Language after the Revolution

[sithsaber]

Although universal translators might soon make this argument obsolete, how would the dictatorship of the proletariate view institutionalizing a standard world language?

[Nox]

I wouldn't force a standard universal language, that will happen naturally over time.

[Bostana]

What Nox said

[Thug Lessons]

It would be extremely difficult to implement, not particularly useful and arguably a bad thing.

[Igor]

Although universal translators might soon make this argument obsolete, how would the dictatorship of the proletariate view institutionalizing a standard world language?

Dunno man gotta ask the dotp when those guys come around haven't seem them in a while though

[manic expression]

A universal language, unless as simply a lingua franca, would be tantamount to erasing entire cultures from the face of the earth. It is certainly not desirable in the interests of human dignity. Instead, the strengthening of all peoples' languages would be top priority, especially historically marginalized tongues.

[NorwegianCommunist]

Mandarin is the most spoken language in the world, so maybe Mandarin?
Although I think English is more easier to learn.

[Igor]

Mandarin is the most spoken language in the world, so maybe Mandarin?
Although I think English is more easier to learn.

Mandarin might be spoken a lot, but it's geographically very concentrated and is a rather marginal second language in rest of the world. That's why English is pretty much the only current plausible language for a global lingua franca.

[roy]

Everyone will communicate through interpretive dance

[Welshy]

It seems like there is a thread on this every month. As a linguist (or at least soon to be once I finish the necessary credits for this degree) I have to say that Nox has the right answer. You can't force a language on a large group of people unless there are economic and political benefits a person can get from learning that language. Also frequently forcing a language upon a group of people is done as a part of, or requires a certain amount of, ethnic cleansing. Just look at the history of the American Indians, as that is a prefect example of this.

Also this discussion is one that is completely unnecessary as mankind has always found away of getting around the language barrier (by way of bilingualism, a lingua franca or something else), so I don't see any reason why this can't continue to happen.

[Manic Impressive]

I think it's obvious English is currently the dominant world language because of the British and now American empires. Many people realise that mandarin may become the new dominant language, they've even started teaching it in British primary schools and traditionally we don't do other languages. While the Chinese have been using English much more but adapting it for their purposes creating a hybrid which some refer to as Chinglish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinglish). English it's self is not an English language, not only because it is a mix of Latin and Germanic influences but due to the nature of the British Empire which did destroy local customs and culture but also absorbed much from it's conquests. Especially in language, for instance the words like pyjamas, bungalow, verandah, loot, jungle, shampoo, khaki, etc all come from India.
So if the results of capitalist imperialism which it's self broke down borders between different cultures creates fusion of language and culture, then removing all borders should result in greater fusion.
Maintaining unique geographical cultures will have to be done by force of will if it is to occur as the dominant culture will be that of everyone a hybrid monoculture as opposed to multiculture which in itself means division and maintaining socially constructed differences between people.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Although universal translators might soon make this argument obsolete, how would the dictatorship of the proletariate view institutionalizing a standard world language?
I've got it(by the way forget everyone else's suggestions)! The language of the world will be Esperanto!

At first we should just introduce it, but then we will slowly move away from all the other languages.

I am suggesting Esperanto because it was a language that was created for the purpose of becoming the world language. All other languages suggest Imperialism, and Imperialism is not what we stand for.

Start learning Esperanto everyone!

[The Young Pioneer]

This is fucking stupid. Comrades actually promoting the dying out of languages...I mean, really?

As a linguist, please kill me off with the bourgeoisie if this is how the Revolution's gonna go down.



Start learning Esperanto everyone!

Rofl. :lol:

[seventeethdecember2016]

This is fucking stupid. Comrades actually promoting the dying out of languages...I mean, really?

As a linguist, please kill me off with the bourgeoisie if this is how the Revolution's gonna go down.
We aren't promoting the destruction of anything. There is no reason that there can't be an auxiliary language and a cultural language taught to children. We're already pretty much doing this with English.

