And what about trying to somehow mimic the online Ron Paul campaign? Sure, the guy's run was a complete failure, but some of that can be attributed to the fact he was a truly awful candidate. He did win a lot of souls somehow.

I don't see how Ron Paul is so awful.  He seems to be a voice of reason among a lot of insanity out there, even if some of his ideas are unrealistic.

I don't think he was responsible at all for that newsletter.  Granted, a lot of conspiracists cling to him, but I think Paul has a genuine desire to reform many things that are fucked up in this country.

It can be said that anybody in the position to do so has the genuine desire to reform things that are fucked up. It is the matter of what sort of binary thought process the reformer is going through in order to determine what is "fucked up" and how it can become "better". And while a binary thought process is not a qualifier in my statement, it is generally safe to assume that those in the position to make actual reform think in such a way.

As far as Socialists needing to re-brand. I don't think entirely disagree with that statement. But, not in the sense that they have to sell themselves to the general public. The language necessary to make that happen would end up with them having a convoluted point at best, and something for the masses to further use against socialist ideas most likely. Basically, the greater majority have the power to re-brand something like socialism whenever they so desire. So, such a direct route is pretty futile imo.

I agree with dietcoke that Socialists need to be more outright with their views when possible. The best way to dissolve misinformation is to present that information clearly. Since all of this is happening on a mass-scale, it is important for those who call themselves Socialists to present themselves as such, and inform the uninformed of what that exactly means to them when chances arise. A little over a year ago I went to a Communist meeting with a friend of mine, and before I arrived I held a lot of biased thoughts on what communism was, who these people would be, and what they would expect of me. Needless to say, it was a bit surprising when the focus of conversation revolved around problems our city was facing, and the ways in which they could be addressed, or were already being addressed by them. This was around the time where I was going through transitory thought on a lot of preconceptions I had about the world, and even during this time I was unable to shake preconceived notions about communism. Since then, I've done my own reading and research and re-established my views on Socialism and Communism. The point is that I was already in a special position to be accepting of these beliefs, and put forth no effort to do so until after it was directly presented to me. How many more can achieve a greater understanding simply through a conversation at a coffee shop or bar? How many more still when an explicitly socialist party pickets in the name of better nutrition for inner city students vs their suburban counterparts?

It is not specifically the re-branding, but the presentation in general. It is a lot easier to believe that socialism/socialists should be ostracized when their presence is so nominal in the first place.

Socialism definitely needs a new branding.  Now we'll call it JesusStarbucksMcDonaldism.

ayn rand was a sexually repressed child, as are most libertarians

yeah lets discuss why marxist revolution isnt likely to happen in amerikka that should be a tough nut to crack