That would be COMMUNISM.
Under communism, you would find the least private ownership.
The answer to this specific question is Socialism, not Communism. According to Marx, after the revolution by the proletariat working class, the means of production would be seized by the workers and a government set up by the proletariat. This government would own all property. Eventually, Communism would evolve and there would be no government. Thus any situation where there even IS a government would not be Marx's vision of communism.
The definition of a state-run economy would be Communism but there is no definition of providing for its citizens.
Communism is one chief example where production is a ward of the state. In this system the means to production and national resources are communal rather than private property.
Communism is not totalitarian. A Communist world would have no government or classes or money.
A form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism,
Communism would be the answer I think, but you might want to look up communism in the dictionary cuz im pretty young and dont know everything
Under state capitalism, the government controls the means of production. But this is for the benefit of the ruling class, not for ‘the public good’.
According to Marx, government was not an entity through which change could be brought about. Rather, for change to happen and for the class struggles to be resolved it was necessary for the people to rise up and bring about the necessary adjustments to society.
No, it is not very close to communism at least in the way that Karl Marx envisioned both systems. Under socialism, there would be a government that would own and control the means of production and steer the economy. There would be no private ownership of property. Property would be controlled by the state. Under most socialist systems today, many goods and services, such as health care, are provided by the state, but individuals still own their own property. Some socialist regimes are actually more repressive of their people than they were under capitalist systems. According to Marx, under communism there would be no government at all. It would wither away as being unnecessary. With government gone, the means of production would owned and controlled by everyone. There would be no social class divisions. Members of society would work for the good of the whole society rather than for individual gain. As Marx put it under communism, people would contribute toward the good of the whole according to their abilities and take according to their need.
Plato had no theory for Communism and the very ideas of Communism would have made no sense for Plato. Communism requires industrialism and concentrated capital to make any sense, which existed in the 1800s (when Karl Marx invented Communism).If we take Plato's theories on government and apply them in the modern-age (as Neo-Platonists do), we would quickly see that Plato would be opposed to Communism in the sense that Marx espoused it and the way it has developed as a political system in the real world. Plato believed that governments were necessary and that the well-ordered society has people who are self-disciplined and disciplined by the governmental authorities. However, the government officials are required to adhere to the same self-discipline as the citizens or would be subject to removal from the government. This system runs directly counter to Communism's Dictatorship of the Proletariat or the eventual non-governmental system.