The accusation was still rooted in the belief that many democrats had socialism as their end goal, which was arguably true in the 50's, 60's and 70's. They weren't attempting to change the word, but it did water it down. It was a rhetorical use, but I'll concede.

I appreciate you conceding that point.  I'll also concede that the New Deal Democrats and the Watergate babies borrowed a lot from Marx, though they borrowed different things.  

I just think narrowing socialism down to "the state seizes the means of production" is too specific.  You can't really pin down any socialist politicians or parties who actually unified around that idea as their priority.  It's kind of like starting from the last sentence of the Communist Manifesto and retconning the entire movement spanning many generations around it.  Take, for example, the Socialist Revolutionary Party of Russia.  Are we going to say, "tut-tut, those guys were just using the word socialist when they're not really socialist, the way Bernie Sanders does today".

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No one can call their system of government "Oligarchy that will take everything from the Proletariat while simultaneously saying everyone is equal"

---

Dude, a couple of days ago, you tried to accuse me of using the term "world view," as a sneaky term to get people to side with me politically. World view has no association with a broader goal of converting people to a position. It is an understood, and well documented phenomenon that people interpret data through a bias shaped by their experiences. Yet, today, you are totally cool with people looking to redefine socialism, even though they have a clear goal (that has been documented extensively, starting with Marx) to change a capitalist system into a socialist system. This is not some misnomer, and only gullible people fall for it. The goal is state controlled means of production. The plan is to use socialism to subvert capitalism. Read a book.

To be clear, I don't believe every democrat is a socialist, nor do I believe they want a socialist system. I think they are being fools by aligning themselves with Bernie and his base, who very much understand that the end goal is socialism (if not outright communism). And I think a majority of the population, like you, is too stupid and/or naive to know the difference. I think that they will eventually yield ground to the socialists (already happening), and we will be having a very different discussion 15 years from now.

---

Dude, a couple of days ago, you tried to accuse me of using the term "world view," as a sneaky term to get people to side with me politically. World view has no association with a broader goal of converting people to a position. It is an understood, and well documented phenomenon that people interpret data through a bias shaped by their experiences. Yet, today, you are totally cool with people looking to redefine socialism, even though they have a clear goal (that has been documented extensively, starting with Marx) to change a capitalist system into a socialist system. This is not some misnomer, and only gullible people fall for it. The goal is state controlled means of production. The plan is to use socialism to subvert capitalism. Read a book.

To be clear, I don't believe every democrat is a socialist, nor do I believe they want a socialist system. I think they are being fools by aligning themselves with Bernie and his base, who very much understand that the end goal is socialism (if not outright communism). And I think a majority of the population, like you, is too stupid and/or naive to know the difference. I think that they will eventually yield  ground to the socialists (already happening), and we will be having a very different discussion 15 years from now.

I wasn't accusing you of trying to be deceptive.  I was only pointing out that the word is often used by people who are trying to gain your confidence and your allegiance, and that you might have picked it up from such people.  World view is not typically invoked to create empathy between people with different life experiences.  It is not typically invoked as something that builds passively in us as we go through life.  It is usually invoked as something we should actively consider and change within ourselves - "You don't have a consistent worldview, you should also support B if you support A!"  In fact, I can't remember reading someone use the word in the more benign sense you're using it.

Anyhow, I only said that as a caution to you, not to call you out or anything.

And I totally agree that the nuances in the word socialism are often exploited by deceivers.  I'm just saying, let's discuss those nuances.  I'm not trying to deceive anyone, and I don't think you are either.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's cool. It was my major also. I disagreed with most my professors and half of my peers, so it's possible to have an honest discussion about the subject. I just lose my patience with a person like Mikel who likes to read Wikipedia, then present himself as an expert here. 

You nailed the bolded part. Social democrats are largely pro-capitalist with an emphasis on a large social safety net, but Democratic socialists are pro-socialist (in that they think the means of production should be run by the state), but think decisions should be made via the people through a democratic process. Social democrats are as far to the left as you can get in a capitalist system, while democratic socialists are as far as you can get to the right in a socialist system. While there is some overlap with regards to welfare, the big difference goes back to who controls the means of production. Let me address some of your points. 

