and anything can be projected unto it

dude do you want to read this or not lol so you can read

hurr it means nothing because it conflicts with my definition of it

joint ownership of the means of production is *the* common definition

not every concise plan can fit for every country. everybody has to make changes for it to work for their country

no no no

that's not it

its a very, very simple distinction

extremely general

joint ownership of the means of production. this could mean millions of different things

I'm not imposing anything super specific on this term

truth is, hitler to some extent tried to hijack the term socialism away from the marxists

only insisting on what is the common, accepted understanding

because fuck marxists and fuck their socialism

not just Marxists, this understanding predates Marxism

but again you probably don't read so 🤷

Proudhon, Owen, etc. they all shared this understanding

holy shit... it was wrong from the start then

marxism is just the final version of it

jus reed dis mah nigga

Marx considered himself a compiler and finaliser of thoughts and ideas that came before him

irrelevant

but do go on

no, it is the shitty "natsoc" is the irrelevant doctrine, the one that doesn't belong to the halls of socialist thought but which inserts itself into it because it itself has nothing original to provide

it has no content

if you mean that natsoc isn't marxist socialism, then you're right

u just keep spewing shit without anything to back it up

marxists don't get the monopoly on the term socialism end of story

> the view that socialism means the same as social progress goes back to Proudhon

...uh, no, it doesn't. Proudhon himself operated under the social ownership concept:

```Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists ... under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.[36]```

like this is basic socialism 101

the original meaning is this, and for this reason it is also the academic understanding of the word

how do you feel about corporatism
also do you consider mussolini more left than hitler

I think that in economics Mussolini and Hitler were quite similar even if not identical. Corporatism is I think a fundamentally centrist doctrine, I think its insufficient but don't spend too much time thinking about it

corporatism is for chads

^^ tbh

Mussolini was, at least slightly, more left than Hitler, Fascism in Italy only got more right wing after Hitler started pressuring Mussolini to place social (mostly racial) reforms in Italy