State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we’re talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, “I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view.” Is that “collective ownership” because the land is now held by the state? Is that “socialism?”
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just “socialism is when the government does stuff” with extra steps.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there’s a fire.
So then, you need to amend your definition to “Socialism is when the means of production are either collectively owned or state-owned,” which is, again, essentially just saying “socialism is when the government owns stuff.” And again, I completely disagree that state ownership inherently has anything to do with socialism. An absolute monarchy is 0% socialist, regardless of any services the king deems fit to grace the peasantry with.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we’re talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, “I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view.” Is that “collective ownership” because the land is now held by the state? Is that “socialism?”
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just “socialism is when the government does stuff” with extra steps.
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there’s a fire.
So then, you need to amend your definition to “Socialism is when the means of production are either collectively owned or state-owned,” which is, again, essentially just saying “socialism is when the government owns stuff.” And again, I completely disagree that state ownership inherently has anything to do with socialism. An absolute monarchy is 0% socialist, regardless of any services the king deems fit to grace the peasantry with.