How to deal with the word 'socialism'?

I know that there was thread made on this over a year ago, but I think this subject matter is really important.

Whether we like it or not, socialism means either an extensive welfare state or state-ownership over the economy to the layman, especially in America. And, we are forced to explain how worker's ownership and self-management works every time we say 'socialism' to separate ourselves from this false perception of socialism.

Should we attempt to educate people about the actual definition of socialism?

Or, should we avoid the problem altogether by abandoning the word in favor of more specific words such as syndicalism and mutualism, for example, that don't carry the same negative connotations?

Interesting thoughts, comrade, but I do not find this subject quite as significant, and I am perfectly comfortable with continuing to call myself a socialist, communist, syndicalist, radical leftist, or any such label. The term also does not carry nearly the same negative connotation in other countries as it does in the United States, where reactionaries have continued to avail themselves of the cold warrior mentality to the present day in order to instantly quell the potential for rational discourse.

I have always been averse to the notion of altering the package simply due to "negative connotations," as it reeks of superficial re-branding. I would rather struggle so that socialism can once more inspire pride in people, and unless a compelling case can be made to the contrary, I wish to be associated with the socialist tradition. Although, I imagine that we would emphasize the syndicalist line in any future RSF activism.

Do you care to elaborate on your stance?

Uberak wrote:I know that there was thread made on this over a year ago, but I think this subject matter is really important.

Whether we like it or not, socialism means either an extensive welfare state or state-ownership over the economy to the layman, especially in America. And, we are forced to explain how worker's ownership and self-management works every time we say 'socialism' to separate ourselves from this false perception of socialism.

Should we attempt to educate people about the actual definition of socialism?

Or, should we avoid the problem altogether by abandoning the word in favor of more specific words such as syndicalism and mutualism, for example, that don't carry the same negative connotations?

Comrade, the word doesn't mean anything. Every other word we use, will be attacked by the right-wing lobbiests, who will be financed from the bourgeoisie and will use media to "brainwash" people to believe in whatever they like.

Of course we need to explain to people what that means, but from my discussions with other Marxists in my country and worldwide, I see that they have problems in presenting the entire socio-economic idea of "Socialism" to ordinary worker or non-working person. Instead of just speaking of "state-owned companies" or anything similar to that, we should concentrate on explaining that in Socialism, there will be redistribution of wealth from the bourgeoisie (rich people, to be easier to them) to the ordinary worker, and that, instead of making individual rich, we'll work toward creating strong and prosperity community/nation/state or whatever they like. Also we need to explain that individualism is wrong, and that liberal ideas are completely false and are just another way to promote bourgeoisie totalitarian dictatorship, with economic, instead of military, enslave.

After all, we must remember that we fight to educate WORKERS, not middle-class bireaucracy or upper class bourgeoisie "bloodsuckers".

Sorry for posting this message late, I was rather busy.

For Rev Scare: My position was actually that, in America, we need to avoid the two dirty words, communism and socialism, as much as it is possible. Of course, we can still say them, but we shouldn't be obvious about it. The problem is that we say socialism and everyone gets rallied up against us. But, if we present our ideas as syndicalism or mutualism and emphasized these words over the more generic socialism and communism, then it wouldn't be so hard for people to understand what we are talking about since Cold-War propaganda never gave syndicalism and mutualism the same brush of death that socialism and communism received. That and it definitely helps separate us from social democrats and communists. Think of it more as changing emphasis than rebranding.

Again, we can still refer to communism and socialism. It is just we shouldn't focus on using the generic words "socialism" and "communism" in the American context, at least at the beginning.

This is not a problem in other countries, though we definitely should try to separate ourselves from "marxist-leninist" parties and social democrats in those countries.

For Socialism-in-one-country: "State-owned companies" is not socialism, and socialism is not the utopian social-democratic idea of redistributing wealth. It is about giving control and ownership of the means of production to the workers. This can be done through statist means, but I am actually an advocate for a more free-market approach to giving workers control over the means of production. And, this is exactly where I'm coming from with this. We have folks like Socialism-in-one-country that basically are into the "socialism" of brutish party-states and think of something like Cuba when it comes to socialism. In fact, a sizable portion of the new membership is like this, and this is why I even made this thread. People think of the wrong thing when it comes to socialism.

Also, we are all in favor of the workers, as all advocates of socialism do. I even advocate for worker's self-management. As for liberal ideas, you may find that I actually do advocate for many liberal ideas. In fact, the only redistribution I advocate for is the redistribution of property/corporate ownership, and I think it should be done to the worker's benefit. And, I personally believe that workers should enjoy the fruits of their labor without capitalist or state intervention, besides taxation of course.

These ideas are obviously up for debate, and I do not represent the entire forum on this. If you want to talk about them, we can make a separate thread on this.

Still, this proves my point that "socialism" is overused to the point of meaning absolutely nothing. Does a free-market economy of cooperative resemble a planned economy of state-owned enterprises in anyway? They do not at all. There is so much variety as to what "socialism" means that it would be more descriptive to use other words for our politics. Now, it doesn't mean the word can't be used. It is just that we need to take into account clarity when making speeches, names for organizations, and etcetera.

