Your definition is definitely contrary to Marxism, so if your definition of Socialism is exclusionary of Marxists, I find it a bit strange. "Worker ownership" is not sufficient for Socialism. A sole proprietor is not Socialist, but petite bourgeois. Cooperative ownership is generally considered "socialist," but not Marxist, as cooperatives retain petite bourgeois class relations excluding the rest of society from owning the Capital of the cooperative.

Therefore, abolition of private property can only be accomplished truly and fully through total public ownership of Capital. This is the Marxist stance, once the state has managed to fold all of the instruments of production into its hands, it ceases to be recognizable as a state, as class no longer exists. Engels calls this post-state the "Administration of Things."

I think the issue you have is seeing only Anarchist or Market Socialist formations as Socialist, and not Marxist. This is either from a bias towards the former and against the latter, or a lack of comprehension of the latter. This is why you see public ownership as fundamentally the same as private ownership, and is why your understanding is fundamentally flawed, seeing all hierarchies as "overlords," be they intra-class hierarchies like workers and managers, or inter-class hierarchies like proletarian and bourgeoisie. It erases the victories achieved by the working class in Socialist states throughout history.

[+] zloubida@sh.itjust.works -8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not Marxist, so that's quite normal. But even in Marxist terms, socialism is a mode of production were the usage value replaced the monetary value. That never happened in so called “communist” countries.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

One can only abolish the commodity form in totality through global Socialism. Socialism's beginning is the transition from Capitalism to Communism, that existence in which there are no longer classes, the state, or money. The fact that Socialist states governed by Communist parties have not as of yet achieved that global system is not an indication of a betrayal of Marxism or an indication of not being Socialist by any measure.

Production based on use-value as the basis of economic organization can only truly exist when commodity production has been erased, and this can only be achieved through mass development of the productive forces and the lack of outside pressures like sanctions or threats of war from Capitalist nations. This means they have not yet achieved Communism, but have achieved Socialism, hence why no Socialist country has ever considered itself to have achieved Communism.

[+] zloubida@sh.itjust.works -7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You just wrote, in other words:.“It can't be socialism before the global revolution but that doesn't mean it's not socialism”. Man, even Lenin called his system state capitalism… You're not serious behind your big words, let's stop here.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 days ago

I said it cannot be Communism without global Socialism. Socialism can be had in one country, as each country can individually begin that transition towards a fully publicly owned and planned economy on its own. Socialism is not defined by the total and complete absence of all commodity production, such a definition means Socialism can never exist as by the time commodity production is totally abolished, so too would the state, class, and money. It would be a jump straight from Capitalism to Communism definitionally, despite this "Capitalism" being overwhelmingly dominated by public ownership and planning under a state run by the working class.

As for Lenin, he called the NEP specifically "State Capitalist." The economy under the NEP is qualitatively different from the later Soviet economy, but even by the NEP control of the state was in the hands of the proletariat, and large firms and key industries were under the thumb of public ownership. The NEP is quite similar to the economy of the PRC, it's a relatively early stage in Socialism, but distinctly and qualitatively different from Capitalism, when the Bourgeoisie is in control of large firms, key industries, and the State.

I think it's very clear that I am serious behind my words. I take Marxist theory fairly seriously, and have answered all of your quips in detail. More than anything, it seems like you're insulting me to give yourself a cheap out of this conversation, rather than admitting that you were simply wrong about Marxism, which isn't a sin at all. We all learn at different rates and different times, it's better to confront our own misconceptions and grow than it is to deny the necessity for furthering our own knowledge.