you said that socialism is mixed "by definition". it seems that there is such an interpretation, among others. so not only socialism does not mixed "by definition", but also its primary meaning, unless you clarify, means pure socialism. fail. artial socialism is exactly one such clarification. because my intention is to be clear. unlike some other participants in the debate. if i say socialism does not work, i mean pure socialism. and i explain that partial socialisms, like social democracies with a free-ish market, can survive, and capitalism is the fuel they burn. it is clear. you didn't even try to talk about that. rather, you go sideways, and try to dissolve the meaning of words. you should attack the central point of my argument, which is, socialism does not add to progress, rather, it hinders it. the more socialism we have, the harder for the economy to function. that is always a tradeoff, even for those advocate it. only some less educated idealists call for socialism without limits. a serious person understands that without the free market, there is no cake to eat. so you have managed to assign the economic growth in the 19th century to the early years, though it happened mostly in the latest years. nice job. however, your quote is the refutation of your statement. it mentions industrialization as the engine. industrialization is not based on land. slavery and land is not the source of growth. industry is. technology is. and what other fact we