Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[badger2]

What would Churchill have said about Bernie Sanders? is a timely question. If Sanders was representing the Impossible Trident in the 2016 election, then intelligent people should want to know at which point (if any point) socialism becomes impossible. Post #773: 'taking away the meaning of the relation between necessary labor and surplus labor....' is the pivot of the blivet. Free stuff, sooner or later, shape-shifts into dumpster diving.

Suggested reading: Red Chicago
UI Press | Randi Storch | Red Chicago: American Communism at Its Grassroots, 1928-35

 

[danielpalos]

requiring a license to do business in public accommodation is national capitalism not national socialism.

black codes and walls are national socialism and have nothing to do with "capitalism".

No it's not.

But you keep making up definitions if it makes you feel smart

they are clear; you have no rebuttal and are asking no questions for clarification.

why should I take Your bigotry seriously when merely and Only have fallacy not any form of argument?

You do realize that licenses to do business are state and local not federal don't you?

There aren't many federal licenses needed to business or many businesses that are required to hold them

The very definition of capitalism is that the means of production is in the hands of the public (the private sector) not the government. That businesses must follow certain laws of operation does not change the definition

ANd you call me a bigot but I have the feeling you don;t know the definition of that word either.

you merely quibble about degree of Socialism. Socialism is like Palmolive; we are soaking in it.

You people define everything the government does as socialism but we all know you don't use the proper definition of the word

political Jargon from a dictionary is not any actual understanding of Socialism as concept. Besides, if you really want to quibble, it is about social-ism.

 

[danielpalos]

even Ogres have better arguments than You. why allege to be serious.

Piss off troll.

you need an argument, not just fallacy (of ad hominem) like any right winger.

the right wing is clueless and Causeless about economics. And, they don't Care.

the left are National Capitalists compared to the National Socialist right wing.

Government is socialism.

Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

Only command economies do that.

Piss off troll.

in other words, You got Nothing; but blame me for being Troll.

even Ogres argue better than you.

In other words, I got nothing for trolls. Piss off.

in other words, i can Only take You as seriously as any right winger.

 

[dblack]

Piss off troll.

you need an argument, not just fallacy (of ad hominem) like any right winger.

the right wing is clueless and Causeless about economics. And, they don't Care.

the left are National Capitalists compared to the National Socialist right wing.

Government is socialism.

Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

Only command economies do that.

Piss off troll.

in other words, You got Nothing; but blame me for being Troll.

even Ogres argue better than you.

In other words, I got nothing for trolls. Piss off.

in other words, i can Only take You as seriously as any right winger.

Piss off troll.

 

[danielpalos]

you need an argument, not just fallacy (of ad hominem) like any right winger.

the right wing is clueless and Causeless about economics. And, they don't Care.

the left are National Capitalists compared to the National Socialist right wing.

Government is socialism.

Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

Only command economies do that.

Piss off troll.

in other words, You got Nothing; but blame me for being Troll.

even Ogres argue better than you.

In other words, I got nothing for trolls. Piss off.

in other words, i can Only take You as seriously as any right winger.

Piss off troll.

ok. i am the serious one and You are not, every time it comes up.

please, continue being yourself to confirm it.

 

[easyt65]

Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

Remember Venezuela...

Remember AOC & her 'Socialist New Nightmare'...

 

[danielpalos]

Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

Remember Venezuela...

Remember AOC & her 'Socialist New Nightmare'...

The right wing only pays lip service to Capitalism. Socialism on a national basis is what they prefer.

 

[regent]

I did a college class some time ago and if I remember correctly there were over 150 types of socialism and only one type led to Communism. That one was Scientific Socialism. but that one type was used by so many as a fear word to scare the population, and it worked as conservatives intended.

 

[Blues Man]

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

Winston Churchill

You do know that Winston Churchill was a total and abject failure in managing the economy or the country during times of peace, don't you? The man didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground economically. He was born to the House of Lords class, and was an elitist of the first order. But he was only Prime Minister I would ever want while the country is at war.

It is foolish and unwise to quote Winston Churchill to anyone who lived while he was PM or has read his biography. I recommend William Manchester's wonderful books on WWII.

And that in no way means he was wrong about socialism.

I know doctors who can't run the day to day business of medicine but that in no way means they are not damn good doctors does it?

He was talking about communism and so are you... The definition of socialism has moved on to always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Like every successful modern country except us. We have the worst inequality and upward mobility and safety-net going. Thanks scumbag greedy idiot brainwashing GOP and silly dupes like you....

