Born-again semantics

Good question, what is socialism?…we just linked to an article on the chinese treatment of the uighurs and that in the name of communism, evidently.

Naive marxists seem not to realize the impression they give in sharing a common terminology and ideology as thy promote their subject in the abstract. Issues they would disavow in a second nontheless stick to their promotion of a ‘common’ set of themes on the left. The result is the stalled public image and promotion of a reasonable socialist theme to a paranoid public that will likely undergo surveillance as a result of minimal interaction.
It is an elementary mistake by leftists and the danger doesn’t seem to sink in.
We have always demanded disassociation with the old left and its bolshevik legacy. You can try, probably in vain, to distance marx and his theories here, but it doesn’t work on the whole. Use marx historically, but then move on. The whole subject is passing into oblivion and marxists should drop the label and start over.
Our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ may itself be too connected with the past but at least ‘neo-communism’ can’t be confused with historical usage and demands a new definition from scratch. This is not the same as rejecting potential aspects of sociaism and communism, but even these labels are prone to misunderstanding. We must use them with care and declare at once their break with historical marxist ideology.

This DMNC is an at first unfamiliar set of redefinitions and most importantly can’t be rejected on the basis of historical versions now in rejection. It hasn’t been tried and has multiple checks to abuse and in fact is a far more effective starting point, etc…
We must hope that our the raw terms ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ now ‘neo-‘ are not beyond salvage…

Source: what is ‘democratic market neo-communism’…?//What is Socialism? – 1848+: The End(s) of History