[piva00]

Words have meaning, socialism has a meaning:

> Socialism: a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems, which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

That is the meaning, it's not meaningless. It becomes meaningless when people just accept that it can mean anything they want, it can't. Socialism has a very specific characteristic: social ownership of the means of production.

If people misuse the term they need to be corrected. At least until the meaning completely shifts to something else, like what Americans try to do with the term "liberal" which does not, at all, mean "progressive" as is the usage in the USA.

[autoexec]

Words do have meanings, the word socialism has so many meanings that using the term just makes things less clear. Even your preferred definition is so overbroad that it strains usefulness. Any definition that lumps together the political philosophy of Keir Starmer with that of Joseph Stalin is one of questionable utility.

[piva00]

That's the thing, it does not lump Keir Starmer's political philosophy and Stalin's. To be defined as socialism it needs to encompass the social ownership of the means of production, Keir Starmer's economic-political philosophy does not encompass that and hence it's not socialism...

It's the one of the most defining characteristics of socialism, if Keir Starmer is not defending that the ownership of the means of production should be socialised it is not socialism.