>>11190783That's not what socialism means at all, and I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that somehow all the economic decisions of a socialist economy would be made by one person.
Socialism is simply the ownership, i.e. control, of the means of production (factories, machines, tractors, fields) by the people using them rather than by rentiers (monarchs, aristocrats, capitalists).
One way of doing this is having the means of production be owned by the state (state officials then act as the employers) and the state be controlled by elected representatives.
The problem is that it's then easy for some group or individual to consolidate both political and economic power and maintain their rank - but only if the society simply continues to reproduce the state that existed beforehand, and this problem/process also occurs under capitalism from the other direction and is arguably already complete in the US and other developed capitalist nations.
Another mode of socialist organisation is the worker co-operative, where the workers directly own the means of production, and make all decisions relating to it, by themselves democratically.
These are highly efficient, reliably out-compete traditional capitalist corporation modes of production in almost every metric, and are likely to be the primary form socialism will take in this century.
They also completely side-step issues of 'big government' and 'state control' because the government has no involvement, except perhaps to match the subsidies and tax breaks which capitalist corporations already enjoy.
