I literally just posted a comment on how neither of those are true. Get off Google AI, stop believing everyone who merely claims a specific nationality on the internet, and actually educate yourself with travel and the real literature that informs the definitions in the topic, rather than the definitions found in an English dictionary which are only descriptive of common usage, which is unsurprisingly heavily influenced by American political claims.
Socialism allows for private enterprise. That's one of the only things that separates it from communism. A "capitalist system with a social state system" is just a dumbass way of saying "socialist".
You should also read the whole arguments you're presented with, not just cherry-pick the parts you could describe as "personal anecdotes" as if I didn't posit any of the rest of the argument based on the actual definitions posed by the relevant literature.
The first usage of the word "socialism" alongside meaningful definitions were used in the 1830s by Pierre Leroux, where he used the word in an article published in "Le Globe", as well as widely and independently used by followers of the British socialist Robert Owen.
In both cases the term refers to an economic system that shares the interests of all it's people. Which would be more specifically defined in coming politics by social systems that prioritize peoples' needs regardless of economic input or output, rather than an individualist system that prioritizes capital gains.
No, it is not fallacious to expect an adult to be capable of learning something without the chalk and black board. We do it all the time.
Most academics do not disagree with it. Remember that person I'm moving in with? The one I've already been to Sweden to visit? She's a business professor. Academics do not disagree with the correct definition as provided by the source material. That'd be like using the term "general relativity" while disagreeing with Einstein, without which you wouldn't even have the term or any meaning for it.
Academics are the least likely to use the layman's definitions found in a descriptive dictionary. Same as how the definition for "chemicals" you'd find in a dictionary is not quite the same as the one chemists would actually be using in their work.
Did your college and/or university professors never tell you not to use Wikipedia as a source and why? Wikipedia is publicly informed and can be both written and edited by virtually anyone. You have provided no sources. I provided you with names of the people who coined the term, the time at which it was coined, the specific journal in which it was published, and how it would go on to be used in a real political landscape that was actually considering it as a new idea. All of which you can easily follow up with, fact check, read up on, etc, the same as you would for an college level or greater history, economics, or political science paper. That's more than enough sources.
Again, expecting an adult to learn something without it needing to be spelled out for them (which I basically have by now) is not a big ask.
1
u/[deleted] 8h ago
[deleted]