Trotsky wants you to watch your language...

[Revy]

I'm re-posting my blog post here...

I found this rather interesting...it was written by Trotsky in response to a resolution passed by the workers of a shoe factory to outlaw swearing and to impose fines for bad language.

Leon Trotsky, The Struggle for Cultured Speech, May 1923 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/women/life/23_05_16.htm)

Select quotes:

"Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery, humiliation, and disrespect for human dignity—one’s own and that of other people. This is particularly the case with swearing in Russia. I should like to hear from our philologists, our linguists and experts in folklore, whether they know of such loose, sticky, and low terms of abuse in any other language than Russian."

"The struggle against “bad language” is a condition of intellectual culture, just as the fight against filth and vermin is a condition of physical culture."

"As a rule—which has arceptions, of course—men who use bad language scorn women, and have no regard for children."

"The fight against bad language is also a part of a struggle for the purity, clearness, and beauty of Russian speech."

"There is actually an enormous quantity of words in use now that have originated by chance, many of them perfectly needless, provincial expressions, some contrary to the spirit of our language."

"Out of the revolutionary turmoil our language will come strengthened, rejuvenated, with an increased flexibility and delicacy. Our prerevolutionary, obviously ossified bureaucratic and liberal press language is already considerably enriched by new descriptive forms, by new, much more precise and dynamic expressions. But during all these stormy years our language has certainly become greatly obstructed, and part of our progress in culture will show, among other things, in our casting out of our speech all useless words and expressions, and those which are not in keeping with the spirit of the language, while preserving the unquestionable and invaluable linguistic acquisitions of the revolutionary epoch."

"When people say, “a pair of weeks,” “a pair of months” (instead of several weeks, several months), this is stupid and ugly. Instead of enriching the language it impoverishes it: the word “pair” loses in the process its real meaning (in the sense of “a pair of shoes”). Faulty words and expressions have come into use because of the intrusion of mispronounced foreign words. Proletarian speakers, even those who should know better, say, for instance, “incindent” instead of “incident” or they say “instice instead of “instinct” or “legularly” instead of “regularly. Such misspellings were not infrequent also in the past, before the revolution. But now they seem to acquire a sort of right of citizenship."

"The struggle for education and culture will provide the advanced elements of the working class with all the resources of the Russian language in its extreme richness, subtlety and refinement. To preserve the greatness of the language, all faulty words and expressions must be weeded out of daily speech. Speech is also in need of hygiene. And the working class needs a healthy language not less but rather more than the other classes: for the first time in history it begins to think independently about nature, about life, and its foundations—and to do the thinking it needs the instrument of a clear incisive language."

Although this was included in Marxists Internet Archive's "Women and Marxism" section, it only goes into detail about women and misogyny a few times. Here Trotsky makes a good point, but I fear he may be zealously promoting politeness as the cure for misogynistic views in post-revolutionary Russia.

"A man is a sound communist devoted to the cause, but women are for him just “females,” not to be taken seriously in any way. Or it happens that an otherwise reliable communist, when discussing nationalistic matters, starts talking hopelessly reactionary stuff. To account for that we must remember that different parts of the human consciousness do not change and develop simultaneously and on parallel lines. There is a certain economy in the process. Human psychology is very conservative by nature, and the change due to the demands and the push of life affects in the first place those parts of the mind which are directly concerned in the case."

Critics of Trotsky may jump on Trotsky's line "Language is the instrument of thought. Precision and correctness of speech are indispensable conditions of correct and precise thinking." Indeed, it's not hard to be reminded of Newspeak and the Orwellian ideal of changing language to make society conform described in Orwell's classic 1984. Trotsky appears to support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity) (language influences thinking, and society), discredited by most linguists in the latter half of the 20th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_Wars) (Noam Chomsky led the development of the opposing theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar), promoting a "universal" idea of language).

