One does not need to be in a position of authority above others to help ensure discussions are grounded in common definitions of what words mean.
Meanwhile you shared your own meaning as correct with no supporting evidence it is a definition commonly shared.
You are free to make up your own special definitions of words that few if any share if you like. You can use the word cat to refer to a dog, for instance. It is not going to help you communicate with the majority of people who speak a mostly shared dialect of written english where words have well documented common knowledge meanings though, but you do you.
The fact you address little to none of my points is an indicative that while you are a very good thesaurus, you don't understand much hermeneutics.
TLDR, you are right and I'm not necessarily wrong, we were just talking about two different things.
That is the most capacity for growth I have seen demonstrated in a while. You just gave me slightly more hope in humanity.
You and me both. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard variations of "you are way less of an asshole in person"
Complex asynchronous communication always has a way of forcing the temperature higher than it needs to be because we have more time to wordsmith and the cost of feeling stupid can be multiplied by the size of the perceived audience.
Often the same two people would have had a much better interaction in person where each sees the other as a human being speaking with their own voice and facial expressions.
anarchist organisational practices are real
people have been creating solutions to counter "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" for many decades now
coarsely put, anarchists (and work/housing co-ops, and protest groups) most generally favour consensus-process with proper anti-slow facilitation and role rotation, vs the [usually] majority voting systems and power dichotomies that are the style of communism (see democratic centeralism)
though many places just don't mention this essentially counts as anarchism (or libertarian socialism), cos a) the stigma, b) they just don't need to or know to, c) they do, just behind closed doors
"horizontalism/horizontalidad" has been a good descriptor
https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/guides
https://www.radicalroutes.org.uk/structure-and-governance
see also sociocracy, and Murray Bookchin
and the whole range of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism plus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism in general
True socialism is the opposite of authoritarianism. Simply put, it's taking care of everyone. Just because the label has been misused doesn't change the goal of those of us who identify as socialists. USA propaganda made it a bad word.
> As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, socialism is the standard left-wing ideology in most countries. [0]
Having said that, I don't subscribe to capitalist propaganda. When I say realist socialism that should refer to the inherent structures of power that need to exist in order to organize large groups of people and how to manage greed and ambition so it doesn't eat society from within. It's important to idealise true socialism, but just as much as the Ubermensch can't materialize, that is also just a compass, a guiding star.
Consider recent quibbles over pronouns.