I'm tired of describing Socialism in broad terms only for Communists to stick their noses into the discussion to croak the equivalent of "NOT MY SOCIALISM, MARX NEVER DESCRIBED THAT", and then when I compensate Market Socialists get upset with me saying "NOT ALL SOCIALISM IS MARXIST-LENINISM". I mean, give me a fucking break.

I can't even say "socialists want publicly owned capital" without one side bewilderingly saying "no, we want to abolish capital!" and the other saying "but public means state, market socialists want to compete through social organizations!".

COLLECTIVELY owned then, WHATEVER.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, my conclusions are thus:

To Communists: When the original post specifically refers to "socialists" advocating taxes, kindly shut the fuck up and go on with your day. And for those of you advocating we "abolish capital"... I don't even know what to say to you, that will do nothing but harm your society. If you're one of those "primitive communism" types, know that your opinion represents an EXTREME minority on this board.

To "Sanders" Socialists: I will continue to call you socialists, as long as you advocate seizing an increasing amount of wealth to redistribute to an increasingly expensive range of social programs. You don't need to seize the property rights to capital to rob it of the value it provides.

To Market Socialists: I don't think you guys are socialists. I think you're capitalists who like worker's cooperatives. That's fine, I like worker's cooperatives too, but capital jointly owned by private individuals is still privately owned capital. You can insist against "state ownership" all you like, but if you defer to the state to seize capital for public use, I'm going to call that public ownership, because the alternative is either voluntary enterprise or theft of private property.