I'm sure some smart people here have some reasons why not. But here's my take: It would be a rhetorical advantage to claim that a left-right political model only describes a capitalist democracy. Because we're neither capitalists nor democrats then it simply doesn't apply to us.
We're not left or right. The qualities of socialism have conservatism and liberalism mixed in because the primary ideological characteristic is so vastly different. The right have some good ideas, so does the left. We take the best of them. Out centralism the centralists.
It's not a different team, it's a completely different sport.
Because of the centers attack on 'leftism' that's only going to hot up, I think this would be a good way to parry the blows. Instead of arguing that they're wrong about leftism, say yeah, we're not leftists tho.
At the very least it'll frustrate the argument.
Thoughts?
Its more intense in the US, so I guess there's greater repercussions to using the label. Personally even if i've had violent reactions once I've told people I was a communist, I find it makes it easier to jump the bs. Trying to navigate a semantic minefield of trying to not be recognised as a leftist is difficult. I guess it depends who you're speaking to and how susceptible they are to being radicalised.
I also use it mostly as bait since people generally go 'communism, authoritarian state, totalitarianism, my freedom, bad'. That's when introducing the different traditions of leftist politics has worked out, or more so their historical importance. And people are more susceptible once you can point out concrete successes of leftist politics, particularly, if it connects with them on a personal level.
Most of the people I've helped radicalise don't agree with me all the way but I have found that with enough time and rigorous arguments, it works out. Where you're not wrong is that it is politics, so there needs to be some form of machiavelic process to get there; you'll have to downplay the more radical aspects of leftism at first. However, I still think it can only be a temporary mean. It's not worth sacrificing ideological recognition in the long term, since class warfare is also ideological warfare and it has a history. Also I find it problematic trying to try and do ahistorical politics. Leftist politics, in a sense, comes from historical recognition of the differences in conditions or the state of affairs in the world. But that also means recognising that the manifestations of politics that tried to make sense and do away with these, called themselves and were leftist. I don't find it has ever really been about synthesizing conservatism and liberalism.
My personal method is actually using the Left's greatest "weakness" as a strength. The "division" within the left makes it easier to direct the person you're talking to (if already susceptible to abstract ideas in leftism) into the kind of leftism that person's least reticent to (which is why people find socdem or libcomm easier to digest). After that its just time and slowly chipping away at the propoganda they've been consuming. It ends up becoming a question of weight rather than idea (more down w the state, agents outside of it, unions), but fundamentally the point is there is an understanding all these are necessary rn and have been necessary at some point. We can get at each other's throats once we actually have more power on our side.