I'm taking a sociology class, and we just started talking about Marx. My professor asked us for examples of socialism, and quite a few people mentioned welfare.

I pushed back on this, saying that a redistribution of wealth isn't the same as "redistribution" (shared ownership) of productive means. My professor replied that socialism is a commitment to equality, which welfare provides.

Now, I wasn't sure exactly what to say next without denouncing capitalism. I'm also aware that my response could have been better. How would you respond to this?

EDIT: I'm not trying to convince my professor. I'm trying to present arguments that get my classmates thinking in hopes of radicalizing a few of them. One of the TA's actually pm'd me later saying that they agreed with me.

  • Dimmer06 [he/him,comrade/them]
    3·
    4 years ago

    Your professor has a correct definition of socialism (a commitment to equality) but no historical understanding. Marxism is specifically "scientific socialism" as distinct from other kinds though, and is the only socialism which has demonstrably been successful in creating socioeconomic equality. Without the common ownership of wealth you will eventually fall into inequality. In the case of welfare in the first world for instance, this looks like continuous cuts and over-bureaucratization until the program is no longer functional and can be scrapped without opposition.

    Take the opportunity to point out Marx was a communist, not just a socialist, and what that is in relation to socialism and scientific socialism. Tell people that half the manifesto is Marx talking about other socialists his party is in opposition to.

    • cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      ML states are not the only economic and political systems that have resulted in low levels of wealth inequality. There are a number of countries that have comparable GINI coefficients than the USSR had today.

      The big distinction is that the inequality within the USSR was mostly from place to place rather than within the same cities, something that social democracy has failed to achieve that resulted in many of the more positive social outcomes we saw in the USSR. Moscow was much wealthier than some random small city in usbekistan for example.

      • gammison [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Especially since Marx spends like half of capital ripping them or praising them.

    • yang [they/them, any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      That's funny because we just finished learning about Comte and Spencer, along with their ideas of sociology as a science.

      I'll admit that I haven't really read any concrete theory beyond short pamphlets and leftist news, but I will definitely keep that in mind.

      • ComradeRat [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        You can do a lot with a little theory. As long as you understand the main arguments of the foundational texts (Capital, Imperialism, etc) and have absorbed enough names and theories from the internet you can usually hold your own. I've been pushing nonstop in two of my classes this term like this.