On first glance, those definitions would seem rather accurate. However, on closer inspection, it is revealed that they are not.
For one thing, what is meant by "community"? Is this any arbitrary group of people? If so, then some forms of private, albeit group, ownership could be considered socialist. The
limited liability company springs to mind.
Second, what is meant by "organized"? Again, if any arbitrary organization is used, combined with any arbitrary community (i.e., group of people), then all or nearly all private business enterprises could be considered socialist.
Let me propose alternative definitions:
Socialism - coercive control of the means of production.
Capitalism - non-coercive control of the means of production.
- Rob
Bookmarks