No I am talking about socialism as it is defined

Socialism is a political system where the government owns all means of production distribution and exchange

Look it up

 

[Blues Man]

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

Winston Churchill

You do know that Winston Churchill was a total and abject failure in managing the economy or the country during times of peace, don't you? The man didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground economically. He was born to the House of Lords class, and was an elitist of the first order. But he was only Prime Minister I would ever want while the country is at war.

It is foolish and unwise to quote Winston Churchill to anyone who lived while he was PM or has read his biography. I recommend William Manchester's wonderful books on WWII.

And that in no way means he was wrong about socialism.

I know doctors who can't run the day to day business of medicine but that in no way means they are not damn good doctors does it?

Yes it does. Because if you aren't capable of being organized, efficient, and effective in managing your team, then you're NOT a good doctor, regardless of how much medical knowledge you have.

Knowing the law doesn't make you a good lawyer. Knowing how to apply the law, completing your files in a timely way and getting the best results possible for your clients makes you a good lawyer.

If not for his leadership in WWII, Churchill's political career would have been viewed as a failure.

That's bull. A doctor can be a great doctor and not be able to run a business. Would you want a surgeon cutting into you to be worrying about payroll, insurance, equipment maintenance etc. I sure as hell wouldn't and I wouldn't care if the Doctor flunked accounting as long as he was the best diagnostician or surgeon around

I could argue that Churchill never would have had a political career if not for WWII but he was an excellent war time leader

But that in no way means he was wrong about socialism

 

[Blues Man]

No it's not.

But you keep making up definitions if it makes you feel smart

they are clear; you have no rebuttal and are asking no questions for clarification.

why should I take Your bigotry seriously when merely and Only have fallacy not any form of argument?

You do realize that licenses to do business are state and local not federal don't you?

There aren't many federal licenses needed to business or many businesses that are required to hold them

The very definition of capitalism is that the means of production is in the hands of the public (the private sector) not the government. That businesses must follow certain laws of operation does not change the definition

ANd you call me a bigot but I have the feeling you don;t know the definition of that word either.

you merely quibble about degree of Socialism. Socialism is like Palmolive; we are soaking in it.

You people define everything the government does as socialism but we all know you don't use the proper definition of the word

political Jargon from a dictionary is not any actual understanding of Socialism as concept. Besides, if you really want to quibble, it is about social-ism.

So now you call definitions of words jargon

do you know what jargon means?

jar·gon1
Dictionary result for jargon
/ˈjärɡən/
noun

1. special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

I'm not the one making up definitions here, you are

 

[Blues Man]

I did a college class some time ago and if I remember correctly there were over 150 types of socialism and only one type led to Communism. That one was Scientific Socialism. but that one type was used by so many as a fear word to scare the population, and it worked as conservatives intended.

And yet socialism has but one definition in the dictionary not 150

 

[danielpalos]

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

Winston Churchill

You do know that Winston Churchill was a total and abject failure in managing the economy or the country during times of peace, don't you? The man didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground economically. He was born to the House of Lords class, and was an elitist of the first order. But he was only Prime Minister I would ever want while the country is at war.

It is foolish and unwise to quote Winston Churchill to anyone who lived while he was PM or has read his biography. I recommend William Manchester's wonderful books on WWII.

And that in no way means he was wrong about socialism.

I know doctors who can't run the day to day business of medicine but that in no way means they are not damn good doctors does it?

He was talking about communism and so are you... The definition of socialism has moved on to always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Like every successful modern country except us. We have the worst inequality and upward mobility and safety-net going. Thanks scumbag greedy idiot brainwashing GOP and silly dupes like you....

No I am talking about socialism as it is defined

Socialism is a political system where the government owns all means of production distribution and exchange

Look it up

What is Government? It cannot be Capitalism and must be a form of Socialism. Look it up in a dictionary.

 

[danielpalos]

they are clear; you have no rebuttal and are asking no questions for clarification.

why should I take Your bigotry seriously when merely and Only have fallacy not any form of argument?

You do realize that licenses to do business are state and local not federal don't you?

There aren't many federal licenses needed to business or many businesses that are required to hold them

The very definition of capitalism is that the means of production is in the hands of the public (the private sector) not the government. That businesses must follow certain laws of operation does not change the definition

ANd you call me a bigot but I have the feeling you don;t know the definition of that word either.

you merely quibble about degree of Socialism. Socialism is like Palmolive; we are soaking in it.

