Trigger words: socialism (6) socialist (2)
Indicator sentences: Your definition of socialism is the one most people hold and is also a lsrge misconception on what socialism is.
Negotiation parts: Socialism doesn't even WANT government policies. Almost all socialist ideologies end with the state being abolished, the paths are just different. Those paths are communism and anarchism Directly from the dictionary: [STA-CITE]>a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [END-CITE]tl;dr any redistribution of income in which you take from the rich and invest in the community as a whole, is socialism. This is most forms of taxation and government service. No, it isn't. Income is not a means of production, nor is it property. Factories, tools, processing plants, and to a certain extent, land, are means of production. Socialism calls for the abolition of private property, due to the materialist philosophy it is based on. (marxism) It wants everything to be owned by everyone, so that phenomenons like the dependency theory, socioeconomkc inequality, nondemocratic work places, and bourgeois oppression will cease to exist. Labor, a primary focus of socialism, will finally be rewarded for the value produced. A chair maker will no longer esrn 10$ for the 100$ chair he makes. He will be able to appreciate the fruits of his labor. The correct definition, by the way, in which all socialists agree on, and which Karl Marx had defined, was democratic ownership of the means of production. I think you have [socialism](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t) and [communism](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism?s=t) mixed up. They're two very different things. Socialism says very little about the means of production, or the nationalization of property, and is not derived from marxism, but rather collectivist ideas that marx based his own theories on. Going to a internet dictionary to define something as complex as socialism and communism is not a good idea. Especially since those dictionaries include colloquial usage of those words. You have mixed up, yourself, socialism communism and Communism. Lower case communism is the final utopian end stage where state, money, and class cease to exist. It was the objective of most socialist ideologies, and in this context, socialism was seen as a transition stage to communism. Upper case Communism, which everyone unknowingly knows and does not differentiate from lower case communism, referred to any country in control of a Communist or Vanguard party that aimed to achieve communism by first nationalizing industry, then hoping that the state would wither away. That ideology is called Leninism. Not to mention that not all socialism is nationalization. Libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism exist. [STA-CITE]>Socialism says very little about the means of production, or the nationalization of property, and is not derived from marxism [END-CITE]...what? That's the whole point of socialism. Socialism didn't derive from Marx, but it's foundation was built by Marx. Primitive socialism existed as Christian communism where they believed that decentralized communes were the way to go. Marx had created a materialist philosophy that justified socialism, analyzed how it would, and showed objectively why capitalism would naturally fail. You need to actually read Marx or socialist literature to understand. Just because the public education system or internet dictionary told you X, doesn't mean it is true. Socialism has been defined and mapped out for over 200 years. Go to any socialist community and say what you just said, and you are going to be called a liberal and shunned away. There is also little reason to even be a socialist if you do not accept a materialistic world view, because that is the only thing that actually backs it up.
Trigger words: the left (2)
Indicator sentences: This is not "the left."
Negotiation parts: This is libertarian/anarchist rhetoric which appears on both sides of the left/right divide and is used to attack all statists, including both liberals and traditional conservatives. [STA-CITE]> look no further than documentaries like "Loose Change" and "Zeitgeist." [END-CITE]This is even more not "the left." 9/11 CT is an obsession of tiny fringe elements on both sides of the left/right spectrum. Even most libertarians and anarchists think truthers are insane.