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?
I think a better take would be to not associate yourself with the "left" when talking to family and coworkers. I've had decent success in discussions when I come from the POV of a worker. Americans don't comprehend left and right the same way we do. If you say you're a leftist, most average family and co-workers will assume you mean Democrat.
But I like to speak in terms like these: "Pelosi is just as corrupt as someone like Lindsey Graham, they don't have our best interests at heart. Wages haven't gone up in 40 years yet the owner class is raking in billions. That's fucked up for people like you and me, isn't it? Isn't it fucked up how most of us are only 2 paychecks away from being out on the street? Why is that normal and okay?"
I'm bringing zero idpol or culture war bs into the talk, and I've managed to make bridges with some chuds as well as liberals. People need to start approaching politics from a material argument, and not a Democrat vs Republican view.
you're just playing word games. i don't know the answer but it's not this
That's kind of all political is. Socialism is inherent in observations of reality, we don't need to defend it's language to make a point. Just adopt new ones to describe the same thing.
all you are doing is retreating. the enemy will catch up to you and your new words and then what? retreat again?
Yeah. Until we find ground worth defending. I wouldn't abandon the word socialism, it's too important. But I never use communism as a word because it's too complex for people to understand in any intuitive way, not just because it's being toxified by western society.
I don't think it's just a matter of people not knowing about it. Through examination you can always derive the same structural elements that make up communism, and it's less important to describe a complex system that will satisfy certain criteria than it is to make sure that criteria is requisite in how people discuss politics so they can come to those conclusions them selves, or at least be more receptive to them.
This is just what I've had to work with in my experience. I don't think people around me have ever had a particular issue with communism, or even much negative association with it, but more it lacks any meaning beyond being diametrically opposed to a capitalist system. What I fear to present is the idea that there is an entire catalogue of socioeconomic systems to choose from and Capitalism and Communism are just two of them. Capitalism being one that's good enough so lets stick with it.
Rather Communism needs to be a natural choice and Capitalism needs to be exposed as an artificial environment sustained through force.
Not a different team but a totally different sport, is honestly a good low denominator way to pitch things to many non-political folks.
That's a good take, I'll keep that in mind.
Yeah. It's an example bullshit to fool people who only have a superficial interpretation of the political order. I could defend that point equally against communists or conservatives because it's completely devoid of substance.
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.