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.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store