You gave the impression that Socialism and Communism were entirely distinct, *shrugs* — apologies if I misunderstood your views.

In general, the whole ‘view of Communism as fundamentally some sort of conformity machine that does not allow people to outshine others’ and ‘view of Socialism as requiring state ownership of property’ suggested your lack of understanding. Socialism requires understanding that the state will support its people, and that workers have rights and should be treated fairly, but it doesn’t require state ownership of property as a fundamental part — it can include that, to a lesser or greater extent, but it’s not really a pre-requisite. But I will grant that academics and politicians have been fighting over a definition for centuries, so a consensus between two strangers on Medium may be asking too much.

Communism does require some sort of state ownership of property — but not in a ‘no-one at all can own personal property’ kind of way (…unless it’s being seriously abused as a political system, which it can be. One of Communism’s fatal flaws is that it’s easily abused by those in government.) One of Communism’s most basic tenets is that those whose labour has provided the wealth get a share of that wealth — so if the other fish — or their parents, in terms of generational wealth, I guess — had all made the rainbow scales, and only the rainbow fish was allowed to wear them, then this book would read as more Communist.

…Albeit in a way that would still be reading way too much into it. It’s still not that deep, I promise.