Thoughts? the opinions of Trotskyists on this matter especially welcome:D

[Bloody Armalite]

I think we should swear, as it allows us to express our thoughts, when no other word would describe the passion you feel.
But i also think we as the working class swear too much, shortening our vocabulary and making ourselves appear uneducated.
I think it would be good if we managed not to swear, but banning swearing is crazy, allthough you can get arrested for swearing in the uk under section 18 public order, so it is allready banned technically anyway:rolleyes:

[OneNamedNameLess]

allthough you can get arrested for swearing in the uk under section 18 public order, so it is allready banned technically anyway:rolleyes:

Seriously? That's ridiculous.

I don't see the problem with so called foul language. Piss for instance is just a stronger word for urine.

[Bloody Armalite]

Thats the Police for you, lock you up for protesting against the BNP, and your the bad guy.
Fucking pig scum

[ZeroNowhere]

Thats the Police for you, lock you up for protesting against the BNP, and your the bad guy.
Fucking pig scumLook, just because you got a silly scolding, it doesn't mean that you now have to use actual prejudiced language.

As for the OP... Trotsky's basically saying that spelling correctly is cool, and he thinks that 'a pair of weeks' doesn't sound good? I would largely find it sensible, if a little silly at times (as is in the nature of a speech about the importance of 'good language' to the working class), for example, with, "As a rule—which has exceptions, of course—men who use bad language scorn women, and have no regard for children." And the stuff on swearing is fucking hilarious.

Though, of course, saying that language has its roots in forms of life is not incorrect (but that doesn't make the rest of the stuff justified). As well as saying that language influences thought, which is true in some cases (and at least not as bad as, say, Chomsky).

[scarletghoul]

Thank God this nob didn't become leader of the USSR, it would have turned into the worst totalitarian shithole imaginable.

[Hit The North]

Unlike the socialist utopia it became under Stalin :rolleyes:

[core_1]

Yeah,thank god Stalin stopped that from happening:confused:

[OneNamedNameLess]

Unlike the socialist utopia it became under Stalin :rolleyes:

I think Scarlet was being sarcastic too.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well he can fuck right off then.

[Revy]

About this essay's inclusion in "Women and Marxism". It should be noted that one of the common topics in debates about language is gender neutral language. Many languages separate words relating to either gender (occupations and other nouns, adjectives) based on gender.

So the idea many people have is that part of eliminating gender bias in society is eliminating gender bias in language. Which ignores the fact patriarchy is pretty dominant worldwide, despite there existing a number of languages which are gender neutral, but that doesn't really create egalitarian gender norms, does it?

In English, there has been a gradual phasing out of suffixes referring to women (-ess, -woman). Many people (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22she%27s+a+good+actor%22) will now say "actor" in reference to a woman instead of "actress".

Also, some people here like to use words like "womyn", "persyn", "humyn" in accordance with this goal.

[Hit The North]

Let's not forget that Trotsky was an extremely cultured man from the Nineteenth century and, despite being a great revolutionary, could not help but reflect some of the prejudices of his time. Even working class men in my Dad's generation (born 1943) think its offensive to swear around women. I was born in the 1960s and still find it amazing that you can hear the word 'fuck' on the BBC or read it in The Guardian. Once upon a time, you couldn't say 'bloody' in the British media without riling up middle England morality. Times change.

[New Tet]

Great text!

[New Tet]

Thank God this nob didn't become leader of the USSR, it would have turned into the worst totalitarian shithole imaginable.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Despite his many faults, Trotsky was as much a gentleman as anyone in his circumstance could be. He probably would have succumbed to the temptations of power as much as Stalin did, but the character of his leadership would have been substantially different in form and appearance than Stalin's, who was a boor from beginning to end.

[New Tet]

[...]

Also, some people here like to use words like "womyn", "persyn", "humyn" in accordance with this goal.

The goal is commendable, comrade, but I think it is unnecessary to burden the language and its readers with confusing orthography.

In this sense, Chomsky is the best teacher...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBzuFzYVlcI

[Hit The North]

Is Norman Chomsky cunylingual?

