It's in the name. Welfare capitalism.

Yes, but you never said that

We never brought up the topic of equality

That's because I'm refuting your egalitarian reductionism of socialism, not that welfare capitalism is socialism.

I've already proven you wrong on one point. Now I'm proving you wrong on another.

Why would I repeat myself again?

@εïз irma εïз well perhaps I am confusing historic materialism with socialism, but that's no fault of my own as that is the philosophical roots of socialism

So you're confusing the problem with the solution.

Seems like a pretty big faux pas, and very much your fault.

"Redistribution of stuff" is not the end goal or Marxian socialism.

The inequitable distribution of stuff is a result of capitalism.

They're distinct ideas.

So whats the end goal, in your opinion

I'm not a Marxist, but Marx wanted a society where everyone is free to pursue their own interests.

And they maximize their productivity by doing what they enjoy.

Excess production is distributed to those who don't have.

That's why there is no need for a state or capital in communism.

Such nonsense theories

If rightoids really wanted to attack communism they should first actually understand it. Once you understand it instead of regurgitating boomer propaganda it's a million times easier to tear apart.

Socialism is not the solution to materialism, it was materialist in conception.

No one enjoys true labor

Historical materialism is a distinct concept from materialism.

Historical materialism is that material conditions result in stratification and exploitation.

Literally has nothing to do with materialism vs. spiritualism.

Leisure and providing for family is the only motivation for the sort of productive capacity marx describes

Oh ok, I wasn't familiar with that term

Communism is the progression of society beyond stratifying it to exploit labor top-down.

That is a core belief in socialist philosophy though.

Yes.

So how does taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people through tax schemes make the worker own their MOP?

For social democrats it is the distribution of capital, which is understood to be the means by which the wealthy oppress the poor.

The wealthy oppress the poor by controlling their MOP.

If the capitalist is still owning the MOP, how is the MOP socially owned?

Just such a simple worldview. It falls apart as soon as you include international trade and even local and regional competition

One needs capital to produce more wealth, so the social democrat seeks to free up the poor from oppression by providing them with minimum wage, welfare and social programs. That way they don't have to be enslaved through the capitalist system of oppression where all their capital is consumed in basic needs.

thats why so many communist theories rely on worldwide communism

It's not about wealth though. It's about controlling your MOP. The logical conclusion to your argument is that everyone should be a capitalist.

Which cannot happen in a capitalist system.

The capital is the means of production in the capitalist system

Holy fuck. No. It is not.

I have already told you it is not.