First off, your own source barely expands the definitions I provided, mainly adding consciousness and redistribution of wealth, which still looks nothing like your definition, so your own source still agrees that you don't understand socialism.
Second off, why should we trust the definition of some random guy who professes in his own bio that political philosophy is just a hobby over the definitions supplied by a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and a Wikipedia quote with no less than *eleven* relevant citations? We can also note that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy *also* agrees with me and not him of you. Everyone who's an actual expert disagrees with you, it seems. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/
Third, any definition of socialism that attempts to include fascism and the god damn Nazis is just wrong. There's no informed approach that leads to the conclusion that those are socialist.
This is a classic case of conservatives bastardizing language and twisting it to mislead people for political gains. Socialism is tangential to communism, and they already made you terrified of communism, so if they can just twist the definition of socialism so that it applies to something they don't like if you squint real hard at it, they can convince you to vote against your interests and in the interests of the owner class, a class that 99% of us will never belong to.
TheOneWithAReallyLongName
npub1f2…3wnvu
2024-08-21 12:32:24
in reply to nevent1q…vpdn
Author Public Key
npub1f2d7g0p206c5nqjqfhftvrxg8u25gy6egqpv290qk27nc60k0fms43wnvuPublished at
2024-08-21 12:32:24Event JSON
{
"id": "2ec53b5457610bc096c359157b1c96f66d78f20d569002e2e4b9096ddb93dc47",
"pubkey": "4a9be43c2a7eb14982404dd2b60cc83f154413594002c515e0b2bd3c69f67a77",
"created_at": 1724236344,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"25d288af80950e525ef11b8517e606bbb4062e43c36c7410064106daddc42ce8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a2c2d99dac4328c668fd213be7e5089e7131c3a550d9d8a82136aa5dc2407121"
],
[
"e",
"125259974f291c595a431a8a5a21167a52bdaa87f94618ef06eb28e40d74b512",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e1fc88f8e378784587c2337f4eb90a46c0c0622c42e77d75ec4a37521f30f622"
],
[
"p",
"34f1aaa6b1508de0bab3f086c4bd5bbd7b50f8599451c6e68ac955fc836e3cd6"
],
[
"p",
"4a9be43c2a7eb14982404dd2b60cc83f154413594002c515e0b2bd3c69f67a77"
],
[
"r",
"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/"
]
],
"content": "First off, your own source barely expands the definitions I provided, mainly adding consciousness and redistribution of wealth, which still looks nothing like your definition, so your own source still agrees that you don't understand socialism.\n\nSecond off, why should we trust the definition of some random guy who professes in his own bio that political philosophy is just a hobby over the definitions supplied by a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and a Wikipedia quote with no less than *eleven* relevant citations? We can also note that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy *also* agrees with me and not him of you. Everyone who's an actual expert disagrees with you, it seems. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/\n\nThird, any definition of socialism that attempts to include fascism and the god damn Nazis is just wrong. There's no informed approach that leads to the conclusion that those are socialist.\n\nThis is a classic case of conservatives bastardizing language and twisting it to mislead people for political gains. Socialism is tangential to communism, and they already made you terrified of communism, so if they can just twist the definition of socialism so that it applies to something they don't like if you squint real hard at it, they can convince you to vote against your interests and in the interests of the owner class, a class that 99% of us will never belong to.",
"sig": "2148ca9be3ed6c199352a8fe9ac28785ee23314c8dc6ae6214ccd8787d591d101e01446083aa71c43a688395e6f1aba20952f878ba9737aa54ce27f767058d6e"
}