If you want to argue against the logical argument, by all means do so. Nothing in your reply indicates you are capable of doing that, even if willing to. By the way, when you present a logical argument, it is capable of standing alone, and not requiring references. However, as I earlier mentioned, without precise definitions, none of this chatter is meaningful.

What it amounts to may be no more than "Socialists" not liking to be damaged by comparison with negatives being included in their definition of a word. But, then, there really are many very negative examples of socialism, aren't there? What's one more?

And this is no different than attempts to blur meanings and babble about "democratic socialism."