Perhaps an example might clarify my position. Conservatives, when trying to emphasize some subtle constitutional point or controversy, often say things like, "In the Federalist Papers, it is stated that..."

The Federalist Papers, like George Orwell, are sources of great wisdom and insight, and evidence of fine minds at work, but they are not constitutional law. You can't use either as legal precedent or as scripture.

In other words, it doesn't matter what they said, it has no bearing on present truth. The authors of the Papers often even disagreed with each other! It can be said that they are instructive, or insightful, they can even be used (as I did) to make a point or as an example. But they are not going to settle any arguments. That is argument by authority, we learned that was bogus in Junior High School.

As far as the impossibility of having a meaningful discussion without agreement on terms, I agree, more or less. But these terms we use are by their very nature interpreted in different ways, historically and culturally. Which dictionary definition of "Socialism" do we choose? Yours? Do we simply ignore even the slightest variation or interpretation from it? There are differences in how these concepts are defined, even those who argue theology or constitutional law depart from the exact same text to vastly different conclusions. The "truth" that emerges is a matter of consensus, not logic, or scientific method, and it is subject to frequent revision. It is not physics, and to pretend it is is intellectual bigotry which insults anyone not on the same page you are. It is difficult to talk to you without getting the impression that you have absolute contempt for everything I believe in. Or that you feel I am incapable of rational thought. Or that my purpose is to subvert everything decent and honest in the world.

"Diving off the wagon?" Physician, heal thyself.