[Q]

Just an anecdote on this topic: In the last issue of Offensief, our bi-monthly newspaper, we headlined the text "We're truly fucked!" on the youthpage. Then the CWI summerschool happened and all hell broke loose :lol:

The headline and article was meant as a "wake up call" for young people, given the lack of any youthmovements here. The title in our opinion struck the right chore in how young people would think about this matter (and we were continually being confirmed in this opinion).

The international comrades though, mainly the older generation (the young people generally liked it), heavily disagreed with it citing, among other things, Trotsky's text on civil language. I guess Dutch people are just a very uncivil bunch of people :lol:

[New Tet]

Is Norman Chomsky cunylingual?

A question only his wife could answer.

[New Tet]

Just an anecdote on this topic: In the last issue of Offensief, our bi-monthly newspaper, we headlined the text "We're truly fucked!" on the youthpage. Then the CWI summerschool happened and all hell broke loose :lol:

The headline and article was meant as a "wake up call" for young people, given the lack of any youthmovements here. The title in our opinion struck the right chore in how young people would think about this matter (and we were continually being confirmed in this opinion).

The international comrades though, mainly the older generation (the young people generally liked it), heavily disagreed with it citing, among other things, Trotsky's text on civil language. I guess Dutch people are just a very uncivil bunch of people :lol:

Excellent point! All a matter of context. Maybe what made the older comrades uncomfortable was the seemingly impolitic sound it makes. But again, it's all about context. "The times they are a-changing...!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKm65xLpwIM&feature=related

[scarletghoul]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Despite his many faults, Trotsky was as much a gentleman as anyone in his circumstance could be. He probably would have succumbed to the temptations of power as much as Stalin did, but the character of his leadership would have been substantially different in form and appearance than Stalin's, who was a boor from beginning to end.

What, so he would have been better because he was an upper class gentleman, unlike stalin who was just lower class scum?
Perhaps you need to adjust your monocle and re-assess the class character of socialist revolution.

[Muzk]

Meh, what I think about bad language is that it sure is humiliation and discrimination to insult people, it's useless and hurts others. Everyone should try to be a better human.

[New Tet]

What, so he would have been better because he was an upper class gentleman, unlike stalin who was just lower class scum?
Perhaps you need to adjust your monocle and re-assess the class character of socialist revolution.

I have to dry the monocle first; it dropped out of my eye and into the fine china cup holding the tea I was sipping. Drat!

Thuggery,as we all know, is not an exclusive feature of 'lower-class scum' like Mr. Jughashvili. The Czar and most aristocrats of his time and before had practiced it with the same, if not better, enthusiasm.

Trotsky was no 'upper-class gentleman'. He was the son of a prosperous Jewish farmer. Whatever refinement he obtained was through a sound, formal education. Whereas Stalin was a half-educated, semi-lumpen conniver, cheat and overall scoundrel, dehumanized by superstition and childhood poverty and only barely elevated by what little Marxism he understood.

[Radical]

You can't outlaw swearing. New words to verbally-attack people would be created.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Save your swear words for scabs, Nazis, the cops and ruling-class rat bags.

I'm with Trotsky.

[Lolshevik]

All I know is I swear too much and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. Trotsky would be ashamed of me. :(

[GregoryAButler]

Damn! Trotsky was pretty damned anal about that whole "hygienic language" stuff!

And an elitist - apparently since Russian factory workers cursed, and didn't use the pretty honey-coated language of the Russian aristocrats, their way of speech was "bad" and they should be forced to speak like the rich!

That essay reflects everything that went wrong in Russia after the revolution - when workers got elbowed out of power by condescending saviours from the upper classes!

When workers rule, we will decide how we speak - and no, we won't sound like a bunch of Ivy League grad students!

[GregoryAButler]

I totally agree with you - what the hell is so bad about cursing?

We're communists, not Christians - so why the hell should we police the choice of words of our brothers and sisters?

That's not workers power - it's just red bosses replacing capitalist bosses!


