It's just stupid to argue with, say..... for example.... kids at age 3 with a sort of limited range of terms and ideas, who won't listen. same with college-indoctrinated eggheads whose terms and definitions have nothing to do with any objective reality. The word "democracy" at it's roots refers to fundamental power or rule resting with people, in distinction from words like theocracy where the power lies with the religious leadership, or monarchy where there is supposedly one ruler sometimes benevolent perhaps but usually imagined to be unrestrained from determining the use of power. The word "socialism" refers to coherent action by society, under whatever original determination of that action. Like terms such as "right" and "left", there is no underlying reality in nature to our imagination or meaning. all variants of "democracy" and "socialism" suffer from the same underlying human reality..... human nature.... will result in accretion of power, solidification of power, unification of power, in the hands of a few people, and rarely will ever all go into the hand of one man. No man can exert power without a supporting network of officials, and such paid helpers as police or military personnel and organizations. Unless there is respect for individual rights, enforced by the general social consensus, we cannot maintain individual rights, such as claims on property or personal perogatives. From the philosophers of the early nineteenth century, the idea of "progress" or historical dialectics predicting a line of change in society, has all been constructed at the behest and pleasure of the privileged few of western nations in particular, seeking to consolidate a sort of hierarchy of real power around the world. To maintain this hierarchy, it is realized by those few, that the greater populations must be divided and turned, over whatever controversy, against one another in such a way that they can be controlled and managed by fear, by political manipulations, by wars or by economics. Marx was bought and paid for, as well as every other brand of so-called political idealism. Pretty foolish of us to argue the definitions they use to divide and rule. "Democratic Socialism" has been claimed by outright dictators often enough, who have literally hand-picked their favored "owners" of productive enterprises, the distinction of a true "socialism" that claims management directly of all productive resources has never been anything like a "real thing". politicians lie, in whatever way seems most useful. With those lies, the intellectual value of the debate just becomes nonsense. But it is essential, I suppose, for anyone who truly wants to believe in the fantasies.