"Appropriation" of the term "socialism" by liberals

[p0is0n]

Hello everyone,

As I'm sure the American users are now painfully aware, as of late, especially with the growth in popularity of Bernie Sanders, liberals have begun to "appropriate" socialism, making the arguments that democratic socialism is not Marxist socialism, that socialism =/= communism (implying that socialism is an entirely different school of thought than communism), that socialism is equal to, practically, social democracy or social liberalism, &c.

I was hoping to start a discussion on what people here think about the liberal "appropriation" of the term socialism, particularly as of late with Bernie Sanders and the whole "Democratic Socialism" thing, and what, if anything at all, should be done? What, if anything, should our position be? How does one approach criticism of this absurdity? Could this poison and liberalize expressions of rising class consciousness, drawing individuals approaching class consciousness from revolutionary alternatives to liberal ones with "appropriated" rhetoric? &c.

[BIXX]

Who cares? Why does it matter what words liberals use? What does it matter whether they take a word? The word isn't what defines the destruction of capitalism.

[RedSonRising]

I think it's best to simply correct the use of the term where possible, say it's really social democracy/a welfare state, and recognize that would still greatly enhance the quality of life for the working class (and possibly even class consciousness), but it's not a substantive transformation of the class structure, and if it fails to take hold it will ultimately be because of the ruling class's remaining position in power.

I think the public use of the word, while incorrect, is still useful in starting a conversation. Which in the US is needed. The symptoms targeted by Sanders, a self-described "socialist", are rallying formerly apathetic, apolitical, or vaguely liberal young people to think about fundamental issues in our society. Income inequality, the lack of access to healthcare and education, the prison-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex...these are things that, when traced to their root by a critical Bernie fan, can make a new revolutionary socialist.

I certainly wouldn't say the use word doesn't matter at all.

[Tim Cornelis]

Socialism was appropriated by Marxists from the bourgeois working class movement. Hence, why Marx and Engels spoke of three categories within socialism: democratic socialism, reactionary socialism, conservative socialism around 1850. Communism was seen as being outside the socialist movement. Why would we have a right on the monopoly on the word socialism if our movement appropriated it in the first place! That's utterly backwards.

[Hatshepsut]

... and what, if anything at all, should be done?

Given that Obama has been considered a socialist ever since he said “Yes we can,” patriotic flag on his lapel and in the big O on his campaign posters, we might wonder how Bernie’s escaped arrest as a pinko spy for so long! Apparently Genghis Khan had socialist leanings as well. Regarding perverse phenomena of this nature within the bourgeois democratic state and its hordes of counterterrorist agents, Vladimer Lenin asked the same question you do:


It cannot be too strongly maintained that this is still not Social-Democracy, that the Social-Democrat’s ideal should not be the trade union secretary, but the tribune of the people...who is able to generalise all these manifestations and produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; who is able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to set forth before all his socialist convictions and his democratic demands, in order to clarify for all and everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Lenin, 1902. What is to be done? p. 51
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf

[Spectre of Spartacism]

I think the topic is an interesting one, and not because anybody has a trademark on the word. It has to do with the way that political power has linguistic dimensions.

For people on the board who are politically active in real life, one thing that you may have encountered is that when you self-describe as a socialist, people will just assume you mean social-democrat and that your political strategy is to use the parliament to the nationalize a few of the basic industries to create a smoother capitalism. Try to correct this by self-identifying as a communist, and people will assume you are a Stalinist or Castroist.

These labels carry a lot of baggage because of the way culture and the ruling ideas are shaped by the ruling class. Presenting your ideas is difficult because there are misconceptions you have to debunk about definitions and history even before you get down to brass tacks. That is why I think it is important.

[Sewer Socialist]

If we're going to argue for a strict definition of "socialist," we should use a strict definition of "liberal" as well. Social democracy, the welfare state, etc. are not really liberalism in a strict usage of the word.

It's really quite confusing what people mean by the word liberal, even more than the term "socialist". On the radio today, I hear the host refer to the "liberal wing" of the Democratic Party, and I wasn't sure if that referred to the left wing of it or the right wing of it.

[p0is0n]

Who cares? Why does it matter what words liberals use? What does it matter whether they take a word? The word isn't what defines the destruction of capitalism.
I agree that it certainly doesn't define the destruction of capitalism, but do you think that said "appropriation" might, as I wrote, liberalize expressions of class consciousness by drawing individuals into the camp of "reasonableness" under the scope of being a new and fresh alternative?


Socialism was appropriated by Marxists from the bourgeois working class movement. Hence, why Marx and Engels spoke of three categories within socialism: democratic socialism, reactionary socialism, conservative socialism around 1850. Communism was seen as being outside the socialist movement. Why would we have a right on the monopoly on the word socialism if our movement appropriated it in the first place! That's utterly backwards.

Thank you for your thoughts, would you say that there is a meaningful distinction between socialism and communism today (ignoring inter-marxist disagreements)? And I'll ask the same of you as I asked of Bixx, do you think that said "appropriation" might liberalize rising class consciousness?

