Your soft-peddled definition of 'socialism' isn't consistent with the real definition, but that's nothing new… leftists have a habit of downplaying the reality since it tends to disturb people, kind of like Islam does with taqiyya.

Socialism is an attempt to impose equal distribution of wealth/resources through public/state ownership of private property. An alternate way of stating the reality of how this works is: 'violence-enforced conformity and compliance to crush human nature in service of resent-driven secular utopia'.

And the outcome is horrific, as proven by countless examples. But resent and pride know no bounds–no amount of death and destruction can stop the leftist impulse.

You're absolutely correct that all governance is collectivist totalitarianism based on the functional State monopoly of violence such that the socioeconomic variations of the People Farming — the Grazing Strategy — are merely cultural artifacts of the Head Graziers. When we realize that these three primary isms of industrial grazing strategy for the management of human livestock are grain-based CAFO (feedlot) structures and not actual grazing paradigms at all, like they still largely were in under agrarianism, the totalitarian nature of it becomes more conceptually risible to the fat souls standing in line.

But that doesn't mean you are justified in disrespecting this structuralist conversation on the various grazing strategies as word salad. That was uncalled for, friend.

Learning and appreciating what it takes to run a plantation isn't too relevant when the plantation is on the verge of a massive structural downsizing aka collapse, is it? Besides learning that, as we have, and then acknowledging it is one thing, but appreciating that human herding culture is something I personally have zero desire for.

The assets are getting liquidated regardless, the younger slaves see the writing on the wall, and they want a change and there's really only three primary socioeconomic choices in industrial civilization: imperial fascism, imperial Marxism, or national socialism. And when imperial, global fascism is collapsing, that leaves two choices to collapse into and national socialism, also being a market economy with capital flows, is the much better structural option than marxism which would create massive dislocations and thus chaotic collapse. So national socialism it is, but it has to be approached in a veiled/masked manner because people conflate it with Hitler and the Third Reich because of the generations of zionist-fascist Holocaust propaganda.

Unless the younger slaves learn and appreciate what it takes to run a plantation, liquidation of current assets will leave them in dire straits. Literally eating each other.

No but that is a relevant observation. Stakeholder capitalism's elitist/centralized/neoliberal/ monopolistic greenwashing politics *is* funneling Establishment culture towards what Mark is talking about (syndicalism, which is the populist worker-owned cooperatives economic model), but the syndicalism itself is socialist (relatively pro-social, relatively well-socialized).

The relationship between Socialism and Capitalism is almost universally misunderstood because of Marxism having a cultural monopoly on socialism, and Marxism being anti-market. National Socialism, OTOH, is pro-market socialism — more like democratic socialism — it's just in favor of decentralized markets backed by a public banking system, and strong anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws, and wage regulations to minimize non-merit-based inequality.

Socialism isn't necessarily anti-merit when we realize how much laissez faire capitalism (Fascism) distorts meritocratic principles. Most rich men excelled for a decade or two during their prime and then outsourced their labor to the employees while they continued to make ever-more money just based on volume. That's not true, natural law merit. That's just gaming the capitalist system.

Why's that? What young slave wouldn't like a change of scenery when the retired old slaves are sitting on their asses hoarding most of the money and the young slaves are smart enough to recognize that they're the late-entrant empty bag holders of the capitalist ponzi who'll never have that opportunity.

What do you gotta say about that huh boss? I bet you ain't got nuthin a say about that.

The definition of socialism, in and of itself, is the structural minimizing of wealth inequality in an economy. That's it. And that's a relative condition of minimization depending on the culture, right? And the structure –whether (relatively) centralized or (relatively) decentralized — is also relative to the culture.

The market cooperatives of relatively decentralized "neocollectivism," as you refer to it, is historically known as syndicalism. Worker-owned small-to-medium-size-business market economics. Interestingly, the only formally ideological syndicalist economy in 20th-century Western history was under the populist economics of Hitler, though the plans were derailed by the necessity for a war economy. See Strasserism for more detail. Mussolini's economics were a close cousin.

This should help see that the future unity politics being molded by the Elites is both nationalist (against plutocratic globalist) and socialist (also against plutocratic globalism). Meaning national socialism. It will include ending the already collapsi g central banking system and returning to the restoration of the National Treasury and public banking Greenbacks, including the encrypted, digital kind. Tulsi Gabbard will preside over this Republicanist reformation.