How come progressive leftists are scared of the word "communism" and "socialism"?

[MarxistWorld]

I have a question, I would like to know how come many leaders of the progressive liberal left like Amy Goodman, David Pakman, Thom Hartman and others are so reluctant to use the words socialism and communism? Because the other day there was a progressive activist in the David Pakman show on the alternative TV channel, Free Speech TV, claiming that he is in favor of economic equality, but that he didn't like to call economic equality "socialism", because he comes from a family of small business owners.

Are progressive activists scared of being harassed by their own friends if they use the words "socialism" and "communism"?

[OGG]

Has to do with the fact that they are liberals and the red scares of the 20th century.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Progressives do not support socialism or communism. Historically, progressives have been major opponents of left-wing movements, especially in the United States. The First Red Scare, a significant repression of leftists, occurred under the progressive president Woodrow Wilson.

See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

Progressives support capitalism but want to see it tempered by regulations, some forms of social insurance, universal health care, and various methods to make inequality less egregious (such as higher taxes on the wealthy). But ultimately, they still support capitalism. This is to be expected as much of the leadership of the progressive movement comes from the petite bourgeoisie. David Pakman is a good example of this.

EDIT: Also, I would add that progressives are very sensitive about appearing too extreme, so they have to constantly remind everyone that they are not socialists or communists to avoid those labels that conservatives regularly attach to them to make them seem more extreme than the actually are. This is why you see so much emphasis on "reasonableness" among progressives. Its the smug "smart guy" attitude that they use to deflect criticism from the Right that they are extreme. Progressives pose as the "good managers" of capitalism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The people you listed are not activists, they are careerists. They make money by selling books, articles, speaking engagements etc. to as wide an audience as possible, declaring themselves communists would shrink that audience by a great deal, and would of course require them to not be a bunch of cynical dried up assholes.

You ever notice how the windbags on right wing radio shows talk their listeners into hoarding shitloads of guns and building bunkers to face off against the feds, while never actually leaving their cushy studios themselves? These people are the left wing version of that.

[Bala Perdida]

They are not communists or socialists, and they probably hate communists and socialists. Basically what everyone else said. Except for one thing. That person on the Pac-man show was right to stray away from socialism. 'Economic equality' is another liberal hymn to make themselves look cool. Socialism, on the other hand, is the abolition of all private property. So that means that that person, and all their terrible family, will loose their precious businesses.

[consuming negativity]

claiming that he is in favor of economic equality, but that he didn't like to call economic equality "socialism", because he comes from a family of small business owners.

you sorta answered your own question here, really. business owners are a lot less likely to see an end to capitalism as in their own best interests.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Oddly enough, "progressive" is a term adopted by people on the bourgeois pseudo-left ('centre-right') who want to appear forward-thinking while actually being conservative for all intents and purposes. Hell, there are self-styled "Progressive Conservatives"! Hillary Clinton has even shunned the term "liberal" in favour of "progressive".

Capitalists and bourgeois politicians are emboldened and pushing hard to undermine hard-won reforms. It is conservatives who are intransigent, and the 'left' of capital who are being dragged along with them rather than taking a critical look at the institutions and system into which they are embedded. In short, it's only the radical left that can (/must) be intransigent in the face of a rightward shift of bourgeois politics. The reformist pseudo-left must 'compromise' by being dragged along with the conservatives, lest they be forced to admit the irreconcilability of capitalism with working class interests. That admission would necessarily undermine their reformist position.

[MarxistWorld]

Piccolo: Thanks a lot for your clear-cut answer. I would like to add, that maybe another reason of why most intellectuals, leaders and popular famous people of the progressive left (Like Sean Penn, Bernie Sanders, Oliver Stone, Chris Hedges, Michael Parenti, Ralph Nader, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Jeremy Scahill, Naomi Klein etc) do not use the words "communism", "socialism", "dictatorship of the proletariat" and other radical leftist words, is that most of those people are members of the upper middle class, and many of them work for corporations, and most people in this world (including intellectuals) are not 100% free thinkers. For example Michael Moore, cannot just one day wake up and decide to be a marxist, because he would be psychologically trashed by the people of his own economic and social class. Most people are slaves to the society, to the peer pressure and to the economic and social class in which they live



Progressives do not support socialism or communism. Historically, progressives have been major opponents of left-wing movements, especially in the United States. The First Red Scare, a significant repression of leftists, occurred under the progressive president Woodrow Wilson.

See:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

Progressives support capitalism but want to see it tempered by regulations, some forms of social insurance, universal health care, and various methods to make inequality less egregious (such as higher taxes on the wealthy). But ultimately, they still support capitalism. This is to be expected as much of the leadership of the progressive movement comes from the petite bourgeoisie. David Pakman is a good example of this.

EDIT: Also, I would add that progressives are very sensitive about appearing too extreme, so they have to constantly remind everyone that they are not socialists or communists to avoid those labels that conservatives regularly attach to them to make them seem more extreme than the actually are. This is why you see so much emphasis on "reasonableness" among progressives. Its the smug "smart guy" attitude that they use to deflect criticism from the Right that they are extreme. Progressives pose as the "good managers" of capitalism.