You're not the only one "lost", MofH.

I'm not sure what to make of...

"Socialism = social ownership, production for use, allocation of goods and services according to self-defined needs, total democracy for all."

I think that Pier's definitions are as "simplistic" as yours, but I can't be sure because they really don't make any sense (try as I might to find some).

I'd say that Pier's views are "theoretical" and not "pragmatic", but usually when something is "theoretical", "irrational" is not implied. In Pier's case I fear it is. There is little, if any, pragmatic element to his/her suggestions.

You were merely trying to cloud the issue -- make a rhetorical point when a practical one wouldn't fit. I could understand that. I don't understand Pier's.

Both are natural responses to the inability of the theoretical to answer a pragmatic question (who owns midchuck's Froggy Bottom in a socialist economy?). It doesn't mean that the theory is disproven, but it surely casts doubt on it.