[l'Enfermé]

Why the fuck would you want a standardized world language? The only way to achieve that would be by forcing this "world language" down everyone's throat, and fuck that. I'm fluent in my native Chechen and Russia, and 3 other languages, and nearly fluent in 2 others, including English(dammit nowhere close to Engel's 20 languages), so believe me, I understand the usefulness of multilingualism, but this "replacing" languages with a common language is pure nonsense.

Which language do you propose should be shoved down everyone's throat? Mandarin? It's the most widely spoken native language. What the fuck does a peasant in Venezuela care about your Mandarin? Leave people and their languages alone, the Bolsheviks actually promoted a policy of cultural(mostly linguistic)revival and renaissance amongst the national minorities in the portion of the former Russian Empire they've been able to take over. Promoting erasure of the cultures and customs of entire ethnic groups(what you're basically doing by forcefully enforcing a "world language", and "forcefully" is the only way you can enforce a "world language")is just ridiculous.

To hell with cultural colonialism and imperialism..

[Animarossa]

What about promoting Esperanto as the new "side-language", that means complementary to our mothertongue? Its bases are totally communist (neutral language, no speaking privilegies, international, result of many languages,etc..) to me and it is really easy to learn thanks to the way it was concieved (as a mix of syntax and grammar of at least 10 different languages from all over the world).

- No one would be privileged in a discussion because people would use a neutral language that has not a particular culture, that is not owned by anyone and that didn't imposed itself as the "economic language" or the "scientific language".

- It doesen't really takes long to learn it, because there are few grammars rules and they could apply almost in any case of doubt of error.

[Nox]

To add to that, a universal language that is formed naturally will be much, much more efficient than an artificial universal language.

[Welshy]

What about promoting Esperanto as the new "side-language", that means complementary to our mothertongue? Its bases are totally communist (neutral language, no speaking privilegies, international, result of many languages,etc..) to me and it is really easy to learn thanks to the way it was concieved (as a mix of syntax and grammar of at least 10 different languages from all over the world).

I don't think anyone is really opposed to have an international language that isn't meant to replace their native language. But the issue is that we already naturally get lingua francas andI doubt you will be able to get a large number of people speak an auxiliary language that doesn't have any economic or political force behind it. If we were to make an artificial language, Esperanto would be a horrible choice. As its grammar and phonology is designed to mimic western European languages and the vast majority of its vocab is from European languages. Also syntactically it is a western European language. So it is hardly neutral.



- No one would be privileged in a discussion because people would use a neutral language that has not a particular culture, that is not owned by anyone and that didn't imposed itself as the "economic language" or the "scientific language".

No language is culturally neutral especially one that has been designed by european, uses a standard european phonology, and uses primarily european words. Languages are so variable on the surface that it would be near impossible to not favor one linguistic group over another but Esperanto does a horrible job at being neutral even given the limits that naturally exist.



- It doesen't really takes long to learn it, because there are few grammars rules and they could apply almost in any case of doubt of error.

The reason why it is so easy to learn is because it ignores probably some of the most important and complex aspects of languages which is complex syntactic constructions and pragmatic features. If Esperanto does have ways of doing it, which it should as their are native speakers of it, then the things you use to learn it are horrible in so far as they gloss over very very important aspects of language and communication just for the sake of coming off as easy to learn.

[sithsaber]

FYI i was not promoting forcing a one world language. Just wanted to see what you bastards thought of the issue

[The Jay]

I think that you have your answer haha.

[Baseball]

A universal language, unless as simply a lingua franca, would be tantamount to erasing entire cultures from the face of the earth. It is certainly not desirable in the interests of human dignity. Instead, the strengthening of all peoples' languages would be top priority, especially historically marginalized tongues.

But why would socialism, ostensibly an INTERNATIONALIST project, seek to emphasize natural divisions within humanity? Why wouldn't an internationalist effort seek to unite humanity especially with regard to languages?

[Hiero]

There won't be "The Revolution".

[manic expression]

But why would socialism, ostensibly an INTERNATIONALIST project, seek to emphasize natural divisions within humanity? Why wouldn't an internationalist effort seek to unite humanity especially with regard to languages?
Because forced homogeneity is the antithesis of solidarity.