socialism, definitionally, is workers owning the means of production. how is this that? to me this seems like the ultra-wealthy currently in government positions consolidating and centralizing corporate power (i.e. textbook fascism), not the workers seizing the means of production
Socialism and a socialist government is a much more nuanced concept than you seem to think it is. And yes, Trump is more of a fascist or Stalinist in his economic desires but he calling him a socialist, in a nation which already has socialist components in it, is not wrong, IMO. From Grok...
>from grok deeply unserious
The Grok answer was essentially correct. I posted another article which they never responded to. An AI summary is easier to digest. Believing "socialism," in it many iterations, is a black/white issue, shows ignorance. bsky.app/profile/pala...
an ai summary can also be blatantly wrong, and can make up shit its not evidence, and unlike an article, no human being fact checked it. its not easier to digest if its very very capable of making things up and needs to be vehemently fact checked
This AI summary was pretty much on point. The subsequent article I posted supported the gist of the summary. I knew enough about the difficulty defining socialism's nuances to know the AI answer was OK. I wouldn't have used a poor one. Like a Google search, AI can be useful if done/analyzed right.
and like a google search, plagiarising the top result isnt remotely research, which is exactly what ai does but on a larger scale. also, for the record, you used grok. literally like just a month ago - if that - grok started posting actual nazi slogans and takes because of influence from nazis...
like elon musk. its not a reliable source. i dont care how "correct" this single answer is, accepting it as a valid form of research is a terrible idea in of itself, and also incredibly indicative of how lazy people are
??? Who said it is a valid form of research? If I was teaching and gave a take-home test and they used a Grok answer, it wouldn't be accepted, but X or Bsky are forms of communication where I'm not willing to compose an essay to make a point, so corners must be cut.
also for the record, the first sentence is just wrong, workers owning the means of production is the most fundamental aspect of socialism
Sticking to a single and inflexible academic definition of socialism is foolish, and I don't think any nation considered socialistic today meets this simplistic definition of the concept. You're looking for absolutes which generally don't exist in the real world.
the rest of it is... fine? but it almost contradicts the first sentence. "it is not necessarily a fundamental!" "in classical marxism socialism its a fundamental" lmao
Classic textbook Marxist socialism doesn't exist...and probably never has for any extended time. Even Lenin realized he had to tweak things and allow some economic freedom for individuals. Under your strict definition, there are no pure socialist nations in the world today.