Difference between Keynesian economics and socialism?

[The Reasonable]

What is the difference between Keynesian economics and socialism? Is there any? And if so, which system is better?

[Zeppy]

John Keynes was too much of a liberal pussy to advocate REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM!

Keynesianism still allows private ownership of the means of production, while socialism would demand public ownership of all the means of production.

[Silent Majority]

Socialism calls for the ownership of the means of production by the workers, whereas Keynesian economics is a school of economic thought for a system with a capitalist means of production in a market economy.

[Tubbsalot]

Er, well the difference is mainly that Keynesian economics would recommend a capitalist free market, while socialists... probably wouldn't.

And yes, capitalism is pretty uncontroversially a good idea.

[Avenio]

Here OP, let me do 30 seconds-worth of Googling for you.

Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) are the group of macroeconomic schools of thought based on the ideas of 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economists believe that aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) does not necessarily equal aggregate supply (the total productive capacity of the economy). Instead it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment and inflation.[1]

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[2] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by Keynes in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector — and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the tax surcharge in 1968 and the stagflation of the 1970s.[3] The advent of the global financial crisis in 2008 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.[4]

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[5][6] Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society.[citation needed] In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism regardless of the solution. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy of an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[7] Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858) tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production. Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments have instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[8]

Was that so hard?

EDIT: Also, "Which system is better?"? Really? That's like asking 'Which flavour of ice cream is better; chocolate or strawberry?".

[The Reasonable]

Here OP, let me do 30 seconds-worth of Googling for you.

Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) are the group of macroeconomic schools of thought based on the ideas of 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economists believe that aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) does not necessarily equal aggregate supply (the total productive capacity of the economy). Instead it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment and inflation.[1]

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[2] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by Keynes in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector — and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the tax surcharge in 1968 and the stagflation of the 1970s.[3] The advent of the global financial crisis in 2008 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.[4]

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[5][6] Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society.[citation needed] In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism regardless of the solution. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy of an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[7] Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858) tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production. Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments have instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[8]

Was that so hard?

Then explain the "democratic socialist" movement that came about throughout the 20th century in Europe. What do they support in actuality?

[Silent Majority]

Here OP, let me do 30 seconds-worth of Googling for you.





Was that so hard?

Then explain the "democratic socialist" movement that came about throughout the 20th century in Europe. What do they support in actuality?

Either social democrats who were mislabeling themselves, or people who wanted to bring about socialism through a democratic process instead of through a violent revolution.

[Avenio]

Then explain the "democratic socialist" movement that came about throughout the 20th century in Europe. What are they actually?

Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions simply refer to all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one.[1] Often, this definition is invoked to distinguish democratic socialism from Stalinist socialism, as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey,[2] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism.

But for those who use the term in this way, the scope of the term "socialism" itself can be very vague, and include forms of socialism compatible with capitalism. For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal redistribution, some nationalisation) and "revisionist democratic socialism," as developed by Anthony Crosland and Harold Wilson:

The most influential revisionist Labour thinker, Anthony Crosland..., contended that a more "benevolent" form of capitalism had emerged since the [Second World War] ... According to Crosland, it was now possible to achieve greater equality in society without the need for "fundamental" economic transformation. For Crosland, a more meaningful form of equality could be achieved if the growth dividend derived from effective management of the economy was invested in "pro-poor" public services rather than through fiscal redistribution.[3]

Indeed, some proponents of market socialism see the latter as a form of democratic socialism.[4]

A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter's argument, set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies were evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[5]

In contrast, other definitions of democratic socialism sharply distinguish it from social democracy.[6] For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[7] In this definition, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[8] Draper himself uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism. He writes: "the leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a 'theory of spontaneity'".[9] Similarly, about Eugene Debs, he writes: "'Debsian socialism' evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism."[10]

Other definitions fall between the first and second set, seeing democratic socialism as a specific political tradition closely related to and overlapping with social democracy. For example, Bogdan Denitch, in Democratic Socialism, defines it as proposing a radical reorganization of the socio-economic order through public ownership, workers' control of the labor process and redistributive tax policies.[11] Robert G. Picard similarly describes a democratic socialist tradition of thought including Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Evan Durbin and Michael Harrington.[12]

The term democratic socialism can be used in a third way, to refer to a version of the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism."[13] Consequently, some former Communist parties have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany.

Justification of democratic socialism can be found in the works of social philosophers like Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, among others. Honneth has put forward the view that political and economic ideologies have a social basis, that is, they originate from intersubjective communication between members of a society.[14] Honneth criticises the liberal state because it assumes that principles of individual liberty and private property are ahistorical and abstract, when, in fact, they evolved from a specific social discourse on human activity. Contra liberal individualism, Honneth has emphasised the inter-subjective dependence between humans; that is, our well-being depends on recognising others and being recognised by them. Democratic socialism, with its emphasis on social collectivism, could be seen as a way of safeguarding this dependency.

In recent years, some[who?] have suggested replacing "democratic" with "participatory" upon seeing the reduction of the former to parliamentarism.

