I'm pretty much joking. It was more of a joke comment than anything, nevermind that socialism has so many definitions. I don't care to argue EXACTLY what socialism means as it derides from the discussion.
Some people hold to a very rigid Marxist definition of Socialism, essentially, that it means dictatorship of the Proletariat. While this is the original definition, the connotations of socialism have been changed.
Some people hold to the fact that Socialism is state ownership in industry. By this viewpoint, if the government owns businesses it is socialist, unless it owns ALL the businesses because then its communist. While not technically "Accurate" this works well enough.
Some people use socialism as another word for social democracy, basically high taxes for the rich, lots of welfare, you get the idea. Where the line is drawn here, if you use that definition, varies. Some would claim ALL welfare is socialist, others would claim you'd have to be more like Sweden to be socialist. While this doesn't really make sense, if you live in America, deal with it
Basically, I was taking the third definition to an extreme, though TBH that makes more sense than a moderate definition of it, any other line is basically arbitrary.
By the first definition (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) I'd say you'd have to be quite far left on the chart to fit. I'm generalizing, but I think -3 to -7 seems "Social Democratic" (Varying to where you draw the line of what social democracy is) and farther left than that would be "Socialist" or "Communist."
By the second definition, social democracy is probably a form of socialism, so I'll say -3 (Or so, the test isn't really made for this, its called speculation.)
By the third definition, pretty much anyone could be considered socialist, but I would quite literally say that some would say that people who are below +6 are socialist. I've seen Mccain called socialist before, and if you're going to call Obama a socialist, I'd say Mccain fits just as well...
What definition do I use? Well, the simple reality is, I don't care. The only time I really care is when someone takes a lefty ideology and calls it free market capitalism. I'll let the left-wingers define their own terms, but totally free-markets are a very right wing idea. I'd say using the word Capitalist by itself connotates right wing, just like "Libertarian" by itself implies someone who believes in both economic AND social liberty.
I don't care what the center-left wants to call their ideology, social capitalism, social democracy, socialism, whatever. I generally use whatever terms the other people use, unless they try to make it out that leftist ideas make freer markets, which is fairly obviously wrong.
Generally IRL I use the definitions most other people IRL use, basically, anyone left enough to be considered socialist by the given person
When using that definition, to be consistent, I'd probably say any welfare is socialist. Yes, that means by that definition everyone, including myself, is socialist to a smaller or greater extent. Its not the correct definition, but I don't really care to argue it. I'd rather argue broader issues. So by that definition, yeah, I'd say +6 is still within the realm of "Socialism." Though really, that definition of socialism should probably be called "Social Capitalism." But that's a European word. America is a place of extremes
On the other hand, when I'm talking to you guys, I'll use your definitions, generally the Marxist definition but I've seen people use other ones, and I don't argue with them either. The only way I'd argue is if the definition didn't make sense, not merely being wrong. Its denotations VS connotations.
