It's a fundamentally different economic system at the principle aspect. For starters, public ownership does not mean production goes straight into the pockets of gov officials, they are paid salaries. Secondly, publicly owned services are usually not for profit, or even at cost, through taxpayer money or otherwise. Finally, Capitalists are a specific type of Capital owner, small handicraftsman, feudal lords, etc aren't Capitalists but do own Capital. Even further, gov officials aren't the owners of publicly owned industry, but indirect administrators. Managers and accountants in businesses aren't the owners.

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee -3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The gov officials set their own salaries and control the means of production. In that way it seems capitalist but in a way where everyone decides to become a single capitalist collectively rather than having individual capitalists wielding disproportionate power.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

That's like saying HR sets their own salaries, or Payroll. That's not really accurate in reality.

The reason you're running into problems is that you lack a consistent definition of Capitalism, you're basically using it as a catch-all term for "economics."

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

No it’s like saying CEOs set their own salaries.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Not at all, government officials don't work that way.

What do you think Capitalism is? Roughly when did it first appear? What's Socialism?

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Not all officials but some.

Right now, I’m not because I don’t want to and you can research it too.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

You're getting farther and farther away from your original point.

I'm well aware of the answers to these questions, I want to know your perspective because I want to identify where your view is getting mixed up, specifically.