Welfalre is not socialist

@styles Socialism is about ownership.

An effective argument, wouldn't focus on the material differences and policies of past states, but rather on the worldviews that these ideas belong to

Welfare is not ownership, it's a way to make being poor less shitty.

Rather forever poor

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More

'welfarism'

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

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?