Dak
mentat
It might not be the current popular usage due to the prevalence of social democracy in the current mainstream political realm. I won't disagree there, but wouldn't you similarly argue that capitalism is also not defined by the population at large as it is "theoretically" but that doesn't stop libertarians from saying that they desire a true capitalist society?
B. It doesn't so you're not wrong there, so why not go with "progressivism for dummies" as it would be more accurate. You yourself disagreed with the description of Reagan as a conservative due to his ideology not aligning with conservative ideals enough. Why not hold yourself to that same standard here?
No contention here. However, you have been quite vocal in support for progressivism, as is pretty much anyone who supports "socialism" even properly defined as per theory. It's not exactly some huge leap to lump it together.
A. If the workers do not own the means of production, how can they own the results of their labor entirely? Abolish private ownership (nothing to do with ones personal property, no toothbrush strawmans necessary here) and have it owned collectively by the workers otherwise someone else will claim ownership.
The means of production is merely the product of other means of production. And how does that even square with service jobs?
Abolishing private ownership of the "means of production" doesn't even begin to make any sort of nuts and bolts sense. Neither does an attempt to quantify your "product". I work part time in retail at the moment. My job primarily consists of answering questions to the best of my ability (in some cases I may be wrong), cleaning my area, and loading merchandise. What is my product? In what way did I aide in the creation of the "means of production"? What even is the "means of production"?
Even if you could somehow satisfactorily answer the above questions as to what one's "product" is, that doesn't in any way address how one determines what the value of the product is.