Thank you, De. I think it is essential for people to be able to define key words. As you know, the epithet "Fascist!" is thrown around a lot and there is not a common definition, EVEN THOUGH FASCISM WAS POPULARIZED AND DEFINED BY MUSSOLINI AS SUBSERVIENCE OF CORPORATIONS TO THE STATE.
When I hear someone using the word "fascist" I usually ask what they mean, specifically. I typically get disconnected grunting and pointing, or silence, in response. So I go with Mussolini's definition, I cite my source, and then I suggest maybe they shouldn't have an opinion on something if they can't even define it.
Now, up until now, I've been guilty somewhat of the same thing with regard to "Socialism". I will roughly describe it as a sort of Communism light...a softer version of Statism (rule by the oligarchy of the State). But that isn't really satisfying. Worse, it does nothing to fundamentally address the disagreement of position.
So I'm intending to dig in a little deeper and come up with a fully satisfying definition which ties Socialism to its roots. In a way, unlike fascism, most people more or less know socialism when they see it. Someone just said "Isn't that sort of how bees and ants live?"
And I think that is accurate -- and the reason it goes inexorably so wrong when it is applied, longer term as a governance system for humans: Humans aren't bees or ants, even if we SOMETIMES collaborate almost as if we were, in order to get something large-scale done or to fight an existential threat.
| 
