• lugal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Did you read my whole comment? Because I’m not sure. But eitherway. Your definition was:

    Socialism is defined as the government either owning OR REGULATING the means of government.

    What even are “the means of government”? Isn’t it tautological that the government owns the means of government? That makes it to be a government in the first place, right? Or do you mean “the means of production”? Than you only define state socialism and not even that, it still fits to almost any monarchy or dictatorship. You would just define it as “not free market” which you on another spot say it is not. I’m really trying to follow you but you are not making much sense and refuse to answer me in a meaningful way.

    But I understand that you seperate the two systems. I just think they are too intertwined to do so and I elaborate on that in my comment. We can agree to disagree without calling each other dumb. We can have a normal, constructive conversation about it like adults would. I have a different definition on socialism. Would you react to that? Or do I assume correctly that you did not read it?