Amy Baehr, professor of philosophy, and Martin Melkonian, professor of economics, aimed to dispel popular mythologies surrounding socialism and provide a clear definition of the ever-so-loaded term during a panel held at Hofstra on Tuesday, March 26, inside the Guthart Cultural Center Theater. The Center for Civic Engagement hosted the panel, which was part of the University’s Globalization Day 2019.
Officially titled “The ‘S’ Word (and other ‘isms),” the main goal of the panel was to clarify both what socialism actually is and what socialism definitely is not.
Baehr opened the discussion by arguing that the lack of a commonly agreed upon definition of socialism is inhibiting the debate over capitalism and socialism that is currently taking place at the national level. Because of this, “We’re not really having a conservation,” Baehr said, but rather talking past one another.
Baehr went on to flesh out what socialism is as an ideology and philosophy. “Socialism is a form of property ownership, not a form of governance,” she said. Socialism is rooted in the idea that there should be collective ownership of what Karl Marx famously deemed the “means of production,” or both the tangible and intangible elements of an economy necessary for the production of goods.
Baehr also distinguished between “full socialism” and “partial socialism.” Baehr explained that under full socialism, “the people in common own all of society’s productive assets,” as well as “all of the fruits of those assets,” while under partial socialism, only “some” of both “society’s productive assets” and “the fruits of those assets” are owned by the people.
Baehr said that the U.S. has a partially socialist economy by definition, citing taxpayer funding (and ownership) of public education, roads and Medicare and Medicaid to make her case.
Socialism, Baehr added, is not a “theory of distributive justice,” meaning that it does not outline which people should own what in society or how much each person should own.
Instead, socialism is the idea that people should have equal stake in their own society. This is the difference between “left liberals,” such as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and socialists, Baehr explained.
Left liberals seek to reduce inequality through the welfare state while socialists push for communal ownership of the means of production as the solution for inequality.
Nonetheless, socialism has long been a “dirty” word in the U.S., largely due to its association with the Soviet Union and other formerly (or currently) communist countries.
A common concern expressed by the American political right is that socialism is authoritarian in nature and can only be implemented in an authoritarian manner.
This, Baehr stressed, is untrue. While socialism can certainly be implemented autocratically by a one-party state (like in the Soviet Union), it can also be implemented democratically through a republic (like in the U.S.), or even through anarchism.
Rather than collective ownership of property, “The fundamental notion of socialism today [is that] wealth should be shared more equally,” Melkonian said.
Many in favor of socialism today see it as a system that simply aims to foster a more equal society.
“I feel like when we talk about socialism, it’s seen as this far-left crazy idea when it’s really about ensuring that there’s equality for people,” said Leah Chiappino, a freshman journalism and political science double major. “It’s not that much different than what we have now; it’s not this crazy, revolutionary idea.”
Sanders, a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist,” nearly secured the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2016 and is widely seen as a frontrunner in the 2020 race for the presidency. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York’s shocking victory – and subsequent massive popularity – is yet another sign that voters are more and more willing to back politicians that identify as “socialist.”