... Because no one outside of socailists use that definition, so it's jargony and useless in a general conversation. Even though North Korea would deny it, it is a monarchy, because it fits that definition. It doesn't matter that all of the North Korean philosophers define it using Juche, which somehow means it isn't one. Anyone looking at it can see it's an inherited dictatorship, so it's a monarchy.
I have been attempting to avoid saying it but apparently it's not getting through so I am going to have to. Your argument here is the same argument used by young earth creationists. Your definition is the the jargon definition and you are trying to tell me that mine is which is demonstrably false. Like a young earth creationists you think that by imposing your own definition onto the term you can make the term nonsense. And it does.
Similarly, socialism has throughout history been exemplified by states seizing and owning the means of production. So regardless of what you and the weird subset of socialists you follow believe (because that book Markets, not Capitalism, besides consisting of economically illiterate AnCaps who just don't get that, also frequently includes state socialism as a branch of socialism. So they do.
It's not just a subset of socialists, it's socialists who hold to that definition. Aside from tankies none will deny that the majority of socialist movements have been taken over by strongmen, this is one reason why aside from tankies and ML's no socialist likes strongmen. This problem isn't unique to socialism. To quote Acton again "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it is more true that power corrupts attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by things other than power."
The central thesis of socialism is that by flattening power structures as much as possible and that by making those who run the power structures democratically accountable, both the scope and the limit of corruptibility can be reduced. This is something which is born out by the studies that compare co-ops and traditional firms, and politically by Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and New Zealand.
USSR literally had the word socialist in it's name. So there were socialists in the USSR who believed the USSR was Socialist.
No they didn't. The fact that the word socialist in the name does not mean that they believed it was socialist. If you wish to say that most people associate socialism with the USSR then I won't deny that. But to say "it has the word in it's name" is to appeal to a type of etymological fallacy
Because of this, the definition "Socialism is when workers control the means of production" is incomplete. A proper definition that reflects both history and common understanding would be "Socialism is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned."
Collectively owned by who? And no I am not going to let you get away with that. Collectively owned by the workers. If the workers don't own it then it ain't socialism. This is why I gave ground on NK so easily. While I do not consider what they have to be ownership it is arguable enough that I am willing to grant it. What you wish to imply however is ownership by the state. What you are attempting by leaving out who owns the means of production collectively is the old YEC trick of implying that "dogs can produce non-dogs".
Not even Marx the one person your lot read when they happen to read any socialist held State Ownership as socialism. Socialist reject private property theory in favor of personal property. You are attempting to impose a private property understanding to the term ownership which makes that statement read radically differently.
"Socialism is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned."
"Term 1 is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively Term 2."
"Term 1 is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned through use and occupancy."
"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned(Personal Property) or regulated by the community as a whole is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned through use and occupancy."
Within socialism the terms common and collective do not mean that the entire community owns it. Rather it means that those who's personal property it is owns it. You can ignore this all you want but I will keep correcting you.
How does what you are trying to say socialism is fit with a rejection of title ownership (private property) and an acceptance of personal property? It doesn't.
Your argument relies very heavily on two fallacies. The etymological fallacy and the appeal to the populous. Both are fallacies.
"My disillusionment with Russia" is a good account and critique on the USSR from a socialist who was actually there. Emma Goldman was one of the foremost Anarchist writers at the time and lays out Lenin's betrayal of socialism in rather clear and unflattering terms.
Russia and the repeated failures of the Vanguard ideology of Marxist Leninists has taught most of us (fuck the tankies) what not to do to bring about socialism. The arrogant belief that socialism is something which can be imposed from the top down is rejected by all but a few. The ML's falsely believed that the masses could be educated after the party took over. Socialism to be successful requires a bottom up implementation with education being the first step.
Orwell is a socialist in the sense that he hated capitalism and the abuse of power that stems from it. He was not and never would have been a socialist as you; an anti civilization, Utopian loon that I'm sure would be totally fine with shooting a few more Kulacks if you thought it would make a 'perfect society'.
Very interesting have you ever read Orwell's Essays on socialism? I have and I tend to agree with them. So I guess Orwell and I are not that far apart after all.