This distinction has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

This is not a distinction, but a generalization, or abstraction that better describes the phenomenon and your assertion that a state controlled economy may be contemplated without respect to the ideology to which it conforms is dubious.

This is probably an interesting semantic debate to have, but I have to apologize for being completely disinterested in it.

Which is why collectivism pops up murderously over and over with different names.

Do I understand you accurately to be saying "if you want participate in a debate with me on my terms you're i part responsible for all the evils of state-run economies"?

Aha now that is an interesting question and I'm glad you asked. I know that I personally would feel responsible if I saw collectivism murdering yet another society and did not call it out for what it is. If I for example saw that people were dying of lead poisoning but instead blamed evil spirits then clearly I would be responsible for mass poisoning.

"Agree with me or you're among history's greatest villains" is neither a novel nor persuasive rhetorical strategy. You should try a different approach.

I in turn don't find an attempt at a straw man all that convincing.

Depends on your definition of socialism. If you mean "all the means of production are owned by the state", then yes, that probably counts as collectivist.

But if by "socialism", you mean "what goes by that label in Scandanavia", then probably no, "collectivist" doesn't fit. It's just somewhat more government services than the US has, at the price of somewhat higher taxes.

"Somewhat higher" as a euphemism for "half again more"

He used "somewhat higher" twice. While I'd personally prefer smaller government, paying 50% more for 50% more services isn't nuts.

Right which is why I prefer to use collectivism which is prioritizing the group over the individual and would seem to subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give.

You sound like you think you're agreeing with me, but you're not.

I'm saying that socialism, as practiced in Scandanavia, is not collectivist. That means that, no, collectivism does not "subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give".

Taking X% of an individual's outcome and putting it into a pool for the collective good sure sounds pretty close to: "Collective ownership of the means to production". Doubly-so if that X is more than 50, as that means you are working more for others or the collective than you are for yourself.

Any who, I really think the definition of "Socialism" and "Socialist" require an overhaul in our current societal climate. I'd say that back when that ideology was conceived, people saw people in general and themselves as barely more than "resource" cogs, and that the rulers or state had some sort of "effectively-divine" right to rule them. I would argue that civilized and connected society has moved past that, to the point that anything remotely close to actual socialism or communism would be equivalent to totalitarianism in people's minds. It would be seen as barbaric, and contrary to people's right to exist.