1. I do understand that there is confusion, even at the undergrad level. I don't think this is due to a lack of clarity of the terminology, but rather the institutions' fixation on Marxism, Communism, and Fascism. There is a terrible bias in academia with regards to socialism, and I feel this tends to soften the role it has played in tyrannical governments. I will admit that I didn't even have a solid grasp of the systems until many years after graduating from college, as I continued to educate myself about history and philosophy. I am ok with people confusing these terms, but not after it's been explained. 

2. This distinction between terms exacerbated by the rhetoric rampant in our political system, and I've already conceded that point in my previous post. I don't think this justifies using the more extreme of two terms, though. I could see why someone might use the justification you presented here, but it just seems like a terrible strategy. 

3. It's a possibility, certainly. I just find it hard to believe he doesn't know the difference. 

4. You left out 4. He wants a socialist society and is ok with misleading the public until it's a realistic possibility. One of the problems I have with Marxism is that it was literally designed to usher in a communist society (we would say Marxist) using a socialist society to destroy a capitalist society. People who study his works and those that follow, know the blueprint. Depending on the author, this could be achieved through revolutionary means or democratic means. Because of this, it is actually very hard to believe that anyone that reads and values Marx would like to stop anywhere short of Marxism.

1. The best way I've seen the line drawn between socialism and communism is this: "Is a military presence required to maintain socialism? Then it's called communism." Obviously there are a lot of smaller qualifiers in there, but the basic gist of it holds up. If your "socialist" government would be removed from office without a strong military presence keeping it there, then it's not really socialism at all. You can get deeper into the rabbit hole from there, and it's a deep one to crawl down.

2 (and 3). I really think Sanders just doesn't care about the difference. He decided long ago that "democratic socialist" sounded better and went with that.

4. Or this. President AOC seems almost inevitable at some point, much like how Obama was essentially anointed to the role. That's as much because of her celebrity status as it is her being one of only a few people in the Democratic Party that actually have a vision about where they want it to go. If Sanders does want to see a socialist nation, then nudging AOC and her group further on down that line would make sense, now that his own political career has reached its end. AOC turns 35 in 2024. Just saying, if I knew she was coming on down the line and I needed a patsy who wouldn't cost me downline votes while losing with grace, Biden would be on my short list.

---

1. In theory, none of them need a military. Practically, I think that's completely unrealistic. Communism is a more involved version of socialism. You should watch that video I linked as a refresher (if you're interested). I have read a lot about this stuff, but that's typically my go-to when framing a discussion around socialism, just because it's so clear.

---

It's cool. It was my major also. I disagreed with most my professors and half of my peers, so it's possible to have an honest discussion about the subject. I just lose my patience with a person like Mikel who likes to read Wikipedia, then present himself as an expert here. 

You nailed the bolded part. Social democrats are largely pro-capitalist with an emphasis on a large social safety net, but Democratic socialists are pro-socialist (in that they think the means of production should be run by the state), but think decisions should be made via the people through a democratic process. Social democrats are as far to the left as you can get in a capitalist system, while democratic socialists are as far as you can get to the right in a socialist system. While there is some overlap with regards to welfare, the big difference goes back to who controls the means of production. Let me address some of your points. 

1. I do understand that there is confusion, even at the undergrad level. I don't think this is due to a lack of clarity of the terminology, but rather the institutions' fixation on Marxism, Communism, and Fascism. There is a terrible bias in academia with regards to socialism, and I feel this tends to soften the role it has played in tyrannical governments. I will admit that I didn't even have a solid grasp of the systems until many years after graduating from college, as I continued to educate myself about history and philosophy. I am ok with people confusing these terms, but not after it's been explained. 