Seriously? That's ridiculous.

I don't see the problem with so called foul language. Piss for instance is just a stronger word for urine.

[New Tet]

When workers rule, we will decide how we speak - and no, we won't sound like a bunch of Ivy League grad students!

Yes, I know. We'll all chant "Four legs good, two legs bad!"

[GregoryAButler]

What's wrong with calling the cops pigs?

The Black Panthers pioneered that anti police phrase in the 1960's - it was correct then, it's correct now.

As for "correct" spelling - questions of grammar and spelling are class questions, as Kurt Vonnegut once said, generations of Americans were taught that they had nothing important to say, just because they didn't speak like 19th century noblemen!

Trotsky in his case was trying to impose the grammar, spelling and word choice of 19th century Russian aristocrats on Russian workers by proclaiming that the speech of rich Russians was 'correct' and the speech of Russian workers and farmers was 'wrong'.

There is no wrong way to speak!

If your listener can understand you, then that's all that matters - not that you obeyed some arbitrary set of "rules" imposed by college professors and dictionary publishers!

And Trotsky totally has his head up his ass when he says that men who curse are sexist child abusers - I'd bet that a lot of those Russian aristocrats who spoke Russian the so called "correct" way beat their wives and kids too!

Also, the implication exists throughout the article that the police powers of Soviet factory managers - backed up by the NKVD - would be unleashed on those who "spoke incorrectly".

Beyond that, Trotsky is also dead silent on the then rapidly developing practice of Soviet officials adopting the old Russian aristocratic custom of speaking to workers and farmers like children - while those workers and farmers had to speak to the Soviet bosses the way a child speaks to a parent [in Russian, there is a DRAMATIC difference - and that whole custom comes straight out of Russian feudalism]

Trotsky spoke about that in The Revolution Betrayed - 8 years after he was exiled and 3 years before NKVD assassins murdered him in Mexico - but it was the very mentality he presents in this essay that turned around and bit Trotsky on the ass later on!


Look, just because you got a silly scolding, it doesn't mean that you now have to use actual prejudiced language.

As for the OP... Trotsky's basically saying that spelling correctly is cool, and he thinks that 'a pair of weeks' doesn't sound good? I would largely find it sensible, if a little silly at times (as is in the nature of a speech about the importance of 'good language' to the working class), for example, with, "As a rule—which has exceptions, of course—men who use bad language scorn women, and have no regard for children." And the stuff on swearing is fucking hilarious.

Though, of course, saying that language has its roots in forms of life is not incorrect (but that doesn't make the rest of the stuff justified). As well as saying that language influences thought, which is true in some cases (and at least not as bad as, say, Chomsky).

[New Tet]

This may sound Pagan as hell, but I have to curse every now and then. Otherwise my nice words get contaminated...

[GregoryAButler]

And those Politically Correct people are as anal and silly as Trotsky with his crusade against swear words!


Also, some people here like to use words like "womyn", "persyn", "humyn" in accordance with this goal.

[GregoryAButler]

"Extremely cultured" = he was an elitist upper class guy who went to college, who (wrongly) thought he was better than working class people just cause his mom and dad had enough cash to send him to college - which is an appallingly arrogant point of view for a communist to have - ESPECIALLY a communist from the upper classes, who should be renouncing his class privileges, rather than trying to expand them!


Let's not forget that Trotsky was an extremely cultured man from the Nineteenth century and, despite being a great revolutionary, could not help but reflect some of the prejudices of his time. Even working class men in my Dad's generation (born 1943) think its offensive to swear around women. I was born in the 1960s and still find it amazing that you can hear the word 'fuck' on the BBC or read it in The Guardian. Once upon a time, you couldn't say 'bloody' in the British media without riling up middle England morality. Times change.

[GregoryAButler]

Trotsky would have probably had the NKVD do a little less torturing of his opponents before having them shot - and, of course, it would have been different people getting executed - Stalin's people, instead of his (but Bukharin's supporters would have gotten murdered either way).

