> That's a barrier to start any business
Its an additional barrier in a capitalist economy to starting an equal-ownership labor coop, because the people who do control capital prefer that businesses they fund be owned by the suppliers of capital.
> Life is tough.
And capitalism is organized around making it tougher for the vast majority so that it can be easier for an elite minority.
> I'm not sympathetic.
Clearly, though I’m not sure why you are so proud of that.
> Just because it has various definitions and subcategories, can you just explain what Socialism means to you?
Socialism means that the workers (which is equivalent to the people at large, since without private ownership of the means of production, the capitalist classes do not exist) owning the means of production and exercising control democratically. There are a large numbers of particular eays that this can be structured.
> What I'm hearing is you want to abolish capitalism and replace it with workers (not the government) owning the means of production. Is that right/fair?
The government is a means by which the workers can exercise some part of their control of the means of production, and in any practical socialist system a robustly democratic government will play some role (possibly not much more or much different in broad shape, outside of specifically rules on ownership of particular assets, than in the modern mixed economies that have replaced capitalism in the strict sense in most of the developed world since the mid-20th century, but also possibly significantly more in some areas.)
But I’m personally an incrementalist and not a radical revolutionary, so while “abolish capitalism” is in a sense technically correct, what I’d mostly prefer is continued incremental steps to reduce the structural favoritism granted to the capitalist class and to distribute increasing power to the working class (either directly as such or by democratically empowering the people without regard to class).
> And then Communism we'd define as the government actually owning the means of production. Is that right/fair?
“Communism” is a proposed utopian end state beyond socialism that some socialists (who are also known as “Communists” for this reason) believe is the ultimate goal, and also a name for the set of socialists who believe in one of the various schools of thought that have that as their end goal.
What you are describing as “Communism” is, ideally, state socialism, wherein the people at large control the means of production through robustly democratic state institutions. In practice, though, attempts to implement an economic system around it have actually ended up being, and mostly getting stuck in state capitalism [0], wherein a narrow and self-perpetuating elite controls both the state and, through the state, the means of production and society more generally.
The extent to which this is an inherent failure of state socialism versus a failure of the particular adaptations of Marxism made in Leninism to bypass (private) capitalism and the frequently associated development of democratic norms to attempt to implement state socialism in environments that are pre- or early-capitalist is a matter of some debate among the socialists outside of the schools that are willfully blind to the problem.
It is popularly associated with “Communism” because movements that have been successulf in taking control of regimes and which call themselves Communist have invariably been from Leninism or one of its derivatives which favor this model, but it isn't centrally what distinguished Communist schools of thought from other socialist ones, nor is it inherent in Communism at all; the relationship is incidental.
[0] there are some cases, like the PRC, that have “escaped” simple state capitalism for something more like fascist corporatism, but whether that's an improvement over being stuck in state capitalism is debatable. It is certainly better from the point of view of private capitalists, but...