Yesterday, I wrote about how terrible the word “socialism” is for advancing change. It’s misunderstood because it’s an ill-defined economic term, it has massive baggage from generations of prejudice against it, and it’s used as both a positive self-identifier and a negative slur.
Sometimes, the correct strategy when a word has such different interpretations is to “take it back” by using it even more boldly. This is the strategy currently embraced by groups like the Democratic Socialists in America, but it has worked very rarely throughout the years, and even those cases have had some mixed results. As a pragmatist, I cannot recommend that route here, at least not until the prejudiced generations are extinct.
Part of the problem is that “socialism” got a bad rap because it was presented in complete opposition to American beliefs and our successful system of a capitalist economy. The brand marketing (read: propaganda) for capitalism was so good, that it built an emotional barrier to rational evaluation. After all, any economist will tell you that America does not have pure market capitalism, because that would probably be known as “anarchy.”
Not to get too far into rational facts, because I’m going to argue making emotionally-driven decisions below, but here’s a three bullet summary on the spectrum of economic government systems according to economics:
- Communism is a “command economy,” where the government makes almost all decisions about commerce and owns all of the businesses and land that comprise the “means of production.”
- Capitalism is a “market economy,” where the government makes very few decisions about commerce and doesn’t own any businesses or land that comprise the “means of production.”
- Socialism is the entire spectrum of the “mixed economy” between communism and capitalism. The government makes some portion of decisions about commerce, like regulations and taxes to protect the common good. The government owns some “means of production” too, like it does with the post office, state lotteries, federal prison labor, and 28% of American land.
In summary, according to economic definitions, America is already a socialist “mixed economy.” Every citizen, except for the anarchists, is a card-carrying socialist.
But the reality is that most people don’t think so. “America is the poster child of capitalism,” they’ll say. “Capitalists don’t do socialism! That’s un-American!” Even the supporters of socialism will tell you they are opposed to capitalism.
And they are all right.
See, words are defined by the society that uses them. Just because economists want “socialism” to mean “mixed economy” does not make it so. Case in point: “Literally” had to be amended in the dictionary with a definition of it’s complete opposite, because English-speakers used it so commonly in place of “figuratively.”
Therefore, socialism is the opposite of capitalism now. The spectrum above needs to be replaced with one that has socialism and capitalism at either end. All of the previously-defined socialist policies worth fighting for lie in the middle, somewhere along that spectrum.
So what do we call the ideas that actual Democratic Socialists, like Bernie Sanders, propose? My belief is that the war for the meaning of the word “socialism” is not one worth fighting. It’s time to rebrand the ideas behind “socialism” to make them more palatable. Let’s fly a new flag, with a better name and a compelling way for even more people to identify with it.
I briefly majored in economics, and have been more and more of a marketer as my life has gone on. Hopefully, I learned a few things along the way. Given that, here is my suggestion: What used to be “socialism” and its foundations will hereafter be referred to as “common sense policies.”
Common sense is one of the most positive terms in the American lexicon. It simultaneously invites participation (“well yeah, I have common sense”), frames opposition as irrational (“universal healthcare is just common sense, how do you not get this?”), and encourages rationalization of all ideas (“this is a common sense policy because…”).
What’s funny is that common sense is neither common nor sense as defined. But as we saw, that doesn’t matter. What matters is how the society defines it through use. So common sense means “easily understood ideas with simple rationalization based on simple evidence.”
It’s a powerful brand. Unfortunately, I doubt Democratic Socialists will ever abandon their name; they have been fighting this fight for too long to back down now. And they are making some progress on public perception finally, so maybe they can actually turn it around. Regrettably, I think they might only succeed among the periphery of their ranks, which doesn’t solve the issue of derogatory connotation from left or right-wing opponents.
When our society is ready, lots of people will flock to the socialism flag. Until then, let’s perform the generous act of marketing our solutions to widespread problems in a way that allows more people to embrace and support them.
It’s just common sense.
