Speaking from the left one is nonetheless aware of the complete dissociation of the general public on issues with the label ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’. These terms have lost a number of semantic wars to the general discredit of their implications, or so it seems. The problem is almost transparent: they are indicted in all the problems of bolshevism.
In fact their period of exile is coming to an end, but it is nonetheless essential to create a complete break with the past and to not let an overlap with the past give critics grounds for complete rejection of possible resurrected terminology referring to something that has moved on from marxist frozen brain syndrome. In fact the worst offenders here are indeed the marxist legacy diehards who defend every tenet of Marx to the end, speak in hushed tones of Lenin, and more often than not consider Trotsky the great liberator beyond Stalin.
Time to forget all that! If the left wishes to talk with a new generation it must, and if it uses the terms communism or socialism at all it must be in a new semantics and definitional restart.
Unfortunately marxists get stubborn here and go out of their way to antagonize a new generation with the whole litany of cliches, oblivious to the fact that their classic usage refers to historical failure and much that the public rejects out of hand. And that is beset with the obsession to regurgitate Marx’s failed theories and/or Lenin’s ‘revolution’ and/or Che Guevara/Castro, Trotsky as if they were off the shelf templates for the future. They are not.
Time to drop all of it and regenerate a new, ‘clean’ terminology and recast set of terms and definitions that are independent of marxist dead hand conceptual boilerplate.
We have bypassed the term ‘socialism’ here and reinvented what we call ‘neo-communism’ and tried to define in advance for a suspicious public something we call ‘democratic market neo-communism’, making clear that this is a discussion from scratch, one that starts with a critique of the marxist/leninist nightmare.