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?

  • agamemnonymous@lemmy.mlOP
    5·
    1 year ago

    I disagree. I don’t think waiting for coverage reactionaries to die out is a viable methodology. Yes, millennials and gen Z slant left, but it’s not unanimous (I know several personally who grew up petit bourgeoisie and think capitalism is the only way) and gen X will be around for decades to come. Deciding that the hypnotized are worthless is not viable. The policies are popular, we need to reach those who would benefit on a broad scale before 2060.

    • sotimely
      1·
      1 year ago

      If your idea is to try to reach the over 40s, I think it’s a fine goal. The more the merrier.

      Old people I know, they are incredibly turned off by stressful dramatic media. They avoid it. So I would start by studying what media they do consume. What flavors make the medicine go down? For example we might find that a morning news vibe that is 90% upbeat optimism is necessary to build trust and a context where ”bad news” e.g. about climate isn’t a dealbreaker. Or, we might find that tv shows, films, etc. are more important. In that case it comes down to writing rooms and gatekeepers (or more independent media breaking through?).

      Also let’s not forget history. There must be past examples of what leads enough of a population to see what is really happening and reject the misleading frameworks that keep people blaming themselves and eachother for what is really systematic.

      I don’t know what to think about PR which is what I think you are talking about. I am so sick of slimy overly-clever attempts at ”better messaging.”