I weep bitter tears for the future of humanity, one dominated by people that have more information at their fingertips than all of history up until now put together and yet are too lazy to actually spend the 30 seconds using one of the most sophisticated and user-friendly information-gathering services ever to exist to find it.

[The Reasonable]

Then explain the "democratic socialist" movement that came about throughout the 20th century in Europe. What are they actually?

Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions simply refer to all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one.[1] Often, this definition is invoked to distinguish democratic socialism from Stalinist socialism, as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey,[2] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism.

But for those who use the term in this way, the scope of the term "socialism" itself can be very vague, and include forms of socialism compatible with capitalism. For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal redistribution, some nationalisation) and "revisionist democratic socialism," as developed by Anthony Crosland and Harold Wilson:

The most influential revisionist Labour thinker, Anthony Crosland..., contended that a more "benevolent" form of capitalism had emerged since the [Second World War] ... According to Crosland, it was now possible to achieve greater equality in society without the need for "fundamental" economic transformation. For Crosland, a more meaningful form of equality could be achieved if the growth dividend derived from effective management of the economy was invested in "pro-poor" public services rather than through fiscal redistribution.[3]

Indeed, some proponents of market socialism see the latter as a form of democratic socialism.[4]

A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter's argument, set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies were evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[5]

In contrast, other definitions of democratic socialism sharply distinguish it from social democracy.[6] For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[7] In this definition, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[8] Draper himself uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism. He writes: "the leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a 'theory of spontaneity'".[9] Similarly, about Eugene Debs, he writes: "'Debsian socialism' evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism."[10]

Other definitions fall between the first and second set, seeing democratic socialism as a specific political tradition closely related to and overlapping with social democracy. For example, Bogdan Denitch, in Democratic Socialism, defines it as proposing a radical reorganization of the socio-economic order through public ownership, workers' control of the labor process and redistributive tax policies.[11] Robert G. Picard similarly describes a democratic socialist tradition of thought including Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Evan Durbin and Michael Harrington.[12]

The term democratic socialism can be used in a third way, to refer to a version of the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism."[13] Consequently, some former Communist parties have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany.

Justification of democratic socialism can be found in the works of social philosophers like Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, among others. Honneth has put forward the view that political and economic ideologies have a social basis, that is, they originate from intersubjective communication between members of a society.[14] Honneth criticises the liberal state because it assumes that principles of individual liberty and private property are ahistorical and abstract, when, in fact, they evolved from a specific social discourse on human activity. Contra liberal individualism, Honneth has emphasised the inter-subjective dependence between humans; that is, our well-being depends on recognising others and being recognised by them. Democratic socialism, with its emphasis on social collectivism, could be seen as a way of safeguarding this dependency.

In recent years, some[who?] have suggested replacing "democratic" with "participatory" upon seeing the reduction of the former to parliamentarism.

I weep bitter tears for the future of humanity, one dominated by people that have more information at their fingertips than all of history up until now put together and yet are too lazy to actually spend the 30 seconds using one of the most sophisticated and user-friendly information-gathering services ever to exist to find it.

Actually, I have gone through all of those Wikipedia articles that you cited, it's just that often times governments blur the distinction between them- namely with state-owned enterprises and such- and so it's difficult to tell between a socialist government, a Keynesian economics-type government, and a democratic socialist government.

[Cannot think of a name]

EDIT: Also, "Which system is better?"? Really? That's like asking 'Which flavour of ice cream is better; chocolate or strawberry?".

It's more akin to asking, "Which flavor of ice cream is better; chocolate or sugar cone?"

[Ertae]

Here OP, let me do 30 seconds-worth of Googling for you.

Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) are the group of macroeconomic schools of thought based on the ideas of 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economists believe that aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) does not necessarily equal aggregate supply (the total productive capacity of the economy). Instead it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment and inflation.[1]

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[2] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by Keynes in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector — and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the tax surcharge in 1968 and the stagflation of the 1970s.[3] The advent of the global financial crisis in 2008 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.[4]

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[5][6] Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society.[citation needed] In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism regardless of the solution. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy of an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[7] Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858) tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production. Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments have instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[8]

Was that so hard?

EDIT: Also, "Which system is better?"? Really? That's like asking 'Which flavour of ice cream is better; chocolate or strawberry?".

Strawberry.

[The Reasonable]

Er, well the difference is mainly that Keynesian economics would recommend a capitalist free market, while socialists... probably wouldn't.

And yes, capitalism is pretty uncontroversially a good idea.

Are you sure about that? I support capitalism myself, but I would have expected a lot more debate, especially considering that the majority of NS is left-wing.

[Jinos]

John Keynes was too much of a liberal pussy to advocate REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM!

Keynesianism still allows private ownership of the means of production, while socialism would demand public ownership of all the means of production.

Wrong. Socialism doesn't demand public ownership, it demands collective ownership. Difference.

Keynesianism isn't mutually exclusive with socialism. Because socialism can still operate in a capitalist environment.

[Page]

The first term is too hard for Fox News' audience to pronounce, understand, or remember, and the second scares them effectively. That's the main thing.


