That’s not true. Socialism is against the idea of private property outright. The very aim of the socialism as an economic system to collectivize all infrastructure, resources, property, land, and means of production where everything is “owned” by the “public”. Something like a co-op where workers directly own the business they operate like a grocery store aren’t allowed in a socialist system because that’s still private property and the business is engaging in the free market. So even though its worker owned and it follows socialist principles on a micro level, it’s antithetical to socialism.
Market socialism as a concept is vague. Are you talking about something more akin China or Vietnam today or something more idealistic and hypothetical? If it’s the former then I assure you that China today is just state capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
That’s not true. Socialism is against the idea of private property outright. The very aim of the socialism as an economic system to collectivize all infrastructure, resources, property, land, and means of production where everything is “owned” by the “public”. Something like a co-op where workers directly own the business they operate like a grocery store aren’t allowed in a socialist system because that’s still private property and the business is engaging in the free market. So even though its worker owned and it follows socialist principles on a micro level, it’s antithetical to socialism.
That’s not true. Market socialism (which is what I support) allows for independent companies.
What you’re talking about is Leninism and it’s derivatives (which I oppose).
Market socialism as a concept is vague. Are you talking about something more akin China or Vietnam today or something more idealistic and hypothetical? If it’s the former then I assure you that China today is just state capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
Something more idealistic and hypothetical.