing some goods and services) and communism (marxism). Agrees in the state determining the means of production, distribution and exchange but wants to bring that about peacefully and democratically.

3. General description of the left: the belief that individuals should be judged on how they treat other people rather than on their job/race/sexuality, that people should have equality of opportunity, that in principle wealth should be distributed fairly to everyone who works rather than the minority who own most of the economy and most of the wealth and that an economy owned by a few individuals without a strong public sector to balance that is undemocratic and unjust.

4. A stage in history defined by Marx's theories as coming after capitlalism and before communism where the means of production is owned by the state and run in the interests of the proletariat.

5. A label used by various Marxist-Leninist dictatorships with state-run economies in the 20th Century to justify their totalitarianism.

A socio-economic system where every worker-citizen is "equal." A decent theory on paper, but difficult to implement in the "real world."

(n.)
A political philosophy based on the belief that some or all businesses should be run solely for the benefit of the people using them.

Socialism and Communism are based on similar principles. Socialism does not require that a socialized industry be legally owned by the government, but if that were the case it could still be considered socialism. In the strictest sense, Communism prohibits private ownership of money, business, or goods, while Socialism may or may not on a case by case basis. The two can therefore resemble each other and it can be hard to distinguish one from the other.

My take: all approaches to governing people lay on a spectrum and each is interdependent with the economics of that society. Because the terms cover widths on that spectrum, and are not able to be pigeon-holed, no one conveneient definition of a term such as socialism, and, hence, no one convenient dismissal, is acceptable to a thinking person.

Socialism has many current forms, some more invested in governmental "control" and involvement (western European govenrments) ostensibly stemming from the belief that people will not pay for that from which they do not receive immediate benefit; i.e., roads, health care, the military (need taxes to pay for these things). Yes, the US is a socialist state as well, as it governs some aspects of production, some aspects of capital disbursement (in the form of the Fed, quasi-governenmental instititutions such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, special US-backed corporate loans ala Chrysler in the 80s), health care and wealth distribution (taxes). We just do it to less of an extent that some claimed "socialist" states.

If there is anything I would like people to undersdtand, it would be that socialism is not a bad word, no more so tham "dog", and that your unbiased assessment, as opposed to your knee-jerk dismissal, is warranted to truly understand and judge this concept.