You people define everything the government does as socialism but we all know you don't use the proper definition of the word

political Jargon from a dictionary is not any actual understanding of Socialism as concept. Besides, if you really want to quibble, it is about social-ism.

So now you call definitions of words jargon

do you know what jargon means?

jar·gon1
Dictionary result for jargon
/ˈjärɡən/
noun

1. special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

I'm not the one making up definitions here, you are

socialism had to be dumbed down for the right wing. the left doesn't get their understanding of concepts from dictionaries, only words.

We get our understanding of Concepts, from Encyclopedias, not Dictionaries.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm little confused by your statement. When you say unchecked Capitalism in the hands of a great empire.... if it is in the hands of the empire, then it isn't capitalism. By definition, capitalism means that it is free of control by the government. If the government is controlling it, then it isn't capitalism.

Moreover, give me a clearly example by what you mean when you say 'selling England by the pound'?

Unchecked meaning deregulated. And one example government's grip over the economy is simply the fact that Goldman Sachs executives are in charge of the US Treasury Department, and Congressional oversight is all but completely gone.

And I was just using 'Selling England by the pound' as a metaphor for how countries dumped the pound as the global currency and are doing the same with the dollar (Some efforts fail like Iraq, Libya, Venezuela...).
The Rise And Fall Of The British Pound

If there was no government control over the currency called the treasury department, it would not possible for Goldman Sachs to have control over it.

You are pointing to regulation (government control over the currency), and saying "see capitalism fails!". Sorry, but that is a bad argument.

As far as congressional oversight... Again, if you have a socialized system, you are bound to have a lack of oversight. This is like Franklin Raines being excused by congress, because he was "their guy".

When you have government in control of something, it will happen now or later, that those agencies and positions will be used as political paybacks. And when you put people in those positions, not based on merit, because because Franklin Raines was a black democrat.... then you are going to have a failure of oversight.

It is simply how government works. Go read the Road to Serfdom. The whole point was how, by the very nature of government, incompetence raises to the top in a bureaucracy.

As for dumping the global currency, that's not really a big deal. It's not like the UK imploded after the dollar became dominate.

I'm not too worried about that. What is more concerning, is why the dollar is gaining ground. It's because we are spending money we don't have, because people want their socialist programs. We need to end that.

 

[Andylusion]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

Strangely all the Socialist ideas that the racist KKK, Progressive Marxist Socialists and FDR came up with the New Deal to bring America out of the Depression did not work. What did bring the U.S. out of the Great Depression was World War II. The slogan was "A Chicken In Every Pot And A Car In The Garage". What's the slogan for the "Green New Deal"?

#37 – If FDR's New Deal Didn't End the Depression, Then It ...
https://fee.org/articles/37-if-fdrs-new-deal-didnt-end-the...
In April 1939, almost ten years after the crisis began, more than one in five Americans still could not find work. On the surface, World War II seems to mark the end of the Great Depression. During the war more than 12 million Americans were sent into the military, and a similar number toiled in defense-related jobs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

The Great Depression and World War II, 1929-1945 | Gilder ...
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-now/great-depression-and...
And between 1929 and 1945 the Great Depression and World War II utterly redefined the role of government in American society and catapulted the United States from an isolated, peripheral state into the world’s hegemonic superpower.

Everything he posted is dead on accurate. Why do people ignore this?

And in fact, it wasn't even world war 2 that ended the depression. There is only one economic measure that suggests the depression ended at world war 2, and that is the unemployment rate.

But the unemployment rate declining, was largely due to the US drafting everyone into the military. Unemployed people went into the military, or employed people were drafted, and had to be replaced by unemployed people. The real number of jobs, in the private sector really didn't increase much. What increased was the number of people in the military.

If we simply made it a prison sentence to be unemployed, and put all the unemployed into labor gangs, would you conclude that dramatically lower unemployment was due to economic growth? NO, of course not. That would be ridiculous. But that is exactly what happened in WW2.

And by any economic measure, the standard of living declined during world war 2. Rationing of meat, and eggs, and automobiles. Everything was reduced. In what economic growth situation, does everyone become worse off?

In reality, the real end of the depression was in the late 40s, when tariffs on trade were removed, regulations were reduced, and taxes were cut.

