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?
Um, isn't that a communist symbol? If so, is that not impairing the ability of the average American to tell the difference between Russia and every one of USA's G7 peers?
I'm not sure I understand, could you clarify your point?
Can I? I'm not sure I'll make things worse.
I think that symbol is the classic and recognizable symbol of a country and was socialist in name only.
I think the biggest difference between America and every other country in the G7 is how much more socialist each one is than America. Healthcare, unemployment, welfare, housing; it seems each one offers far more consolidated support and 'safety net' services.
isn't that symbol of a known communist socialist-in-name-only country muddying the waters when using it to talk about socialism? Am I wrong, here?
That's the best I can do.
Are you referring to the hammer and sickle? That's just the logo for the "Socialism" community, and is only present because I posted this here. I don't necessarily advocate using it for the proposed movement.