For most people, “socialism” is an unclear or even scary word. This hinders the willingness to engage with its ideas or even consider it a viable alternative to whatever we are running on now.
So, (Sunday hot take!): why not stop using the word when advocating for “socialist ideas” or the “abandonment of capitalism” etc.?
My suggestion for a new term is Capitalism 2.0; because consider the following thought process:
feudalism –› capitalism –› socialism = nooo, they gonna steal my toothbrush😭
feudalism –› capitalism –› capitalism 2.0. = omg, finally things will get better! 🥳
That framing could alleviate negative associations and misconceptions and as a result make all kinds of people more open to exploring and questioning the principles and structures that are hindering global progress.
You rename socialism to “Goodism” and then the bourgeois press presents “Goodism” as evil, and then you rename it, and then–
So, (Sunday hot take!): why not stop using the word when advocating for “socialist ideas” or the “abandonment of capitalism” etc.?
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be obtained only by forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!
The aim is to advance capitalism to its next step. I don’t see any concealing there.
For that you need to assume that communism is “the next step of capitalism” which is flat out wrong. The intent is to abolish capitalism, not develop it further. The next step of capitalism is nuclear global war and/or ecological collapse, with fascism.
I specifically said Feudalism –› Capitalism –› Socialism, which is, in my understanding, basic historical materialism. Even the communist manifesto states that “the bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part”.
I do not and never said to aim to advocate to “develop capitalism further” (or reforming it, which I suspect some might have understood from my post). I meant overcome capitalism as in transition to the next mode of production. Which, in my understanding, can only be socialism; and not the negative side effects of overstretching capitalism beyond its functional or viable lifespan. Taking offense in me calling that “advancing capitalism” is an irrelevant misunderstanding.
Lastly, this is a post in the Freechat, labeled as a Sunday hot take. It was meant as a fun thing to think about. Maybe someone can use it as a conversation starter/developer when discussing such topics with people who are unfamiliar with or opposed to anything related to socialism. But whatever i guess.
There was no offence taken, I just stated why you are wrong. The correct “next step of capitalism” is it being relegated to history books and horror movies.
We have no “Sunday hot take” tradition here, so you’ll have to excuse us for engaging with your joke as if a serious statement. With regards to “developing capitalism further”, I see no other way to interpret “taking capitalism to the next step”. Your original suggestion of “Capitalism 2.0” is already bad as others have explained better than I could, but by analogy your “next step” approach could also be applied to calling capitalism “Feudalism 2.0”. If you don’t like capitalism and want to abolish it, much like the bourgeoisie historically tried to do to European feudalism and all other social organisations that do not benefit them as a class, then taking your enemy’s name for yourself is just counterproductive. Only liberals who want to decry imperialist capitalism as “not true capitalism”, likely due to not knowing much about imperialism, call capitalism “Feudalism 2.0”.
If the USA implements central planning it should not be called “Amazon 2.0”. We are communists, some milder ones may prefer the euphemism of “socialist”, but we shouldn’t pretend we are different than what we are because our enemy has slandered us.
The intent is to fool people into supporting socialism by rebranding it; concealing our views and aims using different terminology.
It’s funny but not really useful, especially because our enemies are going to call us socialists anyway lol
Why should we let the class enemy dictate what language we can and cannot use?
if people find out that they’ve been tricked into supporting socialism, i get the feeling that it’s going to backfire really hard.
also, you’ll need to keep rebranding it every time it gets presented as evil by bougie media, as fiona said.
You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you, it was SOCIALISM all along!!!
Are you a filthy capitalism 2.0ist ?
I think when first talking to someone new about these ideas it’s good to use somewhat sanitized language, just so that they’re willing to engage and think about things for themselves, without having to worry about the anti-communist propaganda they’ve been subjected to.
However, past this very beginning stage, I see no reason to conceal. In fact, I think it’s actively harmful. A socialist movement filled with followers with no access to writers of previous socialist thinkers, no analysis of real class antagonisms, and no understanding of the necessary solution (revolution), doesn’t sound like a very effective movement.
