OK, how exactly are we supposed to do this here?

The original statement may have different interpretations, but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" to "socialism." There's just no way to get from A to B actually looking at what was said.

Then he comes along and says he meant something completely different. No relation to the original statement. Apparently a moment of total brain confusion.

Do we take him at his word? I suppose we could, but then we're basically giving everybody a free pass to retroactively alter any statement they've made in any way if they don't like the reaction.

For what it's worth, I don't dislike Mr. Andreessen and have only a vague idea of who he even is (something to do with Netscape, right?).