As I've been reading more and more about ideal socialism schemes, it has become more and more obvious to me how different socialism, even in some utopian model, is from Zion.
Firstly, Zion is entirely based on utility calculations. This contrasts sharply with socialism, where levels of goods are what's equated. How much to redistribute is based on comparing quantities possessed. If Person X has more money that Person Y, take some money from X to give to Y until they have the same amount.
Secondly, the controlling party is the self. In socialism, redistribution is imposed from outside the self. Only ideal models have us redistributing out of the goodness of our hearts, because at the point where my calculations show the utility gained is negligible or negative, the levels are still different. I say, "That should be good enough," and some controlling party says, "It's not; let's have some more."
Thirdly, ideal socialism requires the defeat of self-interest, but self-interest can never be defeated. Instead, it has to rely on self-interest through the desire for self-preservation in the face of a threatening controlling party. In contrast, Zion redefines self-interest through empathy. I share willingly not because I am threatened, but because I care for someone else. I receive positive utility from sharing instead of receiving negative utility from not sharing.