Language and oppression Part of the class war

[1xAntifa]

I've just finished a discussion on facebook with a party hack attempting to sell me on the proposition that his now neo-liberal organisation was still Socialist, in the social democratic, mixed economy reformist tradition.

The curious thing was not his defense of the indefensible, but his choice of tactics. After failing to address the actual point of whether his party was 'socialist' within the above loose definition, this individual stated that he had a degree in Political Science [spelt out nice and long to attempt to intimidate what he thought was a lumpen-prole] and that I was obviously not educated enough too understand.

I well understood that he was trying the statistical argument in what was a purely ideological discussion. He couldn't grasp that for want of choice, voters took the lesser evil approach, which isn't saying much in a western 'democracy' at this juncture. So I persisted.

The next thing to come my way was a critique that my language was not age=appropriate, and not because I used the expletives at this point [thy came later]. This struck me as bizarre, but then I remembered the trouble my Indigenous comrades have in the legal system here in oz precisely because their use of language does not conform to the expected norm, either in language or english. It also reminded me of the need for precise language in legal work designed to obfuscate the law vis the average schmoe.

But generally, this was beyond my ken. Language analysis, hmm, can anyone point me in the direction of where I'd find out more about this. I've heard of NLP, but that's it. How can we counter this type of bs?

I know this isn't a theoretical point as such, but given that if there is no communication because of meritocracy and its snobbishness, where does this leave the 'uneducated' other than completely dis-empowered if they lack the resources to argue back?

ps please move this if I've posted in the wrong place.

:o

[BIXX]

Honestly, I don't think that the disempowered should be arguing back, as there is no conversation to he had. Just like when I talk to most leftists or liberals, there is no conversation to be had (or at least one where both people aren't talking around each other) because they come from fundamentally different standpoints.

I mean, I can try to argue bash back tendencies to people here but they won't get it for the most part (or refuse to). Just like I can argue queer liberation to a conservative, but they won't have any understanding of why I would even want that.

[Palmares]

So is your question about legal language? Or? I'm a little confused specifically your asking, apologies.

I guess in the end, this is why when in court, it is best to represented by a lawyer (if you can find one you can trust and has your interests at hand). The weight of jargon and contracts that manifest in any official legal situation, like in court, means unless you have the background in how it all works and how to speak thus language, you will be royally screwed.

It does remind me a bit of some Indigenous activists (but also other activists overseas Indig or not) pursuing "no juridiction" or similar in their legal encounters. For example, this one guy I know, he drives without a driver's license. When a cop pulls him over, and trys to fine him, he gives a huge legal rant about "no jurisdiction". Cop of course knows nothing about complex legal stuff, so usually lets him go.

I think in the US context, this stuff is a bit more popular with libertarians and conspiracy wingnuts, not wanting to pay taxes and similar.

However, I know some Lakota people have their own IDs/passports for example, and do similar stuff aswell. I met this one elder who had traveled to two countries in South America with it.

Hmm... dunno if I answered your question at all though... :o

[Bala Perdida]

I don't much care for pleasing academics. You don't even need to be literate to know how oppression works. If they're concerned with helping people, they shouldn't be distancing themselves like that. So yeah, language is bent in favor of the ruler as far as I can see. I argue if I get involved, but I don't expect to change anyone.

[MarxistWorld]

Hi, one of the main problems of this world is called "perspectivism". That's what Bob Avakian, from the revolutionary communist maoist party said. He claimed that according to perspectivism, there is no truth and no lies, and people can mold their own opinions and turn it into absolute scientific facts in order to suit their own favorite political ideology and personal thoughts. That's why it is so easy for easy for the democratic party, the republican party, the us government so preach capitalism and imperialist wars, and the bailing out of bankers. Because most americans do not havfe a clear cut idea of what is a good political system and an evil political system.

