By Cayla Bartosz
On October 20, 2025, Western New England University’s Young Democratic Socialists held their first event as an official student organization. For the speaker, Professor Emeritus Michael Meeropol, it was a homecoming, as he taught economics at the university from 1970 to 2008. For the club, it was a promise fulfilled, as Meeropol and his brother, Robert, ardently supported them during their two-year fight for recognition, writing a letter condemning a failed motion to approve the club in February 2024. At the time, Meeropol swore that once they’d gotten approved, he’d come to speak on campus as an event.
“I want to thank the club for inviting me- and take my hat off to them for persevering in getting recognition,” Meeropol began. “This was a long fight, and it shouldn’t have had to be that long. The good news is, you are now officially recognized, and it is my pleasure to be the first outside speaker, and hopefully not the last.” He then launched into the topic of his lecture: What would a socialist economy look like in the U.S.?
“What is socialism? I bet if I asked every individual here, I’d get a different answer.” Answers included Stalin’s Soviet Russia, modern-day Cuba, and the Scandinavian countries and their social safety nets. “I don’t think any of those definitions accurately describe what socialism is. Nor do, in my opinion, they describe what an American version of socialism would look like,” he said.
Instead, he said, “Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of systems, characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management of enterprises.” The means of production, as an economist would say, are land, labor, capital (physical assets), and entrepreneurship (organizers of the other factors who seek to make a profit). While there are many branches of socialist thought, he said, social ownership is the thread that connects them all. This stands in strong contrast to capitalism, in which the means of production are owned privately, either by individuals or corporations.
“Most caricatures of socialism emphasize giant government bureaucracies, telling every business what to produce,” he continued. While this was true in the case of the Soviet Union, he envisions a democratic version of socialism in which the masses elect the usage of capital.
“An American version of socialism would mean that ownership of the means of production would have most important decisions, both political and economic ones, subject to a process by which those affected by those decisions have a say,” he said.
Democratic control of the economy could involve local co-operatives, or state and county-controlled businesses. Local control over resources would be emphasized, as is currently done in the American public school system.
“The appropriate way to organize an American socialist economy can be discovered through trial and error. If a decision by a business entity affects you, you have a voice in that decision,” he said.
To extend this systemic reordering to institutions such as Western New England University, faculty would have a direct say in decisions, with administrators being elected and subject to periodic review. Springfield’s constituents would also have a say in suggesting curriculum, as well as setting up tuition and salaries, due to the benefits that graduation has on the local economy.
While the idea of this level of restructuring may seem outlandish to some, Meeropol reminded his listeners that the United States was founded on the idea of embarking on a new political path in the name of creating something better. “The idea of an American socialism being a work in progress is paralleled by what happened since the United States embarked on an effort to create a democratic republic in 1787. Our democratic political system has been a work in progress,” he said. Just as American society has come a long way from the days of civic power being reserved for landowning white men, a socialist society can be consistently improved upon by trial and error.
