Neo-Socialism: An Introduction

The left-wing radicals of today call themselves by many names. From ‘leftist’, through ‘socialist’, ‘Marxist’, to ‘progressive’ and many others, the list is almost endless. From one point of view, it makes sense. Each of those terms aims to describe a slightly different set of beliefs - even if all are on the ‘left’. Such fracturing, however, prevents opponents of the radical left from being focused on who the other side is. The umbrella term ‘radical left’ is not practical outside of some limited circles on the conservative right - by now it has amassed too much adverse political baggage. It is time to find a new, more powerful descriptor.

‘Socialism’ and ‘socialist’ are likely the closest existing descriptors that we don’t want to use. In some sense, though, they are very accurate. To some extent, virtually all of today’s left is fundamentally socialist. The values encompassed by the ideology fully articulated in the 19th century are reasonably close to those held by the left in the present. Still, ‘socialist’ is not a good descriptor for our purposes.

Socialism is an old ideology. It has several centuries of history behind it. It has innumerable attempts of its implementation under its belt. It boasts an almost endless array of movements over its history that have kept emerging, advocating for it, falling off, and springing up again.

It is a fundamentally failed ideology. All attempts of its implementation in political history have resulted in catastrophes. It is an ideology that is, nevertheless, being revived over and over in the hopes of finding a way to implement it which will finally measure up to socialism’s promises.

Using the term ‘socialist’ to describe a rank-and-file member of today’s left might be fairly accurate, but at the same time, it is inadequate. Often, what it invokes are pictures of someone fighting for the right and noble thing, even if ultimately doomed to failure. This is not the picture we want our term to evoke.

My proposition is neo-socialism.

Why?

Take the two examples of using the prefix neo- that have become perhaps the most used in recent parlance - neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.

The term ‘conservatism’ evokes a traditional, good ordering of the world. It paints the picture of something solid, something safe, and something time-tested. It is a refuge to seek if one is in danger or overexposed.

By contrast, adding neo- to this term makes it instantly something else. Pictures of evil politicians and evil elites doing evil things come to mind. It represents a perversion of something that was meant to be good. Who would want to see countries bombed for flimsy reasons?

The story of ‘liberalism’ is similar. To call oneself a liberal evokes valuing individual freedoms and human rights above all. The connotations of the term involve a striving for progress - the mitigation of the negative aspects of our inherited past. It means to hope that in the future, we can achieve something better than what we have had. We can aim for the stars.

Enter the dreaded neo-liberal. Suddenly, the values of freedom and human rights have been corporatized and co-opted by nefarious big-X influences. It evokes the suspicion that those calling for more freedom only do so to have more ‘freedom to exploit’. Who would want to bring ruin to people who have done nothing wrong just for material gain?

In these two examples, neo- stands for something fundamentally bad. What might have been noble in the past is definitely not noble in its present version. It has been changed to serve nefarious purposes. The people pushing the neo-X are being dishonest. They want to trick us into supporting something that will only benefit them, by making false promises.

This principle seems to work even at the extremes. Take the mid-century Germans. The word ‘nazi’ obviously means something clearly bad. But if you add the neo-, it goes from bad to worse. Somehow, ‘neo-nazi’ pushes the original term with a poor reputation even further.

I would pose that this is because even if the original term invokes something bad, that bad thing is now dead and is only relevant in the context of the study of history. If something only exists in the past, it can’t hurt us anymore. Over time, it becomes less threatening. Take the Jacobins - no one is afraid of them now, even though they were a frenzied, murderous group.

Conversely, if something bad is neo-bad, it becomes that old, evil thing, but adapted to the modern world and the modern societal context. It is a renewed threat, more insidious in this form because it is part of the now, not the then. If the nazis tried their dated propaganda practices today, people would just laugh at them. But the neo-nazis will be well-versed in the propaganda that works now, so they could be a real danger today because they know today’s world.

It is worth reiterating that these are not the descriptions of the ideologies themselves. They are characterizations of how the terms associated with them sound and how people perceive language that is used to point to ideological concepts or groups of people.

Let us return to the term ‘socialism’. By calling themselves (or being called) ‘socialists’, they are being let off the hook. Similarly to how the term ‘nazi’ is less threatening if what it describes is something that is stuck in the past, even people who associate ‘socialism’ with ‘bad’ will be more willing to accommodate those who only appear to them as relics from the past, incapable of real, consequential action in the present. Even their opponents will be more prone to seeing them either as LARPers who are not ‘for real’, or as something almost romantic - misguided idealists from the long-gone days with a velvet veil over their eyes.

Again, by contrast, ‘neo-socialism’ has a much more insidious sound to it. It removes the ‘what is in the past stays in the past’ innocence associated with ‘socialism’. At the same time, a descriptor invoking something insidious is exactly what is needed. Socialism today is still the ideology with a potential to cause untold catastrophes in the world. This is unequivocally clear from the history of the last century and a half, whether socialism’s supporters are aware of it or not.

This still-active potential to cause staggering amounts of suffering makes it perfectly justified for opponents of socialism to try finding ways to make the adherence to it sound derogatory. Socialism’s past is, at best, on par with the tragedies of some of the worst events in the history of the world. Linguistics is a powerful weapon to use in the battle against similar tragedies happening again in the future.

The term ‘neo-socialism’ fits perfectly. It automatically features derogatory connotations, but at the same time does not constitute a slur or an insult - this is precisely the aim. What is more, it is very accurate. Although similar, neo-socialists are not ideologically identical to socialists of the 19th and 20th centuries. They are the heirs of this tradition, but some of the values and ideas have been left aside while other, new ones, have been added to it.

Many people call themselves conservatives, but hardly anyone calls themselves a neo-conservative. Many people call themselves liberals, but hardly anyone calls themselves a neo-liberal. When the term neo-socialist becomes common parlance, still hardly anyone will call themselves a neo-socialist. This does not mean the word should not be used. Quite the opposite. Such a term will be an exceptionally good weapon for any opponents of the radical left. As the left recognize very well, language is an extraordinarily powerful tool. Without a proper descriptor, you don’t know who your enemy is. Part of the innovation in Newspeak was to eliminate certain words for certain concepts altogether - with very good reason. If you cannot describe something, it is almost as if it did not exist. The left knows this, and others should too.

Let us call them what they are: neo-socialists.