And another thing is that most people are not perfectionists, people do not go to heart of the matters, to the detail of things. And that's why Bernie Sanders, Green Party and Elizbeth Warren are supported by radical leftists who are fans of Marx and Lenin, but because humans are not perfectionists in their ideas. It is ok for many leftists to be fans of Marx, Lenin and Che Guevara and at the same time to support capitalist reformists like Nader, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party.

This world is very immoral and there is no intellectual honesty in millions of leftists







I've just finished a discussion on facebook with a party hack attempting to sell me on the proposition that his now neo-liberal organisation was still Socialist, in the social democratic, mixed economy reformist tradition.

The curious thing was not his defense of the indefensible, but his choice of tactics. After failing to address the actual point of whether his party was 'socialist' within the above loose definition, this individual stated that he had a degree in Political Science [spelt out nice and long to attempt to intimidate what he thought was a lumpen-prole] and that I was obviously not educated enough too understand.

I well understood that he was trying the statistical argument in what was a purely ideological discussion. He couldn't grasp that for want of choice, voters took the lesser evil approach, which isn't saying much in a western 'democracy' at this juncture. So I persisted.

The next thing to come my way was a critique that my language was not age=appropriate, and not because I used the expletives at this point [thy came later]. This struck me as bizarre, but then I remembered the trouble my Indigenous comrades have in the legal system here in oz precisely because their use of language does not conform to the expected norm, either in language or english. It also reminded me of the need for precise language in legal work designed to obfuscate the law vis the average schmoe.

But generally, this was beyond my ken. Language analysis, hmm, can anyone point me in the direction of where I'd find out more about this. I've heard of NLP, but that's it. How can we counter this type of bs?

I know this isn't a theoretical point as such, but given that if there is no communication because of meritocracy and its snobbishness, where does this leave the 'uneducated' other than completely dis-empowered if they lack the resources to argue back?

ps please move this if I've posted in the wrong place.

:o

[1xAntifa]

The point about legalese was an example, apologies for not being clear. I'm having trouble articulating this as it's so far from my consciousness. Whilst I concur that you are wasting your breathe arguing the points wth certain people, but that isn't what I'm grasping for. But the same as the economic system ans superstructure it doesn't have to be that way, we can change it.

What I'm grasping at is discrimination in communication, for want of a better phrase, that inhibits communication generally, which is reflective of the class structure of current western societies. I looking at strategies and tactics vis inclusiveness, with a view towards solidarity amongst the dis-empowered. Just how do we get these voices heard?

It occurs to me now that we're in Gramscian territory here as well as Bordieu's cultural capital, not to mention Marx himself. Ideas?

:confused:

[MarxistWorld]

Hi, I know what you mean. I think that spending precious emotional and mental energies with hard headed social-democrats and followers of Bernie Sanders, The Green Party and Elizabeth Warren and other middle class social-democrat reformist leftist options is really a waste of precious physical and mental energies and time.

Do not try to convert social-democrat middle class anti-rebellion people into pro-communism americans, most of them love capitalism and they can live well within capitalism. What they hate is a little bit of corruption scandals and things like that. But they believe in the american way of life and in the american dream of the good 1950s

Because I think (I am not sure about it), but I think that most leftists who support social-democratic reformist political options (that are not authentic communists), are people who belong to the middle class, to the white collar right-wing working class. These are workers who hate corporate neocons republicans and blue dog democrats. But at the same time, because most middle class white collar right-wing workers live a decent life with basic needs met and bills payed on time. They are not ready to lose their economic stability and risk it all, by supporting a political party, that is in favor of a dictatorship of the proletariat, and would turn USA into a sort of revolutionary civil war (which is needed) in the workers-dictatorship temporary stage.

You have to realize that most people who are economically and sociologically stable are not ready to risk it all. Only undocumented immigrants, prisoners, people living in pain, american indians and people who are desperate about a change might support political parties that are in favor of a temporary revolutionary stage which would require some kind of violence which is natural in all radical changes. And since most middle class liberal economically stable americans are so scared of blood, violence and are so pacifists. They would rather support 100% social reformist pro-status quo options like Nader, Green Party., etc. than pure marxist radical options in favor of a workers-dictatorship and a violent revolutionary civil war







I've just finished a discussion on facebook with a party hack attempting to sell me on the proposition that his now neo-liberal organisation was still Socialist, in the social democratic, mixed economy reformist tradition.

