The strategy is clearly to soften people’s hardcore opposition to even the mere mention of socialism. This is the subtext of the exchange:
Q: By socialism, do you mean scary, evil stuff that has been the target of an unparalleled anticommunist propaganda machine for decades? Please say yes; doing so is one of the few things that could end your political career.
A: Haha fuck off with the bait, I’m talking about stuff people generally view positively, especially when it comes to socialized healthcare, because, you know, healthcare is currently the biggest entrypoint into leftism.
I don’t know what power level she’s hiding, but it doesn’t really matter. The intent is good, and the answer does more to advance us towards socialism than a discussion of how to classify the Soviet or Cuban government.
Its true that it softens peoples opinion of the word Socialism, but it does so by changing its meaning.
So what does that leave us with? More people becoming open to learning about Marxism, or a surplus of liberals and social chauvinists calling themselves Socialists?
I don’t think it changes its meaning so much as it erases preconceived opposition rooted in decades of anticommunist propaganda. That makes it easier to educate people on what socialism actually is, because starting from a roughly blank slate is better than starting with dug-in opposition.
Say you want to convince Jimmy that basketball is fun and good. He knows nothing about basketball, but his entire life he’s been subjected to a media environment telling him basketball is dangerous, unfun, and no one gets laid if they play it. You try to talk to him about what basketball actually is, but his response is “nah, fuck basketball, I don’t even want to hear it.”
But a few years pass and the media environment changes to where people call damn near anything basketball. Jimmy, not actually knowing what basketball is, now hears about it all the time – often positively, if inaccurately – and his hardline opposition to even the concept of basketball changes to “hell, they’ll call anything basketball these days.” Now if you try to talk to him, you aren’t going to get that immediate, visceral opposition, and he might listen a bit if he likes you and thinks you might have some clarifying information.
I never really understand this strategy because we’re going to get called socialists anyway so long as we’re not ardent, steel eyed Republican voters with American flag tattoos on our foreheads. The strategy has confusing results too because now libs I know are referring to Kamala Harris, with praise, as a socialist.
If that’s the case, what would be more important is advancing and focusing on class politics regardless of the terms involved. The subtext I get out of what she said is a “no, don’t worry. We’re not scary. I’m a good liberal.” It’s being backed into a corner. She could have easily said that what she regards as socialism is what promotes the interests of the working class above other concerns or what other countries are doing or have done.
libs I know are referring to Kamala Harris, with praise, as a socialist.
What fucking libs do you know?
The idea is that people will be more willing to seriously consider socialism if they don’t turn their brains off as soon as the word is mentioned.
She could have easily said that what she regards as socialism is what promotes the interests of the working class above other concerns or what other countries are doing or have done.
This would have been a good answer, too, but the answer she gave (1) responds to the part of the question about which countries she wants to emulate, and (2) is in a broader context of pointing to stuff like Britain’s NHS as a superior healthcare model.
