Just to clear things up.

I have fixed some disputable points in my articles about Democratic Socialism. I have been quite careless when it comes to the usage of terms, and I'm afraid that I might have caused some confusion (in case I have any readers). For instance, when I used the term "public ownership," what I meant is the ownership of the general public. But then, the conventional definition of public ownership is actually synonymous with state ownership, and so readers might have perceived inconsistencies with how I explained my stand.

By "public ownership," I have meant "ownership of the general public," not "state ownership." In any case, I have replaced "public ownership" with "worker ownership" so as to dispel any further misinterpretation. I deeply apologize for this silly carelessness.

Now, one might wonder why I'm bringing up the concept of "worker ownership" when socialism is primarily about a government who owns the means of production and distribution of wealth. This is because the modern definition of socialism is wrong. The core principles of socialism has been distorted in such a grotesque manner throughout the years by the USSR, the Nazis, and the pro-capitalist alarmists.

The socialism I espouse in my articles about democratic socialism, is not the twisted version, but the old and correct version of it. Although I disagree with Marx's principle of necessitating communism and his perceived methods of subjugating capitalism, I nevertheless acknowledge that he has properly defined socialism, which is the system where the workers (in other words, the general public), not some kind of totalitarian state, control the means of production, mainly through the establishment of cooperatives. You may notice that this "real" socialism is actually the one espoused by the Democratic Socialists of America.

Thus, I have been consistent with my stand, for the reason that I support NOT the modern definition of socialism, but its original and correct definition. I do apologize for my reckless usage of the term "public ownership," (although I've already fixed that part), but all in all, I could say that my stand holds together.

I must stress this point of mine because most people might have been indoctrinated with the distorted version of socialism, which will lead them to accusing me of being inconsistent with my thoughts, when in fact, it is not true at all. Again, I advocate the OLD and CORRECT definition of socialism, not the NEW and TWISTED version of it.

I shall post a more extensive explanation about the true definition of socialism, and why its essence has been corrupted over the years as soon as I am finished with my article about the corrosive nature of capitalism.

I hope that this will clear everything up.

Note: Just to be sure, I have put clarifications in parts of my articles where the word "socialism" appears.