It is me trying to extend an olive branch to you. everytime I have described the socialist ideal, you say its not socialism and that actual socialism is defined by authoritarianism. Its an endless cycle until someone lets go of their definition. I just tried to concede that but even then you are unwilling to move forward. So I have made a tremendous effort to move forward with you but every one of your post is either based on personal attack or semantics. Luckily, I have the patience of an educator and will try to have an actual discussion. I haven't redefined anything but am willing to operate in your definitions because without common definitions of words, we can't have a conversation.
--------------------------------
I will start from scratch back on topic. You said socialism wasn't the only way to achieve....
(everyone was entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on)
I really just want to revert to the topic and the answer to the question:
If not by socialism (other than workers owning their means of production), how else can this be achieved?
If your answer is going to involve the words socialism, capitalism, communism, don't you think it would be helpful if everyone knew what you were talking about when you used those words?
I don't want your olive branch. I am not here to be your friend. I am here to do my fair share of butchering in the slaughterhouse of the marketplace of ideas. Your arguments simply don't stack up. The moment you give me a legitimate argument based on empirical data I will address it. So far all you have is sophistry, moving goal posts, rhetoric, and refractory platitudes. You claim I am just using semantics and personal attacks all day, but I am putting to you very simple questions, facts, and references.
Really this whole time you don't even really argue, you just imagine your point was something else and argue that after realizing you have no reasonable reply.
I do so relish the absolute brazen bald faced gall you have to now talk to me as if I am the one who can not stick to a definition when literally it has been your nearly exclusive debate tactic from day one. Have you ever heard of projection? You might wanna study up on that one "Mr. Educator".
The goals you are describing are ALREADY being achieved... WITHOUT Socialism or Communism.
The point of this conversation is finding the most suitable solution for society, not just proving a point, who is right or who is wrong won't solve any issue, my opinion is that you kill people's spirit when you remove the reward side from their labor, when you see everyone gets the same no matter their efforts or intelligence, that's not healthy for anyone in my opinion, politics to help the needy improve it's living conditions should be the point of discussion, I understand the good side of communism, the same opportunities, the same starting point for everyone, however it's counter effects are of a higher magnitude than the good part of it.