Terminology when discussin politics

[tanklv]

Why do people still use terms like "bourgeois" and other ancient terms?

Why can't people use more common equivalents that don't turn people off at the first bat?

Discussing socalist ideas with these terms really turns off people and they just look at you like you're speaking of alien abductions.

Workers, unions, class struggle are all easily understood. The very wealthy, landowners, very rich, idle rich, are easily understood.

Talking down to people is not a way to win friends and influence people. Neither is going way over their heads...

[o well this is ok I guess]

Because we're assuming everyone passed grade 10 social studies.
It's not as if "bourgeoisie" requires years if intensive studying to understand.

[tanklv]

Because we're assuming everyone passed grade 10 social studies.
It's not as if "bourgeoisie" requires years if intensive studying to understand.

Snarky AND condescending at the same time!!!

Nice.

You catch more flys with honey than you do with vinegar, sweetie...

and here I thought this was a place to learn something...

guess I was sadly mistaken...

AND the plus for you is you can avoid the question entirely.

I know what the terms mean - and - FYI - this IS the US - even in the 50's/60's we didn't learn stuff like that...

...don't you have a hippie to beat up scheduled for today or something?...

[Q]

Many activists are members of political sects (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1465). Such groupings often demand a lot of their members and offer a social environment that is to a certain degree closed off from the rest of the world. Language plays a part in this. It translates not only ideas, but is a way to control ideas.

In a short anecdote: A member of such a group somewhere in the US eventually made the remark that she felt ut to be completely paranoid to talk with a special lingo "inside" the group then you talk "outside". Once she realised the absurdity of this, she couldn't bare being a member for much longer.

[thesadmafioso]

Why would we abandon language which is so pivotal to the comprehension of the nature of Marxist theory and its implementation? The Left seeks to foster an emerging class consciousness within the class of the proletariat and we will never attain this goal if we forsake the terminology upon which our aims are based. The ignorance encouraged by false consciousness will not be overcome by paltry attempts to work within the confines of language as regulated by the capitalist class but rather by smashing those artificial barriers in there entirety; ignorance is not something to be combated with additional ignorance but rather a state of existence which requires the countermeasure of materialist analysis.

[The Douche]

Its used a lot because its the language thats used in text.

So if you're educated by reading these authors then odds are you're going to pick up the language they use.

Most people use terms like "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" right alongside "the bosses" and "the working class".



Also, most people I talk to are familiar with the terms we're talking about, and most of the people I know are not revolutionaries.

[GPDP]

IMO it's less the terms and more the angle one takes when discussing politics.

For instance, sometimes my friends will start talking about how some corporation is evil or exploits workers in South America or something. I then point out that it's not due to malice that such corporations do this, but rather out of their own interest. Moral appeals will not change the fact that they can save millions by taking advantage of third world workers unprotected by labor laws. Likewise, it is in our interest to do something about a system that allows such practices to take place.

Done in this manner, it's easy to get socialist politics across without sounding like an academic old fart who has his face buried in obscure texts by Kautsky et al, but without capitulating to the terms used in the narrow space of mainstream discourse.

[Pretty Flaco]

It's because words like "proletarian" and "bourgeoisie" don't describe wealth, but relation to capital, and there aren't any other English language words that describe that relation.

I know these words sound archaic. "Capitalist" and "worker" are close equivalents, but people often associate the term "working class" specifically with blue collar workers which aren't the entirety of the working class in marxist definitions.

[Black Sheep]

bourgeois is to political philosophy what "negative number" or "cosine" is to mathematics.
If you want to discuss math, you'd better know these terms, and don't be like a "RAWWW that's mathy mumbo-jumbo" if you don't.

Terminology exists to make conversation easier and quicker.

[DarkPast]

It's not so much that these terms are "archaic", but that they're politically "loaded". Fact is, in many countries there's a media-enforced anti-communist prejudice, so what I do is avoid using them the first couple of times I'm discussing politics with someone who I suspect has such prejudice.

[jake williams]

It depends what we're talking about.

There are lots of cases where "rich" is more than appropriate, but it doesn't convey any specificity. There are times when "bourgeoisie" is needed to refer to something precise, and understood by, hopefully, all parties - it's generally unambiguous among Marxists.

There are things worth having technical terms for, and no one has ever found a need to find new technical terms. That doesn't obviate the responsibility to explain things clearly and simply whenever possible, but words like "bourgeois" are valuable when they're understood by everyone and when their specific meaning is meant.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why do people still use terms like "bourgeois" and other ancient terms?

Why can't people use more common equivalents that don't turn people off at the first bat?

Discussing socalist ideas with these terms really turns off people and they just look at you like you're speaking of alien abductions.

Workers, unions, class struggle are all easily understood. The very wealthy, landowners, very rich, idle rich, are easily understood.

Talking down to people is not a way to win friends and influence people. Neither is going way over their heads...
It's very easy to explain the term "bourgeoisie", and quite frankly, I'd think it's condescending not to do so when opportunity is there.
For instance, when explaining the term, one could also touch upon the history of capitalism, and its connection to manufacturers, merchants and financiers of the late medieval and post-renaissance cities, pointing out that this is where the term comes from.

Also, it'd be possible to exchange this term, which is not as useless and "snobbish" as it sounds, with simple "capitalists". I'd advise against using solely the term based on income, such as "the wealthy", "the super rich" and so on, since it can mask the core power relation and function which is more easily communicated by the terms mentioned above.

[JustMovement]

Frankly I do agree with the OP somewhat. Saying capitalist and working class works the same as bourgeoisie and proleteriat, and it avoids peoples "pretentious lefty pseudo intellectual" alarm bells going off.

[Tommy4ever]

I try to say capitalist and working class, but I often say bourgieosie by mistake :blushing:. I am better with saying working class rather than proletariat though - which is slightly annoying as capitalist is a much more suitable replacement for bouegeios than working class is for proletariat.