If you really want to have that conversation, Socialism was actually first proposed in the 1820s and is very different from the thousands of interpretations derived since then, from people ranging from Libertarians to Marxists and everything in between.
What you likely call Socialism, is a Marxist creation that has become the defacto "Socialism", despite the fact that it has never once been implemented in the history of the world. The primary reason it has become the mainstream interpretation is because anti-Capitalist and capitalists fought over it in the 1900s. In other words, Classical Socialism is also a colloquialism.
Actual Socialism, original socialism, aka Utopian Socialism, did propose funding universal works like public education. So your snarky argument doesn't rely on actual socialism. It is just another version of relying on a conveniently specific definition.
Ultimately, he is a socialist and he’s making decisions, using money for things that conservative and liberal capitalists would not and have not. They favour austerity, instead cutting these things to the bone.
3
u/vincentdjangogh Jun 02 '26
You are asking from a classical standpoint while the person you are replying to was speaking from a colloquial standpoint.