No, I do not get why you are “sensitive” on this. Few “Socialists” of your definition would point to e.g. Denmark to justify their philosophy; and even if they did, America would not fall for it.
Sighs. OK. I suppose you’re not corresponding in the same channels I am. It’s very common to hear “socialism works, look at Denmark” in those channels.
I have responded to these, btw, but we can go again:
The existence of the Democratic Party has added a new meaning to the word “Democrat” (and this meaning has changed several times over the last 150 years). And yet nobody is confused. So why exactly should “Socialist” remain immutable?
I disagree that the definition of Democracy has changed. It has always meant, to my knowledge, a system of government where decisions are made by popular vote or by popular vote proxy (elected representatives). Likewise, Socialism is a system where production is owned by the government.
How can you justify your claim that the Hoover Dam is not “a means of production”? Again: for someone who is so attached to precise definitions of words, you seem quite content to twist them when it suits you. And — unlike my alternate definition of “Socialist” — your definition has no common-use cases to back it up.
My point here is that since the Hoover Dam is infrastructure, whether or not it produces is moot. It’s infrastructure.