2. This distinction between terms exacerbated by the rhetoric rampant in our political system, and I've already conceded that point in my previous post. I don't think this justifies using the more extreme of two terms, though. I could see why someone might use the justification you presented here, but it just seems like a terrible strategy. 

3. It's a possibility, certainly. I just find it hard to believe he doesn't know the difference. 

4. You left out 4. He wants a socialist society and is ok with misleading the public until it's a realistic possibility. One of the problems I have with Marxism is that it was literally designed to usher in a communist society (we would say Marxist) using a socialist society to destroy a capitalist society. People who study his works and those that follow, know the blueprint. Depending on the author, this could be achieved through revolutionary means or democratic means. Because of this, it is actually very hard to believe that anyone that reads and values Marx would like to stop anywhere short of Marxism.

1. The best way I've seen the line drawn between socialism and communism is this: "Is a military presence required to maintain socialism? Then it's called communism." Obviously there are a lot of smaller qualifiers in there, but the basic gist of it holds up. If your "socialist" government would be removed from office without a strong military presence keeping it there, then it's not really socialism at all. You can get deeper into the rabbit hole from there, and it's a deep one to crawl down.

2 (and 3). I really think Sanders just doesn't care about the difference. He decided long ago that "democratic socialist" sounded better and went with that.

4. Or this. President AOC seems almost inevitable at some point, much like how Obama was essentially anointed to the role. That's as much because of her celebrity status as it is her being one of only a few people in the Democratic Party that actually have a vision about where they want it to go. If Sanders does want to see a socialist nation, then nudging AOC and her group further on down that line would make sense, now that his own political career has reached its end. AOC turns 35 in 2024. Just saying, if I knew she was coming on down the line and I needed a patsy who wouldn't cost me downline votes while losing with grace, Biden would be on my short list.

We need a military to sustain the system we have today in FL and in the US.  There would be big problems if suddenly our leaders said, "We will never call the military or the police to calm stuff down".

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Something something central bank something dangerous to liberties something something standing armies.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Something something central bank something dangerous to liberties something something standing armies.

Something something Shay's rebellion something something.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1. The best way I've seen the line drawn between socialism and communism is this: "Is a military presence required to maintain socialism? Then it's called communism." Obviously there are a lot of smaller qualifiers in there, but the basic gist of it holds up. If your "socialist" government would be removed from office without a strong military presence keeping it there, then it's not really socialism at all. You can get deeper into the rabbit hole from there, and it's a deep one to crawl down.

2 (and 3). I really think Sanders just doesn't care about the difference. He decided long ago that "democratic socialist" sounded better and went with that.

4. Or this. President AOC seems almost inevitable at some point, much like how Obama was essentially anointed to the role. That's as much because of her celebrity status as it is her being one of only a few people in the Democratic Party that actually have a vision about where they want it to go. If Sanders does want to see a socialist nation, then nudging AOC and her group further on down that line would make sense, now that his own political career has reached its end. AOC turns 35 in 2024. Just saying, if I knew she was coming on down the line and I needed a patsy who wouldn't cost me downline votes while losing with grace, Biden would be on my short list.

We need a military to sustain the system we have today in FL and in the US.  There would be big problems if suddenly our leaders said, "We will never call the military or the police to calm stuff down".

Ok, let me rephrase for those who need it spelled out explicitly:

If your socialist government is in place only because a military machine is required to keep it there by way of intimidating citizens into never engaging in any legitimate activity that threatens to remove it (like voting or speaking openly against it), then your government is no longer socialist. In a socialist government, there is still choice, and the military exists primarily for dealing with foreign threats. In a communist government (leaning on my own education here, haven't watched Last42min's video yet), the key function of the military is to serve as a tool of intimidation used to ensure that the ruling party never leaves power.

---

We need a military to sustain the system we have today in FL and in the US.  There would be big problems if suddenly our leaders said, "We will never call the military or the police to calm stuff down".

