Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. It's not government healthcare. It's not government bailouts (unless the government keeps ownership of the businesses). It's not "government doing things". It's not government using taxes to pay for doing things. It's government owning the means of production, or else the people owning it in some other way (mandatory profit sharing would qualify).

Now, can we prove the parent wrong and have an actual, reasonable discussion?

I do agree that "Socialism is social ownership of the means of production" is one aspect of socialism. But its only one of many aspects that fall under socialism. Socialism has been reduced to that aspect in the recent years, but that doesnt invalidate the other aspects. (see my above post with the 4 aspects of socialism)

Id argue govermental healthcare does produce something and it's govermentally owned. So especially that should, even under the "Socialism ... means of producton", be socialistic.

A loan is usually a product that banks provide. Afaik usually the goverment does not give loans. So id assume even that qualifies as "Socialism ... means of producton".

You could argue that the goverment is not "social ownership". But in my opinion that is exactly the base of what a democracy constitutes.

I'd wonder where you dont agree.

So, to your examples, the government giving out a loan might be considered socialism for that one loan. But what percentage of the banks does the government own? Or, what percentage of the loans does the government originate? Not a very high percentage. (And, when the government takes over a failing bank, they usually do it not to own the bank, but to get it off their hands as soon as they can.) So I don't see lending as being socialism, even if the government does a few loans here and there.

Medicine... there's Medicare and Medicaid. That's not really socialized medicine. How many doctors' offices does the government own? How many hospitals? What's really socialized is a big section of medical insurance.

Another thing that's largely (but not totally) socialized is higher education. Also airports, but not airlines.

So as you look around at, say, the US, it's not really characterized by socialism. It is, to some degree in some sectors, but the whole economy is not characterized by the government owning the means of production.

[Edit: This means that economies are not binary: socialist/not socialist. They are often a mix of some socialism (government ownership) and some not. We call an economy socialist when the government fraction of production (not purchasing) becomes significant, though there is no bright line (above X% it's definitely socialist).]

My original point was, that rescuing the banks by the goverment was a socialistic act. Thats where the discussion started and i still need to see an explanation why this is not the case. But i think you might even agree to this.

For all other points i fully agree with you. The goverment does only parts of these functions (healthcare insurance, etc.) . Which doesnt make the country socialistic, but these functions the goverment provides are. (In my point of view)

My key takeaway from this discussion is that in europe socialism is defined broader then in the usa. At least for an average of the people. The part of „govermentally controlled production“ has never really a been part of what i assume to be socialism. I think of it much more in the way as our second largest party the sozialdemokraten do (sp schweiz). But describing that would blow this topic completely.

Thanks for the discussion.