• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s not a socialist state. It’s a capitalist state with welfare. If the political structure of the state itself has not been reworked to put the workers in power what you’re describing is just a state where the bourgeoisie (who control power) have decided to do welfare, usually for their own benefit such as reducing revolutionary energy by providing the workers with concessions (the welfare state). That is social democracy.

    You do not have socialism without overthrowing the hierarchy that places the bourgeoisie as the ruling class:

    Capitalism = Capitalists in power. Proles repressed.

    Socialism = Proletariat in power. Capitalists repressed.

    Communism = No more classes, only 1 class because the bourgeoisie have been completely phased out.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      All of this sounds at odds with representative democracy. What political system would you see working with socialism as you describe it?

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Representative “democracy” alienates the common man from the political process while maintaining a semblance of democracy. For this reason it is the ideal political form for capitalism, an economic system which alienates power from the masses and concentrates it in the hands of a few.

        Class interests are the primary axis on which all political activity turns. Getting the working class to vote does not help them, it helps those in power.