Our Biggest Obstacle-Language!

[Outinleftfield]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
Our definition: State run by the Proletariat.
Their definition: State run over the Proletariat.

Socialism:
Our: Economy run by the working class.
Theirs: Any economy run by the government no matter what it's objective.(Note the ridiculousness of how libertarians will talk about "socialist bailout policies" equating pro-bourgeois government actions with "socialism")
OR
Everyone is paid exactly the same (to some yes but most recognize this as a long off goal achieved under "communism" while socialism pays according to work, something people erroneously think capitalism does).

Capitalism:
Our: A specific stage in history where society is dominated by the bourgeoisie.
Theirs: Free market.

Anarchism:
Our: A society without coercive hierarchy where society is organized from the bottom up.
Theirs: No organization whatsoever, complete chaos!

I used to be an anarchist. Whenever I tried explaining "anarchism" how it would work people's main criticism was that I was advocating a form of government but being a hypocrit by calling it something else.

Our biggest problem is that people don't define our buzzwords the same way we do. The media's distorted their definitions. Our definitions make more sense since this is how the words were used in the political writings that first talked about them. But people don't like to be told they're using the wrong definitions and even when you make it clear what you mean they will still use arguments that would only be valid based on the assumption you just refuted.

[Diello]

I used to be an anarchist. Whenever I tried explaining "anarchism" how it would work people's main criticism was that I was advocating a form of government but being a hypocrit by calling it something else.

Ah yes. How many times have I heard "lol they call themselves anarchists but yet they have meetings and organization lol rofl"

[RedScare]

It's really a smart move on the part of the ruling class, we can't really easily reword our entire literature, nor with their dominance of the media and culture can we really push back against these pushes to keep our buzzwords overwhelmingly negative. Mildly depressing to think about it.

[Outinleftfield]

Another one is the word "Proletariat" or "working-class" itself.

Most Americans consider themselves "middle-class" and don't realize that Marx's "working-class" is referring to everyone who works for a wage. In fact they equate "middle-class" with "bourgeoisie"(since that's what it meant originally in France due to the aristocracy above them). So as a consequence the most well-paid working-class Americans identify and align themselves with the bourgeoisie!

EDIT: If the Proletariat in America wasn't lead away by delusions that they are bourgeoisie we'd already have socialism.

[IronEastBloc]

Trotskyist: someone who thinks it makes them "oh more hipper than thou" to shun the USSR. also forms alliances with anarchists for some reason.

[Tjis]

The problem is not with language, it's with others intentionally redefining our definitions. This will happen no matter what words we use cause it's an easy way to discredit communists.

Blaming language is like blaming the police baton when a cop hits you with it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx's "working-class" is referring to everyone who works for a wage

No it doesn't. Cops, prison wardens, FBI agents, politicians, etc., work for a wage.

[ZeroNowhere]

No it doesn't. Cops, prison wardens, FBI agents, politicians, etc., work for a wage.
Politicians generally don't, as far as I'm aware, and are generally more related to rentiers and such. I don't think that cops, prison wardens, etc, serve to make your point.

As regards language, I don't think that that's the problem. If the working class begin to unite in political struggle, it probably won't be mostly under the banner of socialism anyhow.

[hatzel]

I don't think that cops, prison wardens, etc, serve to make your point.

As so many people like to call them 'class-traitors', I think that's proof enough that they are, without question, working-class...unless I missed something when learning the definition of the word 'traitor'...

[La Peur Rouge]

Trotskyist: someone who thinks it makes them "oh more hipper than thou" to shun the USSR. also forms alliances with anarchists for some reason.

Come on, can we have a single thread without sectarian bullshit? This is about the language we use, not about Trots.

[revolution inaction]

I used to be an anarchist. Whenever I tried explaining "anarchism" how it would work people's main criticism was that I was advocating a form of government but being a hypocrit by calling it something else.

Our biggest problem is that people don't define our buzzwords the same way we do. The media's distorted their definitions. Our definitions make more sense since this is how the words were used in the political writings that first talked about them. But people don't like to be told they're using the wrong definitions and even when you make it clear what you mean they will still use arguments that would only be valid based on the assumption you just refuted.

there is nothing wrong with using a specialist vocabulary so long as it is used to make communication easier not more difficult. Scientists for example use words in ways that are different to how they are used by the generally population, and this is sometimes used to discreadt them by misinterprating what is meant, for example saying "evolution is only a theory".
This doesn't necessary mean they should change there language, it is often better to explain what is meant, and if some people still don't get it then it may be because they don't want to, or because it often takes a lot to shift people views, if it didn't people would change there minds every five minutes.

[Outinleftfield]

there is nothing wrong with using a specialist vocabulary so long as it is used to make communication easier not more difficult. Scientists for example use words in ways that are different to how they are used by the generally population, and this is sometimes used to discreadt them by misinterprating what is meant, for example saying "evolution is only a theory".
This doesn't necessary mean they should change there language, it is often better to explain what is meant, and if some people still don't get it then it may be because they don't want to, or because it often takes a lot to shift people views, if it didn't people would change there minds every five minutes.

My change of language was because I saw Marx's theories of "dialectical materialism" and "historical materialism" as right and do think a state run similar to the Paris Commune could be acceptable.