Ok, let me rephrase for those who need it spelled out explicitly:

If your socialist government is in place only because a military machine is required to keep it there by way of intimidating citizens into never engaging in any legitimate activity that threatens to remove it (like voting or speaking openly against it), then your government is no longer socialist. In a socialist government, there is still choice, and the military exists primarily for dealing with foreign threats. In a communist government (leaning on my own education here, haven't watched Last42min's video yet), the key function of the military is to serve as a tool of intimidation used to ensure that the ruling party never leaves power.

Military will always be involved in a socialist government. Someone always has to lead and there are very few leaders who are willing to remain equals to everyone they are leading. Sanders is case in point where he hasn't even made it to a socialist government and he is already built his millions up.

Greed is the main reason that socialism cannot exist in the world. Utopia can exist in a small group of people, but as it grows, the group cannot survive as leadership's power grows and they no longer provide value.

---

We need a military to sustain the system we have today in FL and in the US.  There would be big problems if suddenly our leaders said, "We will never call the military or the police to calm stuff down".

Ok, let me rephrase for those who need it spelled out explicitly:

If your socialist government is in place only because a military machine is required to keep it there by way of intimidating citizens into never engaging in any legitimate activity that threatens to remove it (like voting or speaking openly against it), then your government is no longer socialist. In a socialist government, there is still choice, and the military exists primarily for dealing with foreign threats. In a communist government (leaning on my own education here, haven't watched Last42min's video yet), the key function of the military is to serve as a tool of intimidation used to ensure that the ruling party never leaves power.

I think that's more clear. It works as a definition.
But there are places with no voting and no free speech that are also not communist or socialist.
Right now there might not be any good examples, but in the recent past you see places like Chile and Nicaragua that were not socialist by any stretch of the imagination, but also didn't have free speech or competitive elections.
So I'd make a distinction that there are free countries and unfree countries, and shades of gray in between.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

We need a military to sustain the system we have today in FL and in the US.  There would be big problems if suddenly our leaders said, "We will never call the military or the police to calm stuff down".

Ok, let me rephrase for those who need it spelled out explicitly:

If your socialist government is in place only because a military machine is required to keep it there by way of intimidating citizens into never engaging in any legitimate activity that threatens to remove it (like voting or speaking openly against it), then your government is no longer socialist. In a socialist government, there is still choice, and the military exists primarily for dealing with foreign threats. In a communist government (leaning on my own education here, haven't watched Last42min's video yet), the key function of the military is to serve as a tool of intimidation used to ensure that the ruling party never leaves power.

Just so you know, I understood what you were trying to say. My point was addressed at the theory of communism, not necessarily the perspective you were coming from, which is outside looking in. Truth be told, I think socialism could work if you were able to solve certain aspects of human behavior first, such as corruption, greed, and sloth. These topics aren't addressed, because we have no solution for them. Capitalism can correct for some of these behaviors, but not in it's current form where big corporations have merged with the power of the government. In this regard, I am sympathetic to the progressive cause.

---

Ok, let me rephrase for those who need it spelled out explicitly:

If your socialist government is in place only because a military machine is required to keep it there by way of intimidating citizens into never engaging in any legitimate activity that threatens to remove it (like voting or speaking openly against it), then your government is no longer socialist. In a socialist government, there is still choice, and the military exists primarily for dealing with foreign threats. In a communist government (leaning on my own education here, haven't watched Last42min's video yet), the key function of the military is to serve as a tool of intimidation used to ensure that the ruling party never leaves power.

Just so you know, I understood what you were trying to say. My point was addressed at the theory of communism, not necessarily the perspective you were coming from, which is outside looking in. Truth be told, I think socialism could work if you were able to solve certain aspects of human behavior first, such as corruption, greed, and sloth. These topics aren't addressed, because we have no solution for them. Capitalism can correct for some of these behaviors, but not in it's current form where big corporations have merged with the power of the government. In this regard, I am sympathetic to the progressive cause.

Norway is socialist by even your very strict definition.  And they have very few problems with corruption, greed, and sloth when compared to other countries in the world.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Norway is as close as it gets.They have a very transparent government, which makes it an interesting case study. Still not fully socialist. It's a mixed economy. They control a few (major) national industries, but they are largely free market.