As far as that "gentelman" vs "boor" bullshit - Stalin was a Georgian shoemaker's son, Trotsky came from an assimilated Jewish family with money - so all you're saying is that Stalin grew up poor and minority and Trotsky grew up rich and Russian.

Communists should never celebrate the trappings of aristocracy - like elitism and snobbishness.

Don't get it twisted - I'm an opponent of the legacy of Stalin and Stalinism - and I'm very critical of Trotsky and Trotskyism as well - as far as I'm concerned, basically, after 1922, the Soviet state was a counterrevolutionary dictatorship - what the White Guard failed to do with cannons the middle class people - the "gentlemen" - did from inside the Soviet bureaucracy with the stroke of a pen (backed up by the pistols of the NKVD)

And Trotsky was as much to blame as Stallin - cause Trotsky was still part of the Soviet leadership when those betrayals of the Russian working class happened.


Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Despite his many faults, Trotsky was as much a gentleman as anyone in his circumstance could be. He probably would have succumbed to the temptations of power as much as Stalin did, but the character of his leadership would have been substantially different in form and appearance than Stalin's, who was a boor from beginning to end.

[GregoryAButler]

I like your young comrades - and your older comrades need to pull the stick out of their asses!


Just an anecdote on this topic: In the last issue of Offensief, our bi-monthly newspaper, we headlined the text "We're truly fucked!" on the youthpage. Then the CWI summerschool happened and all hell broke loose :lol:

The headline and article was meant as a "wake up call" for young people, given the lack of any youthmovements here. The title in our opinion struck the right chore in how young people would think about this matter (and we were continually being confirmed in this opinion).

The international comrades though, mainly the older generation (the young people generally liked it), heavily disagreed with it citing, among other things, Trotsky's text on civil language. I guess Dutch people are just a very uncivil bunch of people :lol:

[GregoryAButler]

Well, isn't "prosperous farmer" just another way of saying upper class?

And it seems you think quite highly of Mr Bronstein and his "sound formal education" - which, in a country of mass illiteracy, was in and of itself a privilege.

As for Mr Djugashvilli (at least spell the man's name right!) he was a shoemaker's son who got a "sound formal education" in the Georgian Orthodox Seminary - sound enough that he was a reasonably competent poet, as well as literate in Russian and Georgian.

Not bad for a dehumanized lumpen!

And all working class people who grew up poor and religious are subhuman lumpens too?

So I guess I'm a dehumanized lumpen too - cause I grew up poor and Christian in the slums of New York City, right?

Stalin wasn't a murderous tyrant cause he was a working class guy - he was a murderous tyrant because he led a state capitalist dictatorship - a regime filled with upper class guys just like Trotsky!

What you are advocating isn't communism - it's elitism!!!

I believe in rule by the working class - the folks you call dehumanized lumpens!!!!

BTW do you even know what lumpen actually means?

Lumpens are career criminals, beggars and homeless people.

Stalin's dad was a shoemaker - which is to say he was a self employed craftsman - as far from a lumpen as Trotsky, sociologically speaking.

Don't use Marxist terms until you learn what they actually mean!


I have to dry the monocle first; it dropped out of my eye and into the fine china cup holding the tea I was sipping. Drat!

Thuggery,as we all know, is not an exclusive feature of 'lower-class scum' like Mr. Jughashvili. The Czar and most aristocrats of his time and before had practiced it with the same, if not better, enthusiasm.

Trotsky was no 'upper-class gentleman'. He was the son of a prosperous Jewish farmer. Whatever refinement he obtained was through a sound, formal education. Whereas Stalin was a half-educated, semi-lumpen conniver, cheat and overall scoundrel, dehumanized by superstition and childhood poverty and only barely elevated by what little Marxism he understood.

[Led Zeppelin]

Gregory, stop making a new post for every post you reply to, it's bordering on spamming.

You can use the quote tags to reply to multiple posts within one of yours.

[GregoryAButler]

So you support the policing of working class speech too?

