Define the lower bound of is/isnot socialism please

the state ownership of the means of production

i guess lower being Sanders

That's classical marxism and a core feature of straight communism, try again

that's your definition. i've asked many socialists what socialism is and they all give me different answers because muh "it wasn't real socialism"

I think your idea of socialists is actually commies and your idea of commies is stalinism

there is massive overlap between socialism and communism

I run on textbook definitions and more tranditional academic delineations

>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

What you're saying is "communism and stalinism" which do heavily overlap

that text book definition is still agreeing with what i said

Unions are socialist

Medicare is socialist

yeah

State planning is communist

Are we to kill an unionists?

Kill modern unions and let the traditional shop by shop unions return, I would say, these corporate amalgamated unions are trash

I'd rather avoid killing altogether honestly.

you think communist is strictly state planned, yet anarcho communists would disagree

Anarcho-Communism is a pipe dream.

Benz, social ownership does not necessarily include the state unless you ascribe to the ConAnaCom interpretation of the American Republic

i didn't say there was anything sane about anarcho-communism

i know that, families are socialistic by nature

i guess i could clear it up by specifically being against political socialists in this case

So you clearly disagree with your own method of interp- ah, but i still think you're mistakenly shuffling terms

socialists can go be voluntarily socialists for all i care, it'll just crumble anyway, but when they try to take my money into it is when they need to fuck off

Agreed

i meant political socialists from the beginning but i didn't communicate that well

because i was talking about nazism

Representation has become too dilute not to reconsider voluntary line item taxation

...you wot, m8

*natsoc out of left field*

Gtg

natsoc out of left field?

that was the original question

U natsoc?

me? no

Okay

i was just arguing against it