In today’s episode of The Rule of Law Brief, I break down a problem that has infected American political debate for decades: the rampant misuse of the words “communism” and “socialism.”

We start with the actual Merriam-Webster definitions—not the pop-culture ones, not the partisan caricatures, but the authoritative economic and political meanings of these terms. From there, we examine how the modern political right routinely collapses “socialism” and “communism” into a vague accusation of authoritarianism, borrowing imagery from the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China while ignoring what those terms actually describe.

Then we turn to the political left, which has increasingly embraced the label “socialist” even when the policies they advocate—universal healthcare, tuition-free college, market regulation, and a stronger social safety net—have nothing to do with collective ownership of the means of production. In reality, most of these policies fall squarely under the Merriam-Webster definition of government, not socialism.

The result? Two sides talking past each other, armed with terms they do not understand, generating polarization instead of clarity.

If we want real solutions—on regulation, on public spending, on the balance between market freedom and public welfare—we need precision, not slogans. Because words matter, and sloppy language produces sloppy thinking.

If you value clear thinking, accurate terminology, and serious analysis of how political rhetoric shapes public policy, subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief. You’ll get grounded, evidence-based commentary that cuts through the noise and keeps our democratic discourse honest.

Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe