The word itself, I mean.
Everything about that word is bad. To be fair, most economic words are also bad. That’s because economics is a flawed theoretical art form struggling to account for human motivation inside a relatively short history of large societies with increasingly fast changes to behavior due to new technology. But we present and herald economics as a science, so people believe it’s conclusions unquestioningly.
But the word “socialism” is especially bad. It’s ill-defined, so it’s inevitably misunderstood no matter the context. Does America have some socialism now? Are socialism and communism the same thing? Isn’t socialism a replacement for capitalism? Haven’t lots of countries with socialism collapsed?
Look at these two articles, both on Investopedia, which somehow define “socialism” completely differently: Socialism vs Communism says it’s “a vast swath of the political spectrum” between communism and capitalism, but Socialism vs Capitalism says “the extremes of capitalism and socialism” are opposite ends on the spectrum).
“Socialism” also has preexisting prejudice working against it. There was an actual government-sanctioned witch hunt for socialists and communists in the 1950s. Socialism is hated by a generation whose parents fought a National Socialist German Workers’ Party to stop atrocities and save the world. The next generation then grew up during one of the most tense periods on Earth, where the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse triggered by the communists/socialists penetrated daily life.
Because there are so many ways to interpret the word, “socialism” is wielded both as a proudly waving flag by those rallying like-minded people to their cause, and as a vicious slur denouncing disastrous policies from misguided candidates by others.
Unfortunately, I have bad news for the flag-bearers: that is the trademark sign of a bad brand. When this happens, it’s time to rebrand, which I want to talk about tomorrow.
