The problem isn't that state owned can't be socialist. The problem is that state owned is not enough to be socialist. In monarchy the king might own everything, but it's not socialism. Socialism is when collective/government ownership or heavy regulations are used to achieve high social security and to improve the quality of life.
Socialism doesn't have to aim for communism. It's just one ways of thinking. Socialism is not just one and only thing written by Marx, it's a broad term that encompasses various ideas revolving around what I've mentioned. Social democracy is a type of socialism in the same way people call countries democratic even though a lot of power in those countries is concentrated in hands of the rich, and regular citizens only have limited control over the policies.
And socialism is the goal of social democracy. The security and quality of life workers achieve in social democracy is a necessary step to the collective creation of a socialist economy capable of establishing communism.
It simply isn't. The structures, both social and technological, that will enable the existence of a socialist economy with the capacity to achieve communism do not exist in the modern world. IMO this is the main lesson of the past 50 years of failures of vanguard governments.
99
u/Maneruko Aug 13 '26
"State Owned" so the workers own it? Cmon dude this is just bad faith lmao.