Nice!

I'll curse out whoever the fuck I feel like cursing out, thank you very much!


Save your swear words for scabs, Nazis, the cops and ruling-class rat bags.

I'm with Trotsky.

[GregoryAButler]

Comrade,

I'm answering the posts one by one.

That's my writing process.

We all write differently - and that's how I write.

It's not "spamming" - it's a different way of expressing myself.

I don't tell you how to speak or write - I expect the same courtesy, thank you very much!


Gregory, stop making a new post for every post you reply to, it's bordering on spamming.

You can use the quote tags to reply to multiple posts within one of yours.

[Led Zeppelin]

Comrade,

I'm answering the posts one by one.

That's my writing process.

We all write differently - and that's how I write.

It's not "spamming" - it's a different way of expressing myself.

I don't tell you how to speak or write - I expect the same courtesy, thank you very much!

I frankly don't care what you believe your "writing process" is. You've now replied to two threads with about 10 posts in sequence; that is bordering on spamming.

Now, I ask you again to stop doing that.

[Axle]

With all due respect to the man, eloquency isn't something enforceable.

The only way a general improvement in speech will happen is if we start having huge leaps forward in the quality of education.

[New Tet]

BTW do you even know what lumpen actually means?

Lumpens are career criminals,

I apologize if I ever said anything untrue about Joseph Stalin.

But I can't be dissuaded from the belief that Trotsky was a really good guy who was cruelly and unjustly killed by agents and dupes of Stalin's secret police.

[superiority]

"When people say, “a pair of weeks,” “a pair of months” (instead of several weeks, several months), this is stupid and ugly. Instead of enriching the language it impoverishes it: the word “pair” loses in the process its real meaning (in the sense of “a pair of shoes”). Faulty words and expressions have come into use because of the intrusion of mispronounced foreign words. Proletarian speakers, even those who should know better, say, for instance, “incindent” instead of “incident” or they say “instice instead of “instinct” or “legularly” instead of “regularly. Such misspellings were not infrequent also in the past, before the revolution. But now they seem to acquire a sort of right of citizenship."

Trotsky appears to be suffering from a delusion about the way language works that was all too common in the early twentieth century. Idioms rise and fall, and words and spellings and meanings change over time. Trying to stop the process is frankly absurd, and if any advocates of prescriptivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescriptivism) were actually serious about it, they'd be speaking Proto-Indo-European instead of English. (For a light-hearted take on descriptivism, I recommend this chilling vision of a linguistic apocalypse (http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/babel2/).)

With regard to sexism in language, one of the best pieces I have read is Douglas Hofstadter's Person Paper on Purity in Language (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Eevans/cs655/readings/purity.html).

With regard to refraining from swearing: fuck that shit.

[Luís Henrique]

It is comical that some people defend swearing as some kind of communist sacrament... and get all uptight when it comes to words like "****", "nigger", or "fag". Not to talk about those who are able to find fault at words as innocent as "gay", "woman", or even... "person" (a feminine latin word mistaken as "sexist" because its English version happens to end in the Anglo-Saxon masculine "...son").

Either we are going to police language, and then I don't see why sexually repressive words such as "fuck" - used as a derogatory term - are any better than "*****" or "mick"... or we are not going to police language.

Trotsky is of course wrong here. Language is part of the superstructure; it changes as its material base changes, not the other way round. To in the other hand make out of his admittedly stupid comments a whole program for termidorian reaction is equally absurd. And evidently while there is no "wrong" or "right" way to talk, there are certainly differences in comprehensibility and elegance between different ways to express ourselves. Instead of denouncing "upper class" speech as "elitist", we should understand that what is elitist is the fact that the upper class has a more complete command of language than the lower classes. Some posts here seem weirdly close to anti-intellectualism.

Oh, and to deny that sexist men do use base language in order to make clear that they are talking to other men, and not to any woman who happens to intrude their men-only spaces, this is quite foolish.

Luís Henrique