What does technology have to do with it? It's the meaning of the word. It's like the word "human," Bill, it's a word. It has a specific definition, which one ordinarily finds in a dictionary.
A common misconception, that dictionaries define words - they don't, they describe common usage
... I gave you a reference to the meaning of "Nazi:" Any dictionary or any encyclopedia ...
Well, it might be illuminating to see what Hitler thought the term meant, in the context of the Nazi party. He objected to its use, but when he took over the party, decided to keep it, but chose to define it to suit his own ends. 'Socialist' was taken to refer to a commitment to the community or volk, not socialism in the sense that it had been used in the Paris Commune, or 18th century Britain, or even by Marx or Engels. You want sources, try Christopher McNab's book on the Third Reich.
... You're certainly entitled to your own ideas and biases, but you're not entitled to your own definitions of common words.
Quite. Neither are you. But there is a world of difference between common usuage and informed, expert usuage. North Korea considers itself democratic - everyone votes, and the vote for the Glorious Leader, or else. But in the People's Republic, that's defined as democracy. I don't know about you, but that's not how I'd define it.
... It's a theory that's been around for a long time, at least since Marx expounded the labor theory of value in Das Kapital, but there's never been a case in history where "workers" actually controlled the means of production.
Every co-operative fits the bill. Not that workers controlling means of production is all there is to socialism, and it doesn't necessarily require such a thing for a system to be socialist. Whether it is market socialism, municipal socialism, social democracy, details vary, but the guiding principle is of greater equality of opportunity, participation in decision-making and so on. But you're right, there's never been a properly communist (according to Marx, that's a post-socialist) state. The Paris Commune probably came closest, but that was put down. Communist states have only ever been communist in name only, never communally governed, but rather totalitarian dictatorships.
... For production to take place you need somebody in charge. That can be somebody who wants to produce something worthwhile and make a buck, or it can be a commissar who wants to control people ...
Something of a false dichotomy. But enough with the politics, eh?
Let's hope the Pope has better Photoshop techies & that we never descend into the quagmire of religion