The curious thing was not his defense of the indefensible, but his choice of tactics. After failing to address the actual point of whether his party was 'socialist' within the above loose definition, this individual stated that he had a degree in Political Science [spelt out nice and long to attempt to intimidate what he thought was a lumpen-prole] and that I was obviously not educated enough too understand.

I well understood that he was trying the statistical argument in what was a purely ideological discussion. He couldn't grasp that for want of choice, voters took the lesser evil approach, which isn't saying much in a western 'democracy' at this juncture. So I persisted.

The next thing to come my way was a critique that my language was not age=appropriate, and not because I used the expletives at this point [thy came later]. This struck me as bizarre, but then I remembered the trouble my Indigenous comrades have in the legal system here in oz precisely because their use of language does not conform to the expected norm, either in language or english. It also reminded me of the need for precise language in legal work designed to obfuscate the law vis the average schmoe.

But generally, this was beyond my ken. Language analysis, hmm, can anyone point me in the direction of where I'd find out more about this. I've heard of NLP, but that's it. How can we counter this type of bs?

I know this isn't a theoretical point as such, but given that if there is no communication because of meritocracy and its snobbishness, where does this leave the 'uneducated' other than completely dis-empowered if they lack the resources to argue back?

ps please move this if I've posted in the wrong place.

:o

[John Nada]

The curious thing was not his defense of the indefensible, but his choice of tactics. After failing to address the actual point of whether his party was 'socialist' within the above loose definition, this individual stated that he had a degree in Political Science [spelt out nice and long to attempt to intimidate what he thought was a lumpen-prole] and that I was obviously not educated enough too understand.A lot of people who have a formal education are dumbasses. I've known people who have a degree in stuff like political science who're clueless in that area.
I well understood that he was trying the statistical argument in what was a purely ideological discussion. He couldn't grasp that for want of choice, voters took the lesser evil approach, which isn't saying much in a western 'democracy' at this juncture. So I persisted.Fact, nearly always the winner of an election doesn't have the support of the majority of people. Not counting people legally excluded from voting(undocumented immigrants, teenagers, possibly felons and the mentally ill), no one usually gets the support of the majority. Even if a candidate or party gets 60% of the votes with a 80% turnout, that's only 48% of the voters. The vast majority of capitalist "democracies" cannot claim anything more than passive support in that regard.
The next thing to come my way was a critique that my language was not age=appropriate, and not because I used the expletives at this point [thy came later]. This struck me as bizarre, but then I remembered the trouble my Indigenous comrades have in the legal system here in oz precisely because their use of language does not conform to the expected norm, either in language or english. It also reminded me of the need for precise language in legal work designed to obfuscate the law vis the average schmoe.Language is very important. It's how we even talk to each other(duh). There's two issues. One is legalese of the capitalists, that obscurantism the politicians and state bureaucrats like to use to cover their ass, and mislead the people. Another is language imposed by imperialism. The subjugated peoples are forced to use the language of the dominate nation. There's wars due in part to the latter.
But generally, this was beyond my ken. Language analysis, hmm, can anyone point me in the direction of where I'd find out more about this. I've heard of NLP, but that's it. How can we counter this type of bs?I don't know much about NLP directly. The Wikipedia article doesn't really convince me of it's utility(seems like quackery), particularly outside of the English language.
I know this isn't a theoretical point as such, but given that if there is no communication because of meritocracy and its snobbishness, where does this leave the 'uneducated' other than completely dis-empowered if they lack the resources to argue back?Who says the "uneducated" need to argue on the "enlightened ones'" terms? Break down the theoretical points into something the layperson can understand. Don't bend over backwards to accommodate backwards ideals, but explain things in a way that's easy to follow.
It does remind me a bit of some Indigenous activists (but also other activists overseas Indig or not) pursuing "no juridiction" or similar in their legal encounters. For example, this one guy I know, he drives without a driver's license. When a cop pulls him over, and trys to fine him, he gives a huge legal rant about "no jurisdiction". Cop of course knows nothing about complex legal stuff, so usually lets him go.

