In both socialism and fascism, the gov’t controls the means of production and distribution,
but under the working definition of socialism, the gov’t actually visibly OWNS the means of production and distribution.
Fascism is the tyrant’s coward’s way. They get total control, but when that inevitably and invariably fails, they can blame the private business owner for the hardships.
Now, socialist apologists will try to say that pure socialism entails “the workers” owning the means of production and distribution. But how are decisions made? Some centralized authority still, and that would be a government, and that would invariably mean there is no “socialism” as they define it. Only communism.
[I quoted your words to keep a hold of in case I need them for future reference – hope you don’t mind]
But take a look at the definition of the word Socialism in the Oxford dictionary:
Definition of socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
Note the phrase: owned or REGULATED by the community as a whole.
In that case the government merely CONTROLS the means of production without having to own said means i.e. Fascism.
Yeah, that dictionary definition of socialism is what your average “occupy” sheeperal believes will be implemented under their utopia.
It never works that way, it can’t work that way.
“owned or regulated by the community as a whole”
Oh! Kumbaya!
Nope, won’t work. A strong centralized authority will invariably arise and subjugate that “community as a whole”.