---

Norway is as close as it gets.They have a very transparent government, which makes it an interesting case study. Still not fully socialist. It's a mixed economy. They control a few (major) national industries, but they are largely free market.

Right.  Norway is similar to Venezuela before Chavez.  Chavez greatly increased the benefits promised to citizens, and it's easy to say, well that was too much, that's why Venezuela broke and Norway still hums along.  But to me, it's something else.  Because I think Norwegians enjoyed more benefits than Venezuelans before Chavez. Certainly a poor Norwegian wouldn't have switched places with a poor Venezuelan back in 1996.  Chavez did something, beyond just handing out more money, that broke Venezuela.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Norway is as close as it gets.They have a very transparent government, which makes it an interesting case study. Still not fully socialist. It's a mixed economy. They control a few (major) national industries, but they are largely free market.

Right.  Norway is similar to Venezuela before Chavez.  Chavez greatly increased the benefits promised to citizens, and it's easy to say, well that was too much, that's why Venezuela broke and Norway still hums along.  But to me, it's something else.  Because I think Norwegians enjoyed more benefits than Venezuelans before Chavez. Certainly a poor Norwegian wouldn't have switched places with a poor Venezuelan back in 1996.  Chavez did something, beyond just handing out more money, that broke Venezuela.

He took over the economy.  

Redistribution of wealth and the free creation of wealth are two separate concepts.  The state is incapable of managing risk and producing goods with the efficiency innovation and dynamism of the private sector.

Smarter social democracies have low regulation to allow innovation and dynamism in creating the wealth they need to redistribute.  That's why there are nordic countries held up for their social safety net that rank higher than us in terms of economic freedom.

---

Right.  Norway is similar to Venezuela before Chavez.  Chavez greatly increased the benefits promised to citizens, and it's easy to say, well that was too much, that's why Venezuela broke and Norway still hums along.  But to me, it's something else.  Because I think Norwegians enjoyed more benefits than Venezuelans before Chavez. Certainly a poor Norwegian wouldn't have switched places with a poor Venezuelan back in 1996.  Chavez did something, beyond just handing out more money, that broke Venezuela.

He took over the economy.  

Redistribution of wealth and the free creation of wealth are two separate concepts.  The state is incapable of managing risk and producing goods with the efficiency innovation and dynamism of the private sector.

Smarter social democracies have low regulation to allow innovation and dynamism in creating the wealth they need to redistribute.  That's why there are nordic countries held up for their social safety net that rank higher than us in terms of economic freedom.

No, Norway's StatOil and Venezuela's PVDSA were both able to produce oil at competitive prices for a long time.  Statoil and Norway still chug along. Why not Venezuela?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think the answer here is that everyone knows who Chavez is and nobody can name a Norwegian leader.

One is a democracy the other wasn't. Got nothing in common except state oil.

---

I think the answer here is that everyone knows who Chavez is and nobody can name a Norwegian leader.

One is a democracy the other wasn't. Got nothing in common except state oil.

Thats true. I don't think anyone could name as Venezuelan leader before Chavez, either. But it's a symptom, not a cause. 
The men and women who know how to get oil out of the ground don't care if the owner is private shareholders or a government. As long as they get a fair salary and some bonuses, they don't care if the dividends go to some distant shareholder or a distant government treasury.  As long as the competent ones are promoted and the incompetent ones aren't, the oil will keep coming. The equipment works the same way.  As long as the owner invests in maintenance and upgrades before he takes profits, they also keep chugging.
Chavez decided all the PVDSA profits needed to go directly to the poor. The leaders there said no, we have to reinvest some of the profits in machinery and bonuses. Chavez appointed new leaders that were personally loyal to him.  There was a general strike, and 18,000 oil workers were fired.  The replacements weren't as good, and didn't know which machines needed what maintenance, and there was much less money set aside for maintenance anyhow. Not much more complicated than that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.