I was thinking about the current United States administration's move to take stakes in US companies, something that is somewhat unusual here. I saw others say it was socialism, but is it? Here's definitions of communism and socialism:

Communism is an economic and political system advocating common ownership of the means of production and distribution, with the goal of a stateless, classless society where resources are shared based on need. While rooted in the philosophy of Karl Marx as a stateless and classless ideal, its implementation has historically involved authoritarian states led by a vanguard party, such as in the model developed by Vladimir Lenin. Key features include the elimination of private property, social classes, and money, though different communist philosophies exist, including libertarian and authoritarian interpretations.

Here is a definition of socialism:

Socialism is an economic and political system characterized by collective or public ownership of the means of production (factories, resources, etc.), leading to a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources. It aims to address the perceived shortcomings of capitalism, such as inequality and poor working conditions, by promoting shared responsibility and access to basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare. However, the term encompasses diverse and often conflicting ideas, from democratic and decentralized models to authoritarian, state-controlled economies, and its implementation has led to vastly different outcomes historically.

So given these two definitions, purchasing stakes in these companies, if there was nothing more to it than the face value of it, isn't actually stateless as communism would tend toward. There's no evidence that the money being returned from the investment will make it back to the people at ground level. Either it will be there to feed an army to beat the public into compliance or it will be a bonus check for the outgoing administration to escape with trillions of dollars to Russia.