I have a problem with the "Socialism" policy. The problem is that the title doesn't fit the description.
The policy's flavor text describes a centrally planned economy, which historically was a common feature of nominally socialist countries, but is not a defining factor of socialism and far from the only possible realization of socialism.
Many other nations in my region, Anarchy, are affected by this confusion as well. Many "nations" there are socialist, but don't have a planned economy.
Therefore, I propose splitting the policy into two different new ones:
Planned Economy: Industry is owned and run by the government in a centrally planned economy.
Worker-Controlled Economy: Industry is owned and run by the workers themselves in a democratic manner.
Or something along those lines. The second option actually explicitly pops up in Issue #339, option 1, which results in workers having seized control of the economy. I think there are a few other issues which point in this direction as well.
I think the distinction is important because first, socialism is a very vague term and can mean a lot of different things. Equating it with a planned economy, though, is like saying feminim is about enacting female quotas in companies' executive boards. Many feminists may want to do that, but it's still far from all of them and there is a whole lot of other things that feminists may or may not want.
Second, I like nationstates because it allows people to portray a wide range of political philosophies, social policies, and economic theories that aren't common in the real world. Branding the wide range of left-wing nations here with an oversimplification along the lines of "socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the socialister it is" isn't doing them justice.
Third, I'm playing a nation that does have socialism but does not have a centrally planned economy. I want this to be reflected by the policies and I see no reason why those two things should only occur at the same time.
