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

https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/21/tackling-wealth-inequality-like-a-swede/

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?*

Despite the working-class creating that through their labor.

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

and another person sees that person not working, getting free benefits, and then everyone stops working?

You'd be pretty fucking bored out of your mind not doing anything with your life

This depends. Is the society automated?

You can't automate everything

the society is a normal society with the concept of communism applied