Readers of the world, unite! Shining a bright light on a sometimes hazy subject

In America today, ‘socialism’ has become somewhat of a taboo word, representing the totalitarian ideologies of Stalinism and Leninism and practical slavery to an all-powerful government. And yet, socialism is also associated with relatively tamer ideals like welfare programs and healthcare - altruistic measures that raise the quality of life for everyone.  Many people today connect socialism with the totalitarian states of China and North Korea; however, an equal number of people associate socialism with the Nordic models of Scandinavia, which feature some of the happiest and most prosperous countries on Earth. With all of this talk about socialism, a word bandied about as a slur against ‘progressives’ and ‘leftists’ within the Democratic party, two questions come to mind: what is socialism, and is it a good system?

Today, the word “socialism” is used mainly as an umbrella term, one covering many ideologies and government practices. The word is defined as a political ideology in which the means of production, exchange, and distribution are controlled by the population as a whole, rather than a select few. This definition is a simple one, however, and the usage and application of socialism becomes much more complex than just the definition. If socialism is a blanket term, what ideologies fall under it?

Communism is an outgrowth of socialism which strives to achieve a moneyless, classless, and stateless society. This means that it is incorrect to use socialism and communism interchangeably; all communists are socialist, but not all socialists are communists. Many communist ideologies, like Stalinism and Leninism, are based on the idea of establishing a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ in which the working class, or proletariat, are in control of the government through the creation of a state party for the people. Communist countries such as the Soviet Union and China back in the day usually used a revolution to put their socialist ideologies into power, advocating for the government to seize the means of production on behalf of the workers. In practice, however,this can end in a totalitarian state because of how much power is invested into the government.

Although the end goal of communism sounds good in theory, in practice, traditional communist governments like North Korea and the former Soviet Union can quickly go south because of the oppressive and abusive ideology that can emerge. In the Soviet Union’s case in particular, the means of production were seized and operated completely by the government. This resulted in complete government control of all work, rather than the government controlling it on behalf of all people. This is why I believe that if a communist system were to be implemented in any country, it would have to be free of the government’s ability to enforce it. This is why a communist government like the Soviet Union’s would not work, as it loses the focus of socialism in the first place. If the end goal of communism is to achieve a classless and stateless society, it can be contradicted by the heavy presence of state that exists in a communist government, and with it a sort of class system created by this government itself. In many cases, a communist totalitarian government can be even worse than a socialist one.

So, if socialism can be associated with totalitarian governments like that of China and the Soviet Union, then how does the Nordic Model fit into this philosophy? The short answer is that it doesn’t. The economic model of the Scandinavian countries is based around a system called social democracy, which is actually a capitalistic system, similar to the one in America today. This is because the means of production are largely owned by private individuals, and operate based on a traditional company structure. However, some select industries are operated by the government for reasons of function.

Social democracy is not a socialist system. Social democracy has largely been confused with socialist ideologies because of its name and the prominence of welfare systems in it. A chief example of this is the Scandinavian countries, which are renowned for the use of social democracy. Although social democracy seems to offer a sort of ‘friendly’ version of capitalism, it only exacerbates a greater problem. In exchange for greater benefit to workers in a social democracy, workers in other countries (usually poor ones) are exploited for labor in their stead.  If working conditions in third world countries improve, then working conditions in social democratic and capitalist countries would fall. This is why I believe that social democracy is not an entirely sustainable economic system.

In America of the late 20th century through today, socialism in general has been portrayed as a radical ideology, mainly because of the rivalry and conflict between America and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Although socialist groups were quite popular in America throughout the early 20th century, support for socialism quickly dissolved in America during the cold war because of the distaste of Stalinism and other totalitarian variants on socialism. Much of the propaganda put out during this period still has a heavy effect on the current political climate and the aversion to the word ‘socialism’ today.  

However, socialism is making a comeback, although the examples of today are not the socialism of the 19th and 20th centuries. Socialism today is much more focused on a concept called a ‘worker cooperative’ (worker coop for short). A worker coop is a type of company that is owned and managed by all of the workers in said company. In a sense, it is a way to bring a traditional democratic structure to the workplace. In the standard way companies operate, elections to the board of directors are decided by votes, which are gained in proportion to the number of shares that you have. The critique of this system is that the nature of the company is in the hands of few people who are elected to the board of directors, and not in the hands of the employees of the company as a whole. This is where the worker coop comes in; where instead of the traditional way companies operate, the nature of the company is decided by all of the workers of the company, each limited to ownership of one share, making the structure similar to a traditional democracy.

Now that we understand what exactly socialism is, is this a good economic system? In my opinion, yes. Worker cooperatives have existed for the better part of the century in many countries around the world, and they are some of the most stable workplaces around. One example that comes to mind is the Mondragon corporation. Founded in 1956 in Mondragón, Spain, the corporation is one of the most successful companies to employ the worker coop system.  Mondragon’s average wage disparity between the lowest and highest earner was only 1:9 in 2017 (UK Coop Newsroom, 2017). For context, the average U.S. company’s wage disparity ratio between the lowest and highest earner is around 1:312 (Rushe 2018). The wages of all of the employees in the system are decided upon democratically, which means that the average worker is also better off economically than one in a traditional company.  

Not only are workers better off economically, but they also feel better about their work.  A 2011 French study found that many workers in the worker coop system have higher job satisfaction than those in traditional companies. The study found that there was a high level of ‘cohesion of the work team’, meaning that there was a “high level of convergence in goals and values [in the workplace]” (Castel et al.).This was opposed to the level of discontent between the traditional company, where a majority interviewed reported a dissatisfaction in the “demands and drawbacks of company values” (Castel et al.). This correlation in job satisfaction has led me to believe that worker cooperatives are a better system for workers as a whole.  

The data is clear; worker cooperatives can and have succeeded. They are more worker friendly than traditional companies and are just as efficient. For a long time, socialism in this country has been demonized, sometimes unfairly. As I have already shown, I think that modern socialism has some good ideas regarding the restructuring of the workplace into worker coops.  So one question still remains: why haven’t you heard about these worker cooperatives?

In my mind, this is because of one main reason: the suppression of any socialist ideas in the United States for the latter half of the 20th century. This suppression of socialist ideas has only led to a stronger comeback of socialism in the 21st century, with many politicians like Bernie Sanders rising to prominence in today’s political climate. This suppression was rather unwarranted, as some socialist ideas are very useful, such as worker cooperatives, for example.  

A vague and broad concept, socialism can cover restrictive authoritarianism, or some of the neoliberal values of the present day. As a result, it is very important to state how something relates to socialism, not just that it is socialism. Even though the socialist ideology is something I agree with, the main point that I am trying to make is that things are not just in black and white, as you may have already known. To simply point at one system of thought and dismiss it without considering it is one of the worst mistakes one can make. When you dismiss something in that way, without giving it due process, people fall victim to misinformation, and misinformation has been dividing America for centuries, creating further problems. 

by Jackson Clarke

Oshosh West Index Volume 117 Issue II

October 30th 2020