I discuss (argue about) political issues with people on Facebook. This is my only use of Facebook, no matter the more general activity I engaged in previously. I find it a maddening experience, but I do it because of the very reason I find it frustrating. I believe it is important to respond to what I consider obvious lies and misinformation because I don’t want this content to go unchallenged or be consumed by others. Yes, this just adds to the overall time spent on this platform, benefiting the company’s finances and this poor-quality argumentation, but this is the online world as we must experience it.
One of my major annoyances at present is the use of vague labels that are deliberately applied to influence others who react emotionally and fail to recognize how they are being manipulated. More specifically, my concern is with the labels “socialism” and “communism” used to raise fear and opposition to government programs intended as a social safety net for those in need of a variety of services, including health care and basic nutrition. Aside from identifying and describing this issue here, my focus is on how I think it could be addressed in a more honest and fair way.
The situation
Right-wing commenters frequently brand progressive policies, politicians, and cultural shifts as “communist” or “socialist.” From critiques of wealth redistribution and expansive government programs to attacks on identity politics and speech regulations, the term appears regularly on platforms like X, Facebook, and Reddit. The question is whether this reflects a precise understanding of the ideology or serves as loose, inflammatory rhetoric that weakens meaningful discourse.
Right-wing social media users often apply the label when they see a wide variety of government programs. Examples include calls for heavy wealth taxes, government-directed industrial policy, expansive welfare programs that they see as discouraging personal initiative or responsibility, or cultural campaigns that frame traditional institutions, such as higher education as oppressive and biased. They argue these trends erode personal rights and free expression in ways that parallel historical communist or socialist strategies.
However, the usage frequently stretches beyond accuracy. Many right-wing posts equate standard social democratic policies—such as universal healthcare proposals, student debt relief, or environmental regulations—with communism or socialism. These overlook fundamental differences from the forms of government that have or continue to exist in countries such as Russia, China, or North Korea.
What we are now forced to deal with is a degraded public vocabulary where present labels no longer specifically denote regimes or movements committed to total state dominance. Over-application also ignores that many on the American right once supported elements of the New Deal or other interventions without becoming communists themselves.
I am not claiming progressive politicians never engage in a similar use of vague terms to attack their opponents. I simply find the labels of “socialist” and “communist” as particularly disingenuous.
A better approach for meaningful and honest debate
I am, by training and past occupation, an educational researcher. I understand that academics are often accused of using abstract terms and ways of speaking that ignore commonsense and are difficult to understand. We do use terms and ways of communicating that may be off-putting when interacting among ourselves, but this is largely about efficiency. In practice, our methods are precise and focus on clear communication.
I make these claims based on a process I will here describe as operationalization that is required in our research and communication. We also use vague labels, and it is telling that the public picks them up and throws them around. We all talk about concepts such as intelligence and motivation. The difference is that when such terms/labels are used in research activities or in the formal sharing of research results, they must be operationalized. This means the research must describe how a concept was measured or defined. Rather than just claim a study contrasts the behavior of students of high and low intelligence, we must explain how these groups were differentiated. We might say one group had a score of less than 90 on a certain intelligence test and the other group had scores above 110. The method or basis of operationalization might be challenged. Some may argue that these scores lack sensitivity to the economic conditions in which children are raised, but these critics focus on specifics rather than vague concepts.
I hope you can see where my proposal is going. When I read an online complaint about liberal socialism or communism, my immediate response is to ask what specific policies or programs the author of that post finds objectionable. Are they opposed to SNAP benefits for a single-parent family of three children with a yearly income of less than $30,000? Are you against government programs that require lettuce to be inspected for cyclosporiasis? Provide examples of socialist or communist policies of our government that you believe should be changed.
You don’t need to use the word “operationalize” when challenging someone’s use of a vague label in an inappropriate way, but you should be able to ask for examples.
