diff --git a/blog/posts/0147-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.cfg b/blog/posts/0147-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.cfg
index e3d46bf..f7fd5c7 100644
--- a/blog/posts/0147-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.cfg
+++ b/blog/posts/0147-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.cfg
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-filename = 2021-09-15-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.html
+filename = 2021-09-24-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.html
title = Trent Horn, Capitalism, and Socialism
description = I'm overall a big fan of Horn and his work, particularly in Christian and Pro-Life Apologetics, but I find that when it comes to the questions of Capitalism and Socialism he requires more robust definitions so as to avoid errors and strawman arguments.
-created = 2021-09-15
-updated = 2021-09-15
+created = 2021-09-24
+updated = 2021-09-24
diff --git a/blog/posts/0147-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.html b/blog/posts/0147-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.html
index 1011bbf..a34b870 100644
--- a/blog/posts/0147-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.html
+++ b/blog/posts/0147-trent-horn-capitalism-and-socialism.html
@@ -44,12 +44,24 @@ video Mr. Horn starts by recognizing that Capitalism is a term coined by
Socialists, and most notably influenced by Karl Marx, and goes on to equivocate
Capitalism with Free Markets, saying that this is what he defends. The issue is
that this definition is actually much too broad, and therefore would actually
-end up encompassing forms of Socialism that we have mentioned earlier! What's
+end up encompassing forms of Socialism that we have mentioned earlier. What's
more, if this is your definition of Capitalism, then truly Capitalism has
existed since the very beginnings of human trade & commerce. Yet, if Mr.
Horn acknowledges that the term is of Socialist origin, would it not make sense
to use its Socialist meaning, especially when trying to explain it in relation
-to Socialism?
+to Socialism? For Marx, we could say that Capitalism is a socio-economic system
+which tends towards the accumulation of capital (i.e. means of production),
+concentrated in the hands of a class of Capitalists, while the rest
+(Proletarians) are forced to sell their labour. Taking this into consideration,
+we can see that this does not include Market Socialism, and at the same time it
+also means that there are possible free market economies which are neither
+Socialist nor Capitalist (e.g. Feudalism, Distributism, etc.).
+
+Taking this into consideration, I believe that Mr. Horn should reconsider the
+definitions he's using. For in using a very restrictive definition of Socialism,
+he leaves out models of Socialism, and in using a broad definition of
+Capitalism, he includes forms of Socialism as well as other economic systems
+which are not strictly Capitalist. Overall, his definitions cause confusion.
Notes