A lot of people fail to remember that in 1945, when the war was over, and all the men started returning home, tons of problems came up. Unemployment went up, there was a housing crisis, and shortages of food.

So all the problems that existed before the war, returned after the war. It was the repeal of the taxes, and the regulations, and tariffs, that resulted in all those problems going away.

~~~~~~
The Wartime Economy | US History II (American Yawp)
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/.../chapter/the-wartime-economy-2
The Wartime Economy. Economies win wars no less than militaries. ... as the War Production Board and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion managed economic production for the war effort and economic output exploded. ... southward, to Mexico, to fill its labor force. Between 1942 and 1964, the United States contracted thousands of ...

Right.... but when you look at the standard of living, it declined. People could not get a car, for example, because factories were making jeeps and tanks.

People couldn't buy all new clothes, because factories were making military clothing and boots.

And yes, I of course we had to get employees from Mexico.... because our people were all in the military over seas.

Lastly, the production numbers are skewed. This might be too hard of an economic concept for you, but try and follow me.

How does the government know how much value (gross domestic product) is produced by a factory? If you look at 10 cars, you don't know how much value those cars have. So how does the government determine how much value is produced? By looking at how much they sell for.

Those cars go to market. They sell for $40,000 per car. Now the government can look at those numbers. They sold for $400,000. Thus $400,000 of economic value was created by the factory.

Now, translate that into a tank factory. How does the government know who much value the factory produce? It doesn't. Tanks do not go to market, and end up sold. So the government has no idea how much a tank is worth. They just arbitrarily gave it a price, and used that price to claim GDP went up.

But not only were those numbers made up... but building a tank provides no economic value to the economy. The tank rolled onto a boot, shipped across the planet, and got blown up.

No one in the US, had a better life, because they built a tank. You can't use it to go to the store, you can't transport goods with it, you can't use it to go on vacation.

Which brings me back to the point.... by every measure, the standard of living in the US declined during world war 2. Rationing of everything, limited supplies, food tickets. It was not an economic boom time.

And by the way, wage controls held down wages for the working people. It's always funny how everyone tries to claim FDR was this great socialists, and if we actually put in place those policies today, you'd be freaking out.

~~~~~~
OMG, there was a war on meat, sugar, coffee, butter, flour, shoes, clothes, gasoline, everything was rationed, but no one starved. If you think it was bad in the U.S., I refer you to the U.K. there was rationing. Then you have to consider that most of the homes in the UK may have had toilets without baths, no hot water, refrigeration and most were heated with peat or coal fireplaces.

Rationing in the United States - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_States
World War II. On August 15, 1945, World War II gas rationing was ended on the West Coast of the United States. Most other rationing restrictions also ended in August of 1945 except for sugar rationing, which lasted until 1947 in some parts of the country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Food in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s - historic-uk.com
https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Food-in-Britain-in-the-1950s...
Rationing continued even after the end of World War II; indeed, when the Queen came to the throne in 1952, sugar, butter, cheese, margarine, cooking fat, bacon, meat and tea were all still rationed. Rationing did not actually finish until 1954, with sugar rationing ending in 1953 and meat rationing in 1954.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Everything you posted is true..... but you didn't make a point.

Yes, there was rationing in the UK. What's that got to do with the fact the economy declined in the US? You do realize the massive difference between the UK and the US in WW2? We were not under a blockade by the Nazis. We were not getting bombed non-stop.

So seeing rationing in the UK makes perfect logical sense. Seeing rationing in the US, when there was no bombing runs, no blockade, and we produced more food than we ate anyway, as a country.... Not comparable.

 

[Blues Man]

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

Winston Churchill

You do know that Winston Churchill was a total and abject failure in managing the economy or the country during times of peace, don't you? The man didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground economically. He was born to the House of Lords class, and was an elitist of the first order. But he was only Prime Minister I would ever want while the country is at war.

It is foolish and unwise to quote Winston Churchill to anyone who lived while he was PM or has read his biography. I recommend William Manchester's wonderful books on WWII.

And that in no way means he was wrong about socialism.

I know doctors who can't run the day to day business of medicine but that in no way means they are not damn good doctors does it?

He was talking about communism and so are you... The definition of socialism has moved on to always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Like every successful modern country except us. We have the worst inequality and upward mobility and safety-net going. Thanks scumbag greedy idiot brainwashing GOP and silly dupes like you....

No I am talking about socialism as it is defined

Socialism is a political system where the government owns all means of production distribution and exchange

Look it up

What is Government? It cannot be Capitalism and must be a form of Socialism. Look it up in a dictionary.

