I’ve said something along these lines before but that was when I was much newer to socialism.
Now I’d say that if a community owned the means of clothes production that is not capitalism. If they give/sell them that also does not have to be capitalistic as long as the goal is not using commodities to make money for money’s sake.
If you take that money and put it towards building other commodities thats also fine, any most political systems need a way to make new things. Marx called this C-M-C where you sell a commodity ©, transform it into money (M) and then use that money to get a new commodity ©. This makes sense because a commodity is only as valuable as you can use it, it’s use-value
BUT if the end goal is money. Then it becomes a M-C relationship. Now the goal is money. Money is spent to buy stuff for the sole purpose of making money, there is no desire to use it only to extract the markup costs
Lastly the people working there must own it. If a state-like figure owns it and makes the decisions in a heavy top-down fashion and profit is not openly shared then I think that is just state capitalism.
My only grip is that it should be a private company death ray. The government just decides who the death ray is allowed to zap
“In a 531-4 historic vote the government is limiting the death ray to not target citizens on their own private property. This does not extend to illegals or private property that isn’t owned by the citizen. For more on this we found a guy worth 4 million and asked his opinion on the matter”
An incomprehensible idiot: “I HATE YOOOOOOUUUUU! I HAAAAAATE YOOOOOUU”
and now here is Thompson with the weather