You guys are really making me pull out all my old books from college and grad school lately! Socialism, Marxism, Communism, all of them have the same basis as was defined in the original posters definition. So, since this is a simple explanation, I am going to use them interchangeably. There are subtle differences (i.e. who actually owns the companies, healthcare etc., the workers or the government) that make them different, but, for this discussion, it is easier to keep it the same. Hope that is ok.

The first week of a comparative government class or public theory econ class, you will learn about these different type of governments. And, whoever said it ealier, was right. All forms of government are based on economic principals. In THEORY, I think an anarchist government is the best type of government because there is no need for government. People will receive their just compensation for work, they will purchase what they want at the value they value it and everybody will leave everybody alone. BUT, we know we don't live in a textbook and greed, corruption, human emotion get involved. That is why economics and political science are SOCIAL sciences.

So, in theory, sure, socialism looks pretty good. But, let's look at the socialist governments that have existed: USSR, Cuba, Nazi Germany, China, Vietnam, just to name a few. What do these all have in common? Lose of freedom by the masses. Do you want to live/have lived in any of these countries? Sure, you may be provided for - minimally, but you can't worship as you chose, you can't use your own compensation for work YOU performed for extras (since it is given to the government through high taxes), there is no incentive to be a better citizen. People in socialist societies are not bad people, but they are not allowed to be the best people they can be (or the worst as we do have a choice to be that, too). You work to provide for everybody and everybody receives the minimal existence necessary. So, what is the incentive to work harder and earn more? A few people would say to improve the lives of their comrades, but most would just become ants marching everyday.

That is why I worry about our country becoming socialist. More government control over social programs is the beginning of such a form of government. And, with very few exceptions (maybe Norway and that is debateable) socialism has been shown to be a failed form of government because people do not live that way for very long. Greed and corruption enter socialist governments, too, even to a more detrimental result then others. Is capitalism perfect? Far from it, but I truly believe it is the best we have until we get to a true utopia, which will never happen on this earth. JMO

i think the countries you stated are mor extreme forms of Socialism and the North Europe/Nordic countries are more the "normal" model of socialism. I think most of the USA would like the extreme Free Market model

__________________
We buy things we dont need,
with money we dont have,
in order to impress people
we dont like?
(Ramsey, D)

I believe I addressed Norway near the end. Yes, the countries I mentioned are more extreme, as close to pure forms of socialism that you will find. Norway and other Scandanavian countries are more a mix of socialist and some democracy/constitutional monarchist thrown in. I don't think that is comprable then. It veers too far from the socialist ideal. The people are given more rights in Scandanavian countries then in true socialist countries where the collective is what is important. Sort of like a Borg society in a way.

Mainly, socialism in practice is not the same as socialism in theory. Furthermore, I'd say we are headed more towards fascism then socialism. Special interests write our legislation regardless of which party(and at this point the choices are vanilla or french vanila)has power. If you don't think Obama is going to craft health care legislation that benefits corporate America then you haven't been paying attention or following the money.