Socialism has garbage marketing, full stop. Probably because those who specialize in marketing tend to thrive in, and thus gravitate to, capitalist frameworks. Consequentially, a great many members of the working class are propagandized into reflexive rejection of socio-economic policies that would greatly benefit them, based on taboo buzzwords and false equivalences.
Yes, established terminology is quite useful for nuanced discussion in leftist spaces, among those who understand the distinctions between “communism”, “socialism”, “democratic socialism”, “social democracy”, “command economy”, “State capitalism”, and “totalitarian dictatorship”. But for many people, those are all synonyms. “Socialism” means gulags and breadlines and the government stealing your stuff to give it to slackers.
I propose a reactionary framework. A movement committed to abandoning familiar terminology in favor of capitalist buzzwords. Driving a wedge between “capitalism” and “market economies”, leveraging discontent of blue collar workers against big business and political cronyism.
It’s not universal healthcare, it’s alleviating the unfair healthcare burden on small businesses. It’s not universal welfare, it’s freeing business owners by replacing the minimum wage with a prosperity dividend. It’s not a socialized workplace, it’s an equity compensation initiative.
The established terms are poisoned, but the actual concepts are widely popular, if you phrase them right. The movement cannot thrive by trying to carve out a portion of the “leftist” party, it has to draw support from the entire working class. The only way to accomplish this is by abandoning the poisoned terms in favor of business terms that cannot be twisted by capitalists without destroying their own platform.
Thoughts?
Yes it’s not a marketing problem. The marketing is doable. The bigger issue is that there isn’t the resources or ability to mass market in Western nations the way capitalists and the more fascistic members do. Combine that with a lack of education in Western nations regarding the subject. Which is the only reason they’re able to “soil” the terms. Combine that with the constant association of socialism solely with leninists and Bolsheviks etc. Those are the real problems.
Most citizens of western nations couldn’t accurately identify more than one actually left wing or socialist ideology. And it’s always the most dubious one. It isn’t by mistake. It would come as a shock to many westerners to realize that libertarians aren’t just some selfish right-wingers. But actually has its origins and resides mostly on the left of the political spectrum. That anarchism isn’t chaos etc. I know that for the first 40 years of my life I didn’t. And I don’t think I’m all that special.
That’s precisely my point. The movement is up against capitalists with resources to soil the term. Faith in truth and education isn’t going to do it. These policies need punchy branding that can’t be villainized without subverting market economies themselves. Carving out a portion of the left from neo-liberals just dilutes voting power and hands elections to fascists. The only viable solution is branding to pull voters from the left and right wing bases.
Anything can be villanized. Especially when you don’t understand it. And that’s the key. Understanding. No marketing necessary. In fact, marketing to the uneducated on the subject. Especially if you try to rebrand, will fail spectacularly. All they have to do is ask how X differs from Y and you are back to defending Y. While at the same time looking manipulative and misleading.And someone will notice and ask. Honesty is the best policy. You put yourself in a better position helping them understand than trying to deceive.
@Eldritch yea the beginning of my political education literally began with reading the manifesto and going from there.
i will say that now a days the libertarian party really is just right wings cranks but yes im aware of its left wing origins
i do wish i had a different word than communist to describe my political leaning just cuz of the negative associations from the cold war era
I tend to qualify big C and little c communism. Usually that’s enough to slow someones roll to try to understand what you mean by big and little. Well as long as it’s a good faith discussion. Using the authoritarian bolshevik style communism as the big C named ideology. And something like a hippie commune as the more generalized concept of little c communism. To illustrate the difference.