socialist
Article
socialist is a recurring concept in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between May 12, 2021 and October 10, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as “campaign as a socialist”; “like Marxist, socialist, anticapitalist, far-leftist, Maoist, etc”. It most often appears alongside 1950s, 1950s American consensus, 1990s.
Metadata
- Category: Concepts
- Mention count: 2
- Issue count: 2
- First seen: May 12, 2021
- Last seen: October 10, 2025
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- 1950s (1 shared issues)
-
- 1950s American consensus (1 shared issues)
-
- 1990s (1 shared issues)
-
- America (1 shared issues)
-
- Andrew Jackson (1 shared issues)
-
- anticapitalist (1 shared issues)
-
- atheism (1 shared issues)
-
- barberpole model of fashion (1 shared issues)
-
- cancel culture (1 shared issues)
-
- Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (1 shared issues)
-
- Chavez (1 shared issues)
-
- CHAZ (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
If cancel culture is the equivalent of the 1950s American consensus, we should remember the fact that that consensus eventually failed. You’re now allowed to promote gay rights, cite scientific research showing marijuana isn't a deadly poison, campaign as a socialist, et cetera.
Few people use fascism in a purely innocent denotative way; if they did, it would serve their purposes equally well to replace it with a synonym (like “far-right nationalist authoritarian corporatist”) or even a more specific subvariety (like “Francoist”). But it wouldn’t serve Gavin Newsom’s purpose to call Stephen Miller a far-right nationalist authoritarian corporatist, because Gavin Newsom specifically cares about the negative connotation of “fascist”, rather than its meaning. I trust he’s relying on some sort of weaker negative connotation, like “far-right nationalist etc who is a bad person”, rather than going all the way to “far-right nationalist etc who it’s acceptable to kill” - but it’s connotations all the way down. This isn’t necessarily bad - maybe you need some connotations to make a rhetorical case exciting enough to influence anyone besides a few political philosophers. But against this, most people who say “communist” would be happy enough to replace it with some applicable superset/subset/near-synonym, like Marxist, socialist, anticapitalist, far-leftist, Maoist, etc - and people seem to argue against communism just fine.