Disclaimer: I wrote this at 3:00 AM, so I hope you can bear with this.

Uberak wrote:For Socialism-in-one-country: "State-owned companies" is not socialism, and socialism is not the utopian social-democratic idea of redistributing wealth. It is about giving control and ownership of the means of production to the workers.

What you speak of is Communism. After all, why didn't Marx wrote about "Socialism" with the "worker's ownership of the means of production", but about Communism? You're mixing these two things.

This can be done through statist means, but I am actually an advocate for a more free-market approach to giving workers control over the means of production. And, this is exactly where I'm coming from with this.

Free-market and Socialism? Give me real life example of this. Also, I think you're mixing things up about Socialism. Do you understand what's the aim of a Socialist idea and how should that be achieved?

We have folks like Socialism-in-one-country that basically are into the "socialism" of brutish party-states and think of something like Cuba when it comes to socialism. In fact, a sizable portion of the new membership is like this, and this is why I even made this thread. People think of the wrong thing when it comes to socialism.

I do not see what's "brutish" about Cuba? Cuba is one of the greatest examples of the achievement of Socialism, and that's what say everyone who went there (as a tourist or as a Cuban international brigadier).

Also, we are all in favor of the workers, as all advocates of socialism do. I even advocate for worker's self-management.

This died with Josip Broz Tito, and it's proven to be full of flaws. It's just another idea of private property, and not a society's property of mean of production.

As for liberal ideas, you may find that I actually do advocate for many liberal ideas. In fact, the only redistribution I advocate for is the redistribution of property/corporate ownership, and I think it should be done to the worker's benefit. And, I personally believe that workers should enjoy the fruits of their labor without capitalist or state intervention, besides taxation of course.

I would call this utopianism or, at least, Anarcho-Communism. You do understand that withouth a strong state you will be overrun by the imperialist states?

I believe Uberak raises legitimate concerns with respect to the use of the terms 'communism' and 'socialism' in leftist activism, particularly within the United States. The fact is that, for the time being, those terms can be detrimental to organizing efforts. The reason is rather simple: if one were to introduce him or herself to a worker of a certain generation as a representative of a communist or socialist party, said worker may well choose to cease listening to the hypothetical organizer out of sheer ideological bias (I have personally witnessed this on a few occasions). Although the terms no longer possess the connotations they once did among the youth, for many baby boomers and certain segments of generation X they continue to.

I'm not suggesting that we forgo use of the terms altogether, but rather that we be tactical in how we utilize them. So, for example, it's advisable to refrain from revealing that the ultimate objective of revolutionary syndicalism is the establishment of a libertarian communist commonwealth immediately upon meeting potential recruits. Instead speak with the workers long enough to define what those terms actually mean first, and only later disclose what such concepts have historically been referred to as.

Socialism_in_one_country wrote:Free-market and Socialism? Give me real life example of this. Also, I think you're mixing things up about Socialism. Do you understand what's the aim of a Socialist idea and how should that be achieved?

Your debate with Uberak on this subject is better suited for a different thread, comrade.

Should we abandon the word 'Socialist'? Most definitely not! We have been pushed into the margins of the very society we stand for, not because we have held fast to ideas which have become unpopular, but because we have allowed ourselves to be re-defined by our enemies. The Orwellian destruction and manipulation of language (newspeak / 'political correctness') has created barriers for us, but it is precisely because giving ground doesn't work, that we must give no more - nay, must reclaim what has been stolen from us.

I am proud to use the label Socialist, because I know what it really means, and I know how far from the distorted media definition that is.

I totall agree.
What we need in England is a real socialist party, built on the ideas of our own socialist leaders such as Morris, Blatchford Cole etc.

We don't need to look at Marx etc.
Many ordinary people have no interest in such ideas, they would get bored stiff, discussing what so many students do, quoting verse after verse.
What we need is to develop an English Socialist party, based on the needs of ordinary people & done in a way that ordinary people can understand & buy into.
We need to build a party that is open to all those that are socialist and want to build a democratic, English Socialist Republic.

There is a lot to be done & it is via such graet forums as this we can network & come together.

If you or anyone else is interested, please PM me or post here.

What are your ideas, please share.

Patriotic Worker...

Hello and thank you for your kind words.  I represent the SWPE, which is a very small English Socialist Party.  I absolutely agree that we need a Party of some kind to promote true Socialism - as opposed to the Hollywood fiction so beloved of the Establishment-lackeys of the SWP!

Our site is socialistworkerspartyengland.blogspot.co.uk/

Please take a look and let me know what you think.  Autonomous England looks pretty good.  It is good to know that genuine Socialism lives on.  We may be few in number, but history has never been made by anyone except a committed few.

Anything I can do to help, please let me know!  Sorry for replying here, but the forum states I cannot PM yet.

I never said that we abandon the word "socialism" entirely. I only pointed out the issue of the term encompassing an heterogeneous mixture of ideologies that can't exactly cooperate with one another, and many Americans outright reject anything with the word plastered onto it. Basically, I was thinking about us using the word in a more tactical way as opposed to charging right into politics screaming "We are socialists! We are socialists!".