I think in the US context, this stuff is a bit more popular with libertarians and conspiracy wingnuts, not wanting to pay taxes and similar.

However, I know some Lakota people have their own IDs/passports for example, and do similar stuff aswell. I met this one elder who had traveled to two countries in South America with it.In the US, Native American tribes are nations(US legal jargon, not just Leninist talk) under treaties with the US. They have their own laws and languages, though their right to self-determination is regularly violated. Not sure about how it is in Australia, but if that person dug up an old treaty exempting him from the law, that's cool.:)

There's "sovereign citizen" movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement) popular with fascists(but ironically not limited to them), that claims that the US 14th amendment, which granted de jure equality among US citizens of all races and ethnicities(in theory, mind you), basically makes the US government illegitimate. It might have spread far beyond it's initial support base(ironically, in the US even some Black people fall for it!). Both are totally opposite.

[1xAntifa]

Thank you all, for your considered responses.

There's a bit of digesting I need to do on your excellent points.

More later as its gotten really busy on the resist front here in oz what with mandatory detention of asylum seekers, the neo-nazi rallies on the 4th (counter-demo to attend as well as agit-prop to get out] and the proposed ethnic cleansing of 190 indigenous communities being justified by the state government in WA on 'economic' grounds.

Back in a couple of days with my thoughts on your points.

Solidarity

1xantifa.

[MarxistWorld]

Oh, by the way. I forgot to tell you that for some kind of reason, i cannot explain, I do not really understand why most leftists of Facebook are so social-democrats, so reformists, so revisionists. Maybe because most people in this whole world who have access to internet, and the use of computers on a regular basis, are people of the high wage working classes. Yeah, because most internet services are getting expensive, computers are getting expensive. And most people who are really the ones who need a radical change, and who are living a real limited economic situation, only have money for survival needs (foods, soap, electricity, water, housing etc.)

That's why you never see leftists talking about food prices in Facebook, and in other social networks, because most of those leftists are leftists who support Democracynow.org, Commondreams.org, Occupy Protests, anti-war movements, but are not really very desperate about a radical change. That's why social-democrat college liberal leftists do not care about the price of chicken, rice, cheese, ham, milk and things that are super-important for people who are even hungry and experiencing hunger in their lives


.



Thank you all, for your considered responses.

There's a bit of digesting I need to do on your excellent points.

More later as its gotten really busy on the resist front here in oz what with mandatory detention of asylum seekers, the neo-nazi rallies on the 4th (counter-demo to attend as well as agit-prop to get out] and the proposed ethnic cleansing of 190 indigenous communities being justified by the state government in WA on 'economic' grounds.

Back in a couple of days with my thoughts on your points.

Solidarity

1xantifa.

[1xAntifa]

Back again from ahem, bashing the fash [a bit of push and shove really], with the point being made Australia-wide that racism and fascist rantings are unacceptable, despite the silence from slime minister [s]tones abbott [a very nasty reactionary piece of work].

Having left this discussion on the back-burner for a few days has helped clarify my thinking here.

What I've been groping towards is some form of Popular Front. I've realised that what's bugging me at the moment are the divisions in the left in the face of a rising tide of fascism. I think we need to be less precious about the doctrinal disagreements between leftist factions and face the real enemy, creeping fascism. Now I'm not dumb enough to think that any temporary alliance would be long term, or would resolve the points of difference that exist. However, it behoves us to focus on the main game resistance and change. Petty arguments about who is redder than thou or who is a revisionist lackey are a waste of space at this juncture. It's about priorities really. Save the philosophical waffle until after we've taken care of the immediate threat. Essentially I feel we should be looking for the conjuncture of immediate political interests with a view to forging temporary alliances with all progressives [social democratic, small c conservatives, who resist the new world order. It's a very Machiavellian method, but it works for the ruling elites so why not take a leaf from their playbook?

