Is socialism exploitation by society

[Jacob Cliff]

I know it's probably a dumb question, but it's one that crossed my mind recently.
If we define exploitation as capitalists taking in the value generated by sold commodities that workers make, then would a socialist system where products are appropriated by society really be any less exploitive? I know it wouldn't be enriching an individual at the expense of the workers, but it's still the taking of value created by workers. How is this different?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Value is what determines the price of commodities.

There are no commodities in socialism so there is no value. Value is a form particular to class society and only in relation to commodity exchange.

[Jacob Cliff]

Value is what determines the price of commodities.

There are no commodities in socialism so there is no value. Value is a form particular to class society and only in relation to commodity exchange.
But is the appropriations of the commodities by society not the same thing? Instead of money, of the surplus products of labor?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But is the appropriations of the commodities by society not the same thing? Instead of money, of the surplus products of labor?

The thing is there are no commodities in socialism. Commodities are products produced to be sold on the market. There is no market in socialism - society directly appropriates products. It's the same thing only in the sense that the immediate producer doesn't own the product, but no one owns anything in socialism. Exploitation is a particular process that occurs in capitalism, and doesn't apply here.