Thanks everyone for your input.

[Guardia Rossa]

Historically they are correct. Socialism both means all the revolutionary left ideologies and any ideology that is anti-capitalist, in any way the word can be used. That includes "Bourgeois Socialism", "Reactionary Socialism", etc...

[RedWorker]

Socialism was appropriated by Marxists from the bourgeois working class movement. Hence, why Marx and Engels spoke of three categories within socialism: democratic socialism, reactionary socialism, conservative socialism around 1850. Communism was seen as being outside the socialist movement. Why would we have a right on the monopoly on the word socialism if our movement appropriated it in the first place! That's utterly backwards.

I am entirely sympathetic to the sentiment behind this. Too much talk about "what is true socialism", and the definitions of words have started to replace real arguments. Zapatero may be a 'socialist' by some definition - who cares? Maybe Nazism would be 'socialist' under some definition, too - certainly it would not be far away from the "Reactionary Socialism" and "True Socialism" described by K. Marx and F. Engels. And this is also why I am against the Trotskyist position of basing discourse on throwing out the 'socialist' word and arguing about definitions everywhere, as well as against many other positions on this issue. But also against the position of refusing to engage with the terminology entirely.

[QueerVanguard]

liberal turds have been using the word socialism to describe their shit policies forever. read the manifesto.

[Sewer Socialist]

Historically they are correct. Socialism both means all the revolutionary left ideologies and any ideology that is anti-capitalist, in any way the word can be used. That includes "Bourgeois Socialism", "Reactionary Socialism", etc...

I agree that with Marxists jumping on the "socialism" train, it's hard to kick off groups which were using the word before Marxists did.

But what does this mean for the more timid "socialists"? Given the analysis of capitalism outlined in Capital, can there be capitalist socialists?

Does the "mixed economy" then exist in theory, albeit a misused term?

[ComradeAllende]

As I'm sure the American users are now painfully aware, as of late, especially with the growth in popularity of Bernie Sanders, liberals have begun to "appropriate" socialism, making the arguments that democratic socialism is not Marxist socialism, that socialism =/= communism (implying that socialism is an entirely different school of thought than communism), that socialism is equal to, practically, social democracy or social liberalism, &c...

I don't know if this is a purely American argument; after all, a lot of the "socialist" parties in Western Europe argue for what is essentially "managed state capitalism", where state power is used to preserve some standard of living for workers and the poor while maintaining and preserving the capitalist economy. I think it might be a step in the right direction, mainly because it detoxifies the word "socialism", but I think it will only prove fruitful for the socialist/communist cause if we can sever the link between socialism (and social democracy) and social liberalism, which are two completely different strains of thinking but are technically the same in terms of American political discourse. Then again, this may just "elevate" American political economy to the more social-democratic level of Western Europe; it may be an improvement, but it must be sustained by momentum if it is to challenge the hegemony of capitalism.

Who cares? Why does it matter what words liberals use? What does it matter whether they take a word? The word isn't what defines the destruction of capitalism.

Words don't "define" capitalism's destruction, but they do describe it. If we let every quack refer to his political philosophy as "socialism", then the word loses its meaning and our entire movement is damaged. We have enough trouble already telling people that we don't all worship Josef Stalin or Pol Pot (which is one reason why I envy all you anarchists ;)); imagine trying to deal with people equating Rosa Luxemburg and Eugene V. Debs to Hitler. I'm not saying Marxists should monopolize the word, but that we engage with these "socialists" and try to persuade them that there is a much richer and more satisfying association with the idea than just state-ownership of industries and an expansive welfare state.

I agree that with Marxists jumping on the "socialism" train, it's hard to kick off groups which were using the word before Marxists did.
But what does this mean for the more timid "socialists"? Given the analysis of capitalism outlined in Capital, can there be capitalist socialists?
Does the "mixed economy" then exist in theory, albeit a misused term?

The "mixed economy" only makes sense if you believe that "socialism" is the state-ownership of (some) industries and provision of welfare and services. From a Marxist (or similarly revolutionary) perspective, a "mixed economy" would refer to a combination of worker-controlled cooperatives and private/state-run enterprises (like Mondragon and the Tennessee Valley Authority). Here in the US, the "mixed economy" has more to do with welfare services (except for healthcare/health insurance) than with actual state-run industries (apparently state bureaucrats giving away food is the same as state bureaucrats running McDonald's lol).

[Sewer Socialist]

The "mixed economy" only makes sense if you believe that "socialism" is the state-ownership of (some) industries and provision of welfare and services. From a Marxist (or similarly revolutionary) perspective, a "mixed economy" would refer to a combination of worker-controlled cooperatives and private/state-run enterprises (like Mondragon and the Tennessee Valley Authority). Here in the US, the "mixed economy" has more to do with welfare services (except for healthcare/health insurance) than with actual state-run industries (apparently state bureaucrats giving away food is the same as state bureaucrats running McDonald's lol).

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. That is a logical conclusion of the Marxist analysis of capitalism and accepting that there is not a monopoly by Marxists on the term "socialism".