Socialism is just cooperation

Seditious - my knowledge may be letting me down again, but that is not my understanding of socialism. It sounds more like one specific breed of it. Dictionary definitions I found are as follows:

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

sounds about right, with no private property there is nothing to buy, money has no use. Take what you need, make what you can, and it's all there for anyone who needs it to take.

as the website I linked earlier suggested, there can only be one breed of it --- global. otherwise 'a socialist state could be defenseless prey to capitalist nations' (paraphrasing). when everything is made and used freely for the benefit of those who need it, then there is no way to tax anything or loan anything and expect something back, that's just the same old capitalist wage-slavery where you're forced by the state to produce in order to consumer for survival. If the system didn't welcome that freedom from slavery it wouldn't be socialist. But of course in the socialism would there be class resentment is what I'm wondering.
 
Yes, I would think the particular notions of socialism you are responding to would fall prey to those sorts of problems. Capitalism has shown the benefits of letting those who have the means / desire to earn more than others do so, through hard work, innovation or both. I'm not as sure it has shown the benefits of letting people who already have money control the means through which others make it.
 
The welfare state enjoyed in the west today takes its inspiration from the welfare state of Nazi Germany.

The forty hour work week in the US today was inspired by NS Germany as well. I understand a lot of Europeans actually work in a full time capacity, but less than 40 a week. A century ago people would spend twice as many hours laboring and not enjoy the worker's protections we have today. Contrast with the sweatshops and labor camps in existence under communist regimes in the Far East in our time right now.