Is there a significant difference between a group of people controlling resources that are also following and enforcing laws and the state, except for the numbe

Is there a significant difference between a group of people controlling resources that are also following and enforcing laws and the state, except for the number of people that are participating in the enforcement? If you have the ability to carry out or enforce a law, which is maintained by a group of people, you all become the state, and your neighbors/"community members" acting against you effectively becomes state action. My point is that people who rely on the modern government for most things can be easily convinced that "social ownership of the means of production", as the wikipedia page puts it, is the best economic system to aspire to, because they perceive themselves as already partially there. They experience resources as easily obtained and distributed by a group of people they "elected", and so the mental leap to "let us use this system for everything, and we'll simply participate in the distribution and eventually it'll be socialism" is very easy to make. This leap is not as easy to make for those that actually participate in the production and organization of industry and society.