I think what I'm chasing here also is how do we get the dis-empowered voices heard within the hegemony of neo-liberal discourse. What are the barriers and how can we collectively dismantle them.

Have I become an insufferable opportunist?:grin:

Once again thanks to all for your replies, they really helped to push my thinking here.:) :)

[MarxistWorld]

Good points you made about how the radical left is so divided in all countries of the world. And I think that there are many causes of why the radical left is so weak and so divided. I think that one of the main reasons for this is that most poor people and most workers have become right-wingers, and vote for traditional parties in most presidential elections. Another factor for the marxist radical left being so weak, and so underground. While the social-democrat reformist, revisionist left (Like PODEMOS and Syrizia) to be so popular and powerful. Is that social-democratic reformist parties have a lot more economic power, than radical ultra-leftist parties. And money for advertising and spreading the marxist communist political programs to the masses is very necessary. In today's world if any institution, organization or business does not invest in advertising its product, it will be a failure.

And another factor is that even though oppressed poor masses hate corporate politicians, instead of voting and supporting ultra-leftist marxist parties, the most radical that the masses can be, is social-democracy, social-democrat parties. I think that most poor people hate corporate capitalism but at the same time, most poor people hate communism. In other words the oppressed hate capitalism, but love capitalism at the same time. That's like the oppressed wives, who hate her husbands, but at the same time they cannot divorce their husbands. This is related to the Stockholm Syndrome

Another thing, is that I read in the book "The Prince" by Nicholas Machiavelli, that most people are very skeptical toward new ideas, toward new way of thinking, humans are habit-creatures and prefer to continue with capitalism, than to try socialism.

There are many other factors like fear, because voting for capitalist parties won't get people harassed by FBI and CIA, most people in America who are poor prefer poverty under capitalism because supporting capitalism won't get them any trouble with the government. Than to rise toward a middle class self-realized life by supporting radical marxist parties.

The behaviour of humans is very complicated, some years ago I thought that sooner or later when food prices and the basic needs will get real expensive, all poor blacks, all poor latinos, and all poor whites will become marxists and will support ultra-leftist radical marxist parties. But the behaviour of people is very complicated and not so simple like I thought.





Back again from ahem, bashing the fash [a bit of push and shove really], with the point being made Australia-wide that racism and fascist rantings are unacceptable, despite the silence from slime minister [s]tones abbott [a very nasty reactionary piece of work].

Having left this discussion on the back-burner for a few days has helped clarify my thinking here.

What I've been groping towards is some form of Popular Front. I've realised that what's bugging me at the moment are the divisions in the left in the face of a rising tide of fascism. I think we need to be less precious about the doctrinal disagreements between leftist factions and face the real enemy, creeping fascism. Now I'm not dumb enough to think that any temporary alliance would be long term, or would resolve the points of difference that exist. However, it behoves us to focus on the main game resistance and change. Petty arguments about who is redder than thou or who is a revisionist lackey are a waste of space at this juncture. It's about priorities really. Save the philosophical waffle until after we've taken care of the immediate threat. Essentially I feel we should be looking for the conjuncture of immediate political interests with a view to forging temporary alliances with all progressives [social democratic, small c conservatives, who resist the new world order. It's a very Machiavellian method, but it works for the ruling elites so why not take a leaf from their playbook?

I think what I'm chasing here also is how do we get the dis-empowered voices heard within the hegemony of neo-liberal discourse. What are the barriers and how can we collectively dismantle them.

Have I become an insufferable opportunist?:grin:

Once again thanks to all for your replies, they really helped to push my thinking here.:) :)