Defining Socialism
The definition of socialism that claims it is "public ownership of the means of production" leaves out all sorts of phenomena that actually deserve to fall under the heading of that term. Really, it should be defined as "governmental (not public) CONTROL of the means of production." After all, who cares if companies remain privately owned? All this means is that some person is paid a small fee in exchange for his property---but not one he agreed to. If I steal a man's wedding ring and hand him a fifty dollar bill, am I suddenly a higher class of human being than the man who merely takes the ring?
What matters is who controls the capital: Not merely who owns it. The task of central planning still remains a virtually impossible one, nor can one claim that the existence of a price structure gives more than a moderate edge to "mixed economy" types over their communist brethren: Because the government's interference in profit making will distort people's valuation of capital assets. Instead of nice clean signals, mixed economies get a muddy and distorted ones from their price structures.
In fact, taxes can be described as the opposite of regulation in some respects. Instead of being allowed to keep money but having to give up control, you are forced to pay money to the government but are allowed to otherwise do with the property as you see fit. After all, you are forced to pay a fee---based on use---for the use of your "property" when you pay a tax. There realy is no difference between paying a property tax and paying a rent, for example. Is it better to pay "rent" to the government or to have the government dictate what you can and cannot do with your property.
So, if almost everybody would prefer to pay a tax---which is the practical equivalent of having the government rent the property to you---to having the government control the way he uses his land, maybe control matters more than mere, nominal ownership when defining socialism?