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.

  • 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.