Translating from Marxish

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, I've been thinking about the usefulness of "translating" texts from specialized political language, kitschy outdated language, etc. into language that is more "pop cultural" (and, therefore, presumably more comprehensible by more people?) - in the popular vernacular, a "reboot" . What might texts lose in this? What might they gain?
For kicks, I gave this treatment to Mao's "Combat Liberalism". The original is on the Marxists Internet Archive, here (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm). I recommend giving it a read for comparison's sake if you're not relatively familiar with it - it's quite short.

Don’t Be A Fucking Liberal

If radicals care about our organizing we need to be ready to confront the ideological baggage that we all carry with us into “the struggle”. One particularly insidious piece of luggage is the “live and let live” and “let it slide” ideology that Mao Tse-Tung called “liberalism”. He wrote a short piece called “Combat Liberalism” that, having been written and translated quite some time ago, sounds unfortunately kitschy at best. Luckily, to use Mao’s words, “We can do away with a bad style, and keep the good.” In that spirit, this is a “reboot” of that document.

So, what does it look like when you’re being a liberal?

Being a liberal can mean talking around things, being indirect, or sparing someone’s feelings because they’re a close friend, a co-worker, your boyfriend, or someone you used to play ball with.

Being a liberal can mean hearing people say fucked up shit, and acting like you didn’t hear anything at all. It means being apolitical when you’re hanging out with people who are apolitical.

Being a liberal can mean talking shit in private, instead of bringing problems to light for people to discuss in an open and honest way. Conversely, it’s also picking fights and using “criticism” as cover for your petty personal beefs.

Being a liberal can mean acting like you’re a special snowflake who’s too good to wash dishes or lick envelopes. It’s thinking you’re “the most revolutionary” and never need to hear criticism.

Being a liberal can mean treating politics like a minimum-wage job you’ve stopped caring about – doing the bare minimum and fucking off whenever you have the chance. It’s turning a blind eye to anything that doesn’t affect you personally, and trying to avoid getting in trouble instead of taking responsibility.

You get the gist.

Liberalism will wreck an organization. It translates into pissing contests, cliquishness, taking shortcuts, and (revolutionary) style over substance. When all these dynamics come together it means that an organization will start doing what’s easiest instead of what’s right.
We need to call out liberal ideas and behaviours when we see them, and build radical culture within our organizing. We need to bring that culture with us outside of our organizations so that they don’t become “cool kids clubs”. We need to be more concerned about social change than the social capital we might risk by speaking up (or shutting up and listening).

We live in a liberal world. If we’re serious about building a different kind of world, we need to be serious about not being fucking liberals.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I like what you've written and I also like the idea of 'translating' or perhaps 'updating' certain texts to make them more accessible to broader audiences. Some of the most successful movements have taken the ideas of Marx and espoused them in ways that appeal to the mass of workers who don't usually engage with such texts. The only caution would be to avoid removing all the underlying content and meaning.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The only caution would be to avoid removing all the underlying content and meaning.

Thoughts on where that line is?

[Rafiq]

However in American contexts, it is problematic to use the word 'liberal', especially in this political climate.

We ought to distinguish ourselves from liberals, but there is a tendency to indirectly and opportunistically identify with the 'anti-liberalism' or even 'illberalism' (of the American reaction, or of the Putinite global reaction), whose attacks are 'easy', dispsense with the strictness perceived to be imposed by liberals, and so on, so that one can truly 'live and let live'. In American contexts the word 'liberal' often times refers to strict enforcers political correctness. The political culture we attempt to build, will have to be even far stricter, far more 'disciplining' more intolerable of one's relaxed, 'live and let live' philistinism (the same kind targeted in this piece). This 'live and let live' attitude is not in American contexts identified with liberalism but with the growing reaction (i.e. libertarianism). The wrong kind of message that can be insinuated here is one of "Oh, nobody likes those liberals!" - yet it is prudent to make sure that our opposition to liberlaism is not even close to having any common ground with the rising illiberalism. We cannot have the attitude of 'Oh, nobody likes those liberals!' because we must own up to the fact that we are alone in our specific opposition to liberalism. We cannot identify with reactionary discourse.

It can be seen: Use of this word - liberal - in non-theoretical contexts, for many people simply allows them to identify with the mainstream, conventional 'anti-liberalism' (in the United States), which is reactionary, while being unique enough to not be a right-winger. In addition the specific tendencies you bring up - which are very relevant (how you translated them, that is), cannot be said to stem from 'liberalism' so to speak but more specifically to our