Message from @Seedle
Discord ID: 364208961215266826
freikorps a correct argument is about using objective reasoning so therefore subjective interest is fallacious in any argument
"the principles or policies associated with a welfare state."
>google definition
"means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
The means of production is not owned in a welfare state.
owned by who
By the community or society, or specifically in Marxism, the working-class
Meanwhile in the news
Would maket socialsim be socialist then?
the means of production just means the production industry i take it and that would be owned by specific individuals
but the welfare system is controlled by the government
which is voted in by the people in a democracy
ultimately being socialistic
Styles, I have a pretty good article about social democracy and democratic socialism you could read.
lets see it
Welfare isn't a means of production
Also that's public ownership, which is very loosely even socialist
It was a proposed system that expressed ownership over welfare, and was resisted by the employer class of Sweden.
You see, in the Swedish welfare state, the working-class had a much more equal distribution of wealth and had benefits, but this failed to address the underlying problem of ownership and in this specific case *who was still accumulating the most capital?*
but that goes under the idea of putting in place a full 100% socialistic society
where everything is equally owned by everyone
but we all know that doesnt work (unless in a utopian society)
Everything, no. The economic decisions, yes.
What do you mean it doesn't work?
As we can see through this swedish case, the biggest hurdle against it working was actually the resistance from the capitalists.
Resistance from capital in general, really.
because 1: it is a primary human instinct to put themselves above everything else
and 2: most of them are smart enough to get in such economic power in the first place they know it wouldnt work
you cant just 'equally' give the wealth of the economy to everyone
I disagree. Read the article, it's actually very interesting.
there is too much exploitation involved
You realize for most of human history, wages didn't exist?
if a wage didnt exist it was either slavery or they were in a family
The point isn't to "give" it to them, it's to make a system where that wealth can be distributed on the society's own terms, or even where wealth is not a primary factor in many life decisions.
Like I said
Ownership
Communism is basically like mutual aid societies
But instead the input is the work provided by everyone, and the output is what is derived from their work
so what happens if one person doesnt work