You mean the one that developed in France. It was basic egalitarianism where revolutionary communities got together in common ownership. The idea was brought up by several philosophers before Marx, but I have not read any of their works.
I don't mean nothing. You were the one saying that you disregard my statements regarding socialism because mine is marxist one and there are other different socialism too. I am simply asking you then, what other socialism you were talking about if not marxism?
ol what? We have nationalized government controlled business
Nationalization =/= Socialism. Now before you again tell me about non marxist socialism, please specifically specify what other socialism you are thinking of.
Plus with this ridiculous criteria, every country is socialist, which makes no sense.
This is where all the disagreement stems from, so it was useless to debate my several other premises if they all rely on yours. I am sorry, but socialism is, like the definition says, a economic system where the whole controls the enterprise. It is not a process.
Of course its a process as well as an economic system. Why the two must remain entirely different entity? Also form you merrian webster only
"a system of society or group living in which there is no private property "
"a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done "
Also seeing that I didn't disregard John Oxford's definition, this is just straw man.
Beside, you really need to read more about socialism than just definitions. Many things will be cleared, literally everything you have described in this so called "socio capitalism" is not socialism but just popular caricature of socialism.