Whose words were these anyway...

Whether a king of socialism plants words into a newspeak mode of language used to re-engineer the society or does the capitalist use language to social engineer its workers. That seems to be the gist of Roger Scruton.
  Where is the harm if the capitalist or entrepreneur re-purposes words in a new context? Take 'revolutions' itself. Socialists like Zizek cry of foul play when their treasured symbol the Revolution is used to mean a sudden change in economics created by shifts in technology.  The fact remains that technology does alter societies with no turning back, no bottling the invented and throwing it away; whereas social revolutions led by communist ideals often do default back to capitalist societies by the sheer pressure exacted by private interests ie the profit motive.
According to the canon of communism revolutions must, by historical necessity, be achieved through violent means. Knowing is not enough, it seems a communist must fight.  People have fought to the sad deaths of the many.
Technological revolutions do bring their own casualties, and maybe even a looming disaster or two that could end the human race's progress on the face of the earth. One hopes that such cost of progress is lower but at over, an estimated 100000000 road traffic deaths just from cars throughout their 100 odd years of accidents the numbers measure up to each other too well. This does not even figure in machine accidents at work, nuclear disasters and attacks, climate change or air pollution, all of which are major killers on their own!
However when you combine the two - social revolutions and industrial revolutions you have an even more potent adversary to humankind's pursuit of peace, love and happiness. The environment is then such that progress becomes more important than an individual and when this ideology is scaled to the whole state - no one stands to benefit from this very promise of progress and everyone tends towards the miseries of anxieties, hazards and accidents. The environment is ruined all the faster the less the people who use it have control over how they are exploited in service of yet more progress.

While the entrepreneurs are busy calling their profit seeking ideas with a new name - the impact motive as it is called now, the worker all but left to seek low paying person-to-person gigs with no pension guarantees will scrape a living for this new economy of impact. The impact is hard! We are all on the line to be impacted. A wish that a could muster a counter thesis of sufficient impact tears into this expose. What an impact it would be if we could instead run an enterprise on democratic principles!

So the reengineering of society and mesmerisation by talking, with these short examples that have been explicated, could be seen as something that happens below the general concepts ruling language by viral means, hence there is cross pollination between both sides of the divide - each others' semiospheres are polluted as well as enhanced by ideas from the other.  So are we any the wiser?