A suggestion

[Anti-Traditional]

One of the problems with the Socialist movement has been the insistance on using academic language, a problem which I believe has led to much of our work being confined to theoretical/philosophical and historical circles completely detached from existing class struggle. Here is an example of how everything could be made more simple:

Bourgeoisie- Capitalist class
Proleteriat- Working class
Petit Bourgeois- Small business owners/ The self employed (?)

[Blake's Baby]

OK, but self-employed aren't petit-bourgeois.

We still need to explain what 'capitalist class' means, we still have to explain that 'working class' doesn't just mean factory workers. I don't see the difference between someone asking 'what do you mean when you say capitalist class?' and 'what do you mean when you say bourgeoisie?'.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I do not think that it is academic language that is holding the revolutionary left back, there are many reasons for this: from bourgeois propaganda, small number of left forces, inactivity of some segments of leftist forces, inability to engage the working class around a resonating program, etc, the list goes on and on why the Left has found itself in the position we have. While using obtuse language might make a initial encounter more arduous it is not the reason for our impotency. If this was the case that would mean that despite all of the points holding us back currently all we would need to change is our language and progress would come. I do not think this is so.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I do not think that it is academic language that is holding the revolutionary left back, there are many reasons for this: from bourgeois propaganda, small number of left forces, inactivity of some segments of leftist forces, inability to engage the working class around a resonating program, etc, the list goes on and on why the Left has found itself in the position we have.

And that capitalism is still in a position to buy off a large portion of the working class in the developed world. This is important to note, understand and accept. Otherwise we are trying to figure out why 2+2 = 5, we get frustrated and 2 becomes 1, becomes 0 as we get frustrated and fall into the same traps that any failing movement does. Capitalism is simply not dead in much of the world yet.

[Anti-Traditional]

If self employed arent petit-bourgeois what would you describe them as?

Also, I'd say that the majority of the working class would understand what is meant by 'Capitalist class' and know that 'working class' means more than factory workers, whereas only a minority would understand 'proletariat' or 'bourgeoisie' and many would think you were insane for using such language.

I see what you are saying but my general point still stands: Isnt it possible to make our language more accessible without watering down our message?

I think it is neccessary.

[l'Enfermé]

One would assume that since "proletariat" and "bourgeois" are just single words, things stand rather simpler than if they were to be turned into 2 each.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Also, I'd say that the majority of the working class would understand what is meant by 'Capitalist class' and know that 'working class' means more than factory workers, whereas only a minority would understand 'proletariat' or 'bourgeoisie' and many would think you were insane for using such language.


The name changing game has been brought up before. While I think the left would benefit from more direct engagement with the working class changing language which has been popular for over a century just isn't going to happen.

A lot of this bubbles down the individual revolutionary, to be honest. For instance: why change the name, assuming such a thing were even possible, when the individual revolutionary can simply use the "more known" term? I think it boils down to personal approaches. In this way I think that when leftist parties engage the masses they already tend to use language which is clear cut from the get-go (at least from what I have seen).

[Anti-Traditional]

I do not think that it is academic language that is holding the revolutionary left back, there are many reasons for this: from bourgeois propaganda, small number of left forces, inactivity of some segments of leftist forces, inability to engage the working class around a resonating program, etc, the list goes on and on why the Left has found itself in the position we have. While using obtuse language might make a initial encounter more arduous it is not the reason for our impotency. If this was the case that would mean that despite all of the points holding us back currently all we would need to change is our language and progress would come. I do not think this is so.

I think that two of the issues you mention i.e, lack of left forces (Actually I'd argue we have too many 'left' forces and not enough 'Revolutionary left' forces) and inability to create a resonating program are in part down to our language. I also think we shouldn't underestimate the initial encounter, for this is the point we actually learn that the Revolutionary Left exists. For example I remember a couple years back the Communist Party of Britain were handing out flyers in my town, until then I didn't know Communists still existed, and it was this flyer which made me want to learn more.

l'Enferme: OK then instead of two words each: Capitalists. Workers. My suggestions arent neccessarily perfect but my point is that much of our current language is too inaccesible and that there is no reason we cannot make it more simple without losing its meaning.

[Blake's Baby]

If self employed arent petit-bourgeois what would you describe them as? ...

Mostly they're workers, because (at least in the UK, which I'm from too) self-employment is mostly a fiction so employers can get out of paying National Insurance and can sack workers more easily.

'The self-employed' as a group don't really have a class position, because they're a legal but not economic entity, I'd argue. If they own their own means of production, that's one thing (say, a self-employed smallholder), if they own only their labour-power, that's something else.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think that two of the issues you mention i.e, lack of left forces (Actually I'd argue we have too many 'left' forces and not enough 'Revolutionary left' forces) and inability to create a resonating program are in part down to our language. I also think we shouldn't underestimate the initial encounter, for this is the point we actually learn that the Revolutionary Left exists. For example I remember a couple years back the Communist Party of Britain were handing out flyers in my town, until then I didn't know Communists still existed, and it was this flyer which made me want to learn more.

When I say Leftist and Left I mean Revolutionary Left by default, sorry for not making that clear from the get-go.

I understand and agree with what you are trying to say: come the initial encounter we should not use intellectualized language in an effort to come off as knowldgable or what-have-you. But in my experience this is already a reality, at least to my opinion; wherever I have been in a position to see how the revolutionary left "engages" the masses during political events the flier or leaflet or conversation has always been on a very conventional track.

Rarely do I see comrades employing obscure language when talking and communicating with people face to face. Part of our difficulties is engaging the masses during a intermediate political climate with our advanced ideas (especially when some of them might not be "the advanced"). So this part of our struggle intersects with the others reasons I listed.

Language is part of it, yes, but using strange terms is only a very small part and isn't something which I believe is a primary culprit.