You're the one who needs to look up the definition of socialism not me

If the governemnt does not own the means of production, distribution and exchange it is not socialist.

 

[Blues Man]

You do realize that licenses to do business are state and local not federal don't you?

There aren't many federal licenses needed to business or many businesses that are required to hold them

The very definition of capitalism is that the means of production is in the hands of the public (the private sector) not the government. That businesses must follow certain laws of operation does not change the definition

ANd you call me a bigot but I have the feeling you don;t know the definition of that word either.

you merely quibble about degree of Socialism. Socialism is like Palmolive; we are soaking in it.

You people define everything the government does as socialism but we all know you don't use the proper definition of the word

political Jargon from a dictionary is not any actual understanding of Socialism as concept. Besides, if you really want to quibble, it is about social-ism.

So now you call definitions of words jargon

do you know what jargon means?

jar·gon1
Dictionary result for jargon
/ˈjärɡən/
noun

1. special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

I'm not the one making up definitions here, you are

socialism had to be dumbed down for the right wing. the left doesn't get their understanding of concepts from dictionaries, only words.

We get our understanding of Concepts, from Encyclopedias, not Dictionaries.

And where do the people who write encyclopedias get the definitions of the words they use?

 

[badger2]

Post #908 does not mention the original geography for the 1 out of 150 types of socialism that led to communism. That would be Leninism (= scientific socialism).

With the deadly democratic socialist thrust looming on the horizon inside the American rhizome, we return to geography:

'On a January evening in 1934, approximately 6,000 Chicagoans gathered in the city's large Coliseum Hall to celebrate and remember Lenin....The audience included a contingent of five hundred children among the thousands of grown women and men, half of whom were African American and the other half of whom were a mixture of native-born whites and first- or second-generation immigrants from various ethnic communities. They represented a number of occupations, including skilled and unskilled industrial workers, artists, intellectuals, and students. In a sense,this occasion honoring Lenin's memory had already begun the work of unifying American people across the lines of age, sex, ethnicity and occupation.
....
And yet the Communists clearly had their work cut out for them. American Federation of Labor leaders, the speaker warned the crowd, equated Lenin's program with "a Russian program -- not one for the United States." And even though the hall was decked out in Soviet-style pageantry, complete with red flags of all sizes and banners displaying such slogans as "Down with Imperialist War," "Defend the USSR and Chinese People," and "Hail Dimitroff-Leninist Fighter for the Working Class," the night's speaker triumphantly reported to a sea of applause and cheer, "We say the program of Lenin is (the [italics]) program of the working class." What did this diverse grouping of Chicagoans find relevant about Lenin and the Communist party? How are students of American history supposed to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory images: one of an organization that celebrated Soviet leaders, co-opted Soviet symbols, and embraced revolutionary Marxist-Leninist ideology, and the other a somewhat popular American social movement comprised of a wide array of otherwise ordinary people? This book closely examines American Communism in a local context and explains how this radical movement was experienced in the United States. I argue that by the mid-1930s, Soviet control remained incomplete, and local cultures still shaped the movement.'
(Storch R, Red Chicago: American Communism at Its Grassroots, 1928-35, p.1)

 

[danielpalos]

You do know that Winston Churchill was a total and abject failure in managing the economy or the country during times of peace, don't you? The man didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground economically. He was born to the House of Lords class, and was an elitist of the first order. But he was only Prime Minister I would ever want while the country is at war.

It is foolish and unwise to quote Winston Churchill to anyone who lived while he was PM or has read his biography. I recommend William Manchester's wonderful books on WWII.

And that in no way means he was wrong about socialism.

I know doctors who can't run the day to day business of medicine but that in no way means they are not damn good doctors does it?

He was talking about communism and so are you... The definition of socialism has moved on to always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Like every successful modern country except us. We have the worst inequality and upward mobility and safety-net going. Thanks scumbag greedy idiot brainwashing GOP and silly dupes like you....

No I am talking about socialism as it is defined

Socialism is a political system where the government owns all means of production distribution and exchange

Look it up

What is Government? It cannot be Capitalism and must be a form of Socialism. Look it up in a dictionary.

You're the one who needs to look up the definition of socialism not me

If the governemnt does not own the means of production, distribution and exchange it is not socialist.

It must since it is not Capitalism; and Capitalists "cannot own government".