[handsaway]

If we boil the definition of of socialism vs capitalism into "who owns the means of production?" Capitalism answers "a small group of people by natural right" and socialism answers "everyone, collectively". These definitions leave you with the only alternative being "a different small group of people" (arguably the USSR did model this, ergo allegations of "state capitalism"). Given industrial production (assuming no one is advocating for a return to feudalism) it's one or the other, there's a privileged class or there's not.

If you mean why has no one come up with different ideas for _accomplishing_ socialism post-Marx (or Lenin or Mao), well they have. There's all kinds of weird and wild ideas out there. Searchable terms for interesting ideas on organizing society include "participatory economics" and "democratic confederalism".

[PrimeMcFly]

> These definitions leave you with the only alternative being "a different small group of people"

Or the same group of small people with significantly more restrictions and caps.

> it's one or the other, there's a privileged class or there's not.

There doesn't have to be a privileged class in either system.

[dpig_]

What else is a small group of people owning the means of production, if not a privileged class?

[PrimeMcFly]

If things are setup so that anyone can own their own means of production, and then can have more say and more profit from existing means of productions they are associated with, the privilege reduces significantly.

[dpig_]

Oh, the infinite means solution!

[PrimeMcFly]

Not at all, what a weird takeaway.