Orwellian doublespeak has devolved our language. Now we cannot trust the objectivity of the recent Cambridge or new Larousse dictionaries. They have been infected with bias and redefinition to promote their socialist agenda. Now we can choose to either accept the socialist redefinitions, go to the original documents and discover the meaning from the original context, or you can see the effects of each word, and decide, and define the words for yourself.
So now, a definition in the Cambridge Dictionary no longer implies that we can believe them nor that their definitions are any more accurate or complete than your own. The best we can say, is that it is an acceptable place to begin a more detailed investigation.
The Orwellian doublespeak has infected usage so much that relying on their prestige just another example of the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam which enables you to justify not thinking for yourself. We cannot accept socialist redefinitions of words and concepts such as capitalism, democracy, totalitarianism.
Marx himself said that scientists should not think about socialism. He wanted to do the thinking for them. A scientist does nothing but explain. If they are bought off with promises of power, prestige or money, they were willing to accept Marx as “the only true expert” on socialism. So since it became the religion of Marx, scientists did not examine the structure of socialism. But because it has failed so spectacularly, we can, indeed we must, study the structure of socialism and its disastrous effects on society.
That effect is commonly called “Cultural Marxism” and it is the driving power of propaganda, “fake news” and leftist (which they have redefined to promote their agenda — “liberal”) thinking.
Socialism is totalitarian. It is based on the distribution of the efforts of productive people. It matters not the flavor of socialism, be it globalism, fascism or communism. We see socialism defined in different ways by different authors, but the structure of socialism has the same basic, totalitarian, premise running through all its forms.
The basic Marxist model is consistent. All forms of totalitarianism will fit, even those that existed before the word socialism was invented. By considering the structure of socialism you see that feudalism, crony capitalism, neoliberalism, dictatorships and even monarchies, if they totalitarian, they are simple some form of socialism — fascism, globalism or communism.
Republic falls outside totalitarianism, and thus it falls outside socialism. It permits capitalism, but capitalism enables competition and the free market, it is not a form of government. Democracy is not a form of government, but rather the mechanism of the vote. In general, democracy defaults to rule by the plutocrats, and the more “inclusive” the democracy, the greater the power of money to buy votes.
The theoretical basis, the roots of socialism were established by Kant and Hegel who formed the idea behind “cultural Marxism.” They were wrong from their premises. Kant damaged logic and reasoning as the basis of decision making to permit him to justify his belief in altruism.
Hegel destroyed the search for perfection by deifying the average. Through Hegel’s paradox, the average bad was allowed to become superior to the common good. The average bad makes people worse, lowering the bar every time. The common good makes people better by accepting no less than the best of the best.
The “theoretical basis” for Hegel’s error was a paradox. This paradox was resolved (debunked) by Cantor’s set theory 40 years after Hegel’s death. Hegel contended that all is A, but art is +A and garbage is -A, so all is art because all is A. It is obviously wrong, but between his stating the paradox as a basis for his theory and Cantor debunking it (by saying it was A and B in a larger universal set) was a span of 40 years. In between his death and the debunking came Marx, who changed +A and -A into “Scientific Socialism” (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) thus giving the foundation for making the average bad superior to the common good.
Think for yourself.
Allowing “experts” to define your words is enabling them to tell you how to think. It enables Alinsky to use many fallacies to cloud your thought, like ad hominem (discrediting the messenger to prevent the message), ad baculum (threats, like CNN’s against the meme creator), ad verecundiam (believe in us because we’re “experts” with power, prestige and money.)
The truth is what is important, and you must find it for yourself. By doing the research, thinking for yourself, questioning the validity and purpose of how words you thought you knew are now being used, you will find the truth — your truth — and you will be able to defend it for, and by yourself.
It is not what you are led to believe by “experts” in politics, money, academia or religion. What counts is what you know and can prove for and by yourself.