. . . It is high time to discard, once and for all, these most harmful illusions about the possibility of unity or peace with the Dittmanns and the Crispiens, with the Right wing of the German Independent Social-Democratic Party, the British Independent Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, etc. It is high time for all revolutionary workers to purge their parties of these trends, and form genuinely united Communist parties of the proletariat.. . . which makes clear that Lennin applied the term "right wing" to other socialists who were not sufficently militant.
September 24, 1920
And as Hayek bemoans in a preface to later editions of his classic The Road to Serfdom, American usage of the word "liberal" means "very nearly the opposite" of what Hayek meant, writing in Britain. That, to my understanding, is because the brand name "socialism" didn't sell in America as it did in Europe, so the socialists rebranded themselves "liberals"--thereby taking from those of us whom Americans now call "conservatives" what Hayek called "a nearly indispensible word."
"Liberal" socialists and "conservative" advocates of freedom to change are really a singular American confusion. And the confusion of "right wing" versions of socialism with--of all things--American traditions of freedom, is of a piece with that. And no accident. Indeed the very root "social" in "socialism" is deceitful; socialists systematically conflate "society" with "government." They do so because "society" is a nice, cooperative word whereas "government"--their actual intent--is coersion. And they do it so unremittingly that we have learned to check our wallets whenever we hear the word "social." Notwithstanding the fact that social interaction--e.g., free markets--is what we stand for. But they have essentially evicerated the word.
Such systematic confusion betrays the existence of a systematic effort to control the language and thus to control thought--that is, Newspeak. The natural question is, "How could Newspeak possibly be instituted in free America?" I believe that I am converging on the answer in this FR thread. A sort of conspiracy, actually driven by obvious commercial incentives, operates in plain sight in journalism. Anyone with one eye open has seen it, but (surprise!) it is hard to give it a name.