(02-06-2019 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And funnily your own provided definition of socialism doesnt cover your proffered example of Venezuela.

I thought that Venezuela had nationalized their oil reserves and thus owned the means of production of a national resource?

So your definition is now if they only ntionalize one industry it is a socialist system. Got it. I guess using that interesting definition the city of Austin via Austin Power is socialist in your book..

Your proferred definition said 'owns *the* means of production, not *a* means as production.

So using your apparently perfect definition neither Venezuela nor China are socialist since many forms of private ownership of means exist in esch country.

I find that result stupid as fk. Ergo your definition has flaws.

Clear?

I can demonstrate about a dozen mor examples that indicate an issue with the definition of socialism you put forth. Shall I continue?

I guess I don't follow your point. I provided literal, textbook definitions of socialism, and you're trying to argue that they aren't correct? And that instead, socialism is defined by how you would like to define it?

Well, that seems convenient.

Also, I love that you're trying to ascribe two primary sources' definitions of socialism to me, as if I have some stake in Merriam-Webster being accurate. I'm just looking at the dictionary and telling you what it says regarding socialism. So it isn't MY definition, it's the literal definition of socialism that is flawed. But the Tanq definition of socialism is absolutely perfect and infallible.