Okay, time for serious response. Keynes essentially promoted this idea of work for work's sake, spending for spending's sake, basically this idea that an economy is like a series of gears that have to keep moving. And if there is a deficiency of "natural" movement, Keynesian theory states that the movement should be forced by economic stimulation, namely by the government. Keynes actually argued that this could be achieved one of two ways, economic stimulus, or cutting taxes.

It should be noted that while classical economists will often support the idea of lesser taxes, lesser regulations or anything laissez-faire, a government that deliberately does this is still intervening on behalf of the economy by altering the status quo.

What is most important to understand is that Keynesian economics and socialism are not conflicting ideologies but different concepts entirely. Keynesian economics is a theory on how to make a market work optimally. Socialism is a blanket term with a huge variety of specific meanings, which usually in some forms advocates the state or workers (syndicalism) taking precedent over the market - community ownership of major resources.

This should answer the OP's question adequately.

[Cannot think of a name]

In the future we should ask people to clarify if they're referring to socialism or "socialism"...

[The Reasonable]

In the future we should ask people to clarify if they're referring to socialism or "socialism"...

What do you mean by that?

[Page]

Also I will state that almost all US politicians, Democrats and Republicans, practice Keynesian economics whether they in theory support it or not.

[Avenio]

Actually, I have gone through all of those Wikipedia articles that you cited,

No, you didn't read them. If you had, you wouldn't have asked me to explain what democratic socialism was.

it's just that often times governments blur the distinction between them- namely with state-owned enterprises and such- and so it's difficult to tell between a socialist government, a Keynesian economics-type government, and a democratic socialist government.

It's rather easy to tell, really. The entire purpose of a socialist government/policy is to distribute control over a facet of the economy to the government or otherwise put it under control of 'the people' (where several definitions of such apply). Keynesianism is a variety of capitalist (See that? That means that it's diametrically opposed to socialist policies) economic thought that, in essence, believes that economies, when left to their own devices, tend to be unstable or unsustainable, and thus that government has a role in keeping the economy functioning properly, and which in practice can mean anything from using monetary policy to control inflation to building bridges.

Strawberry.

Communist.

[Pendragonia]

What is the difference between Keynesian economics and socialism? Is there any? And if so, which system is better?

Matter of degree, not kind.

Anyone who says different is cracked like a shoddy pot.

[Zeppy]

Wrong. Socialism doesn't demand public ownership, it demands collective ownership. Difference.

Wrong, yourself. Socialism doesn't demand collective ownership, it demands ownership by the workers. Difference again.

[Cannot think of a name]

In the future we should ask people to clarify if they're referring to socialism or "socialism"...

What do you mean by that?

One is a complex social economic system with a large school of thought that can easily be researched and explored, and the other is something conservatives use as a boogeyman and apply sloppily to any program, thought, idea, or candidate they do not like.

[RB Rebecca Black]

Well, they are completely different economic systems and can hardly be compared. Also, the term "Keynesian" has been twisted and so abused throughout the years. I think Keynes himself wouldn't agree with "modern Keynesians" such as Paul Krugman. I'll say that Keynesian, as a philosophy, is good in moderation, but it shouldn't be practiced too heavily.

[The Reasonable]

Actually, I have gone through all of those Wikipedia articles that you cited,

No, you didn't read them. If you had, you wouldn't have asked me to explain what democratic socialism was.

it's just that often times governments blur the distinction between them- namely with state-owned enterprises and such- and so it's difficult to tell between a socialist government, a Keynesian economics-type government, and a democratic socialist government.

It's rather easy to tell, really. The entire purpose of a socialist government/policy is to distribute control over a facet of the economy to the government or otherwise put it under control of 'the people' (where several definitions of such apply). Keynesianism is a variety of capitalist (See that? That means that it's diametrically opposed to socialist policies) economic thought that, in essence, believes that economies, when left to their own devices, tend to be unstable or unsustainable, and thus that government has a role in keeping the economy functioning properly, and which in practice can mean anything from using monetary policy to control inflation to building bridges.

Strawberry.

Communist.

So pretty much all European countries are, by your definition, socialist because each of these countries control a facet of the economy via state-owned enterprises? That's controlling the means of production right? Then why does no one, save for the Fox News crowd, call them socialist?

[Avenio]

So pretty much all European countries are, by your definition, socialist because each of these countries control a facet of the economy via state-owned enterprises? That's controlling the means of production right? Then why does no one, save for the Fox News crowd, call them socialist?

No. Did you pay attention to what I wrote at all? Most European governments are Keynesian, in that they believe that government control or regulation of certain aspects of the economy (ranging, again, from controlling monetary policy to nationalizing industries) is necessary to keep the capitalist economic system stable and functional. Socialist governments are opposed to capitalism altogether, and take control of the economy via nationalization in order to bring about the next stage of economic development (ie communism) as defined by Marx's view of the progression of history. Their motives couldn't possibly be more different.

[Saluterre]

They're very VERY different. Keynesian economics are a macroeconomic theory of capitalism focusing on government intervention and stimulus spending in times of economic trouble. Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are the best Keynesian standard-bearers around today.

Socialism, on the other hand, is an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the workers and employees. While I suppose the two aren't wholly mutually exclusive, and could most likely co-exist, there is an ocean of difference.