Senter wrote:Then you've already lost.
No, he won. You lost.
That is not socialism.
Yes it is. That's the definition.
It's a capitalist's definition designed to perpetuate capitalist propaganda.
No, that claim is nothing absurd socialist propaganda. The definition he gave is how lexicographers have determined the word is actually used. Pretending it means something else is fallacious and disingenuous propaganda.
Lenin even talked about what you described/defined in negative terms.
Because Lenin was an evil, lying propagandist, not a lexicographer.
First of all, as it says, it's a theory (probably Marx's theories but misrepresented) and not a definition of an economic system.
The theory describes a system.
Without elaboration for now, socialism is worker ownership and control of the means of production.
Nope. That's syndicalism. "Social" comes from a Latin word meaning, "allies," and is commonly used to refer to friendship, groups, society, etc., NOT "WORKERS." You are just OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
"Collective" ownership and control is what was developed in the USSR and China to name two places,
Right. And it was socialism.
and it was what Lenin referred to as "state capitalism".
Because Lenin was a liar. "State capitalism" is an absurd and dishonest oxymoron that socialists concocted to try to shift onto capitalism the blame for what socialism actually did when implemented in practice.
The issue is who controls it. And it's not the workers.
Because that would be syndicalism, not socialism.
And no, I haven't waded through all the posts on all these pages.
Or the entry for "socialism" in any good dictionary.