The concept of "socialism" is antagonistic.

In my experience, almost everywhere in the U.S. except for academia, so-called "Socialists" wield the word "socialism" as synonymous with symbiosis. Symbiosis is a description of the definite and inevitable state of the world and everything in it. Socialism is not that.

I believe that, in today's United States, self-proclaimed and/or vocal "Socialists" (as well as proud Trump Supporters, Libertarians, and Moderates alike) almost never actually reveal their true particular political persuasions. However, they almost always reveal their particular brand of vocabulary. In fact, identifying oneself as ideologically affiliated with any political party does nothing more than provide information about how that person internally defines the words he or she uses.

This essay is about the power of words. I am using the word "Socialism" to demonstrate the power of that and all other words.

My claim is this:

If a critical mass of voting citizens in society change their typical and colloquial use of the word "socialism," all citizens in society will have more productive discussions about how the current society's political processes are, can, and should be used and developed.

To explain why I think this way, I'll begin with an Abstract Notion, which I will then refine using brief analogies and examples into a concrete answer that explains why I wrote, "The concept of 'socialism' is antagonistic."
The Abstract Notion (hyperlinked): Canadian Trade Commissioner Service: Guide to Business Etiquette in China.
Chinese business etiquette (and Chinese society more broadly) involves the practice of a philosophical approach called Guanxi. Guanxi (Google it yourself; or here's a link to Wiki) is too complex to detail here, but I draw attention to Guanxi mainly to emphasize the breadth, complexity, and diversity of ideological belief systems that fundamentally rely on human interdependence (in 2016, China's population was 1.3 billion - talk about interdependence).

I offer the link to the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service's materials on Chinese business relations because I think providing a hyperlink promotes curiosity and self-help research skills. In plain writing, the Abstract Notion is this: stating that human interdependence and cooperation among individuals with differing values and beliefs constitute a particular ideology that is better than any alternative ideology is a Hobbesian Trap (Wiki). Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with federal parliamentary administration. China is a Communist party-led state. These Nation-States are interdependent and cooperate because Canadian and Chinese individuals are interdependent and cooperate. The hyperlinked materials are evidence of symbiosis; they provide no evidence as to which governmental solution is "better."

Calling out symbiotic behavior describes the state of the world but says nothing about how the world should be. Too many people too often use the word "socialism" as a synonym, or antonym, for symbiotic behavior (I'm as guilty of this as anyone, by the way). I believe this persistent misidentification of "socialism" is deeply problematic and has delayed the forward progression of society in the U.S. and globally.

As opposed to Western business ideology (and perhaps the Manifest Destiny strain/system of values), Guanxi is transparent about the degree to which "who you know" affects societal outcomes. Eastern business ideology appreciates what, for the purposes of this essay, I'll call the "Root System" of the economic landscape. By contrast, Western business ideology appreciates the economic landscape itself.

The Root System is the network of connections that the people in one's immediate friend group have with other individuals outside the group.

By analogy, if you are a tree and your roots are your immediate connections (e.g., the group of less than 150 people to whom you give personal preference above others), the Root System pertains to the connections your roots make with the roots of other trees or plants. Background Info: The roots of plants (including trees) connect to and communicate with other plants (even entirely different species) by and through networks of fungus.

The point of that analogy is to emphasize the preeminence of the Root System (my term) in American society and, really, among all people in the world.

Socialism in the United States (… or maybe chiefly among Millenials in the U.S.?…) reflects that in order to preserve the forest, we must chop down the large trees because they are using too many of the forest's resources; we must preserve and heal the trees that are diseased or damaged.

The antagonistic slant inherent in that definition of Socialism is apparent in its failure to appreciate that (returning to the tree analogy) the mycelia - that is, the network of fungal strands connecting the roots of the plants in the forest - is both the problem and the solution. Socialists ignore the Root System's existence, or worse, demonize it.

The problem is not that some trees are too big, or that some trees are sick. The problem, as with a vast number of societal problems, stems from miscommunication among the mycelia. Problems arise when the Root System is unable to cooperate in certain respects (i.e., toward the "best" or "most efficient" use of resources possible).

My argument here is in favor of colloquially redefining the word "socialism" (and perhaps the core tenants of today's American "Socialist" movement) because Western and Eastern ideologies have been awkwardly and desperately attempting to merge for far too long.

I suspect that one extremely relevant and important driver of social change in America is the ideological merging of Guanxi and American (Millenial) Socialism. American Socialists are, unfortunately, resisting this merge.

American "Socialism" is antagonistic because, practically speaking, I believe the general hierarchy of values (as self-identified American Socialists have represented those values to me) is mostly antithetical to human interdependence. This brand of socialism fails to consider or include as a fundamental (albeit informal) tenet the method by which value is created in society.

To be clear, this is very distinct from Guanxi, which appreciates exactly how value is created. Guanxi recognizes that the creation of relationships is precisely the creation of value. The relationship itself is the value. Therefore, the Eastern answer to "how" to create value is, plainly, "create and foster relationships." American Socialism, unfortunately, does not ask the question of "how?"and therefore the ideology suffers from an inability to define intrinsic cultural value and solve problems.

My Solution:

American Socialists and, frankly, anyone else who identifies or takes pride in actively not identifying himself or herself politically, should do the following:

1. Ask "What/When/Where-Heavy" questions of people with whom you agree.
2. Ask "Who-Heavy" questions of people with whom you disagree.
3. Provide "Why-Heavy" answers to people with whom you agree.
4. Provide "How-Heavy" answers to people with whom you disagree.

Briefly, an example of a "What/When/Where-Heavy" question is, "Are you going to the protest today?" A What/When/Where-Heavy question does not begin with the words "what," "where," or "when." Instead, this kind of question provides information about at least two of the What/Where/When variables. In the example, "the protest" is the Where and "today" is the When. Specifically, the question is therefore a "What-Heavy" question because it seeks information about what you are planning on doing today.

A "Who-Heavy" question is one that asks for information about multiple specifically identifiable individuals, but that does not begin with the word "who." For example, "What do you and your best friend think about what the President said today?" This is a Who-Heavy question because it asks about you and your friend, as opposed to only asking about you.
"Why-Heavy" and "How-Heavy" answers are just answers that include two or more distinct uses of the word "because." For example, a Why-Heavy answer to the Who-Heavy question above might be, "I don't know what my best friend thinks BECAUSE I haven't spoken with him today, but I didn't like what the President said BECAUSE I didn't like his tone when he said it."

The concept of "socialism" is antagonistic because,
conceptually, it provides only What/Where/Who/When answers. For instance, "We ought to increase taxes . . ." (What) " . . . in California . . ." (Where) " . . . on people who earn too much money . . ." (Who) " . . . immediately." (When). This approach to problem-solving inspires hostility.

Instead, I might suggest reframing the statement as,
"In order to reduce crime in low-income neighborhoods . . ." (Why) " . . . we ought to demand that cities pay perpetually unemployed citizens to patrol those neighborhoods and alert police officers whenever they notice criminal activity occurring." (How).

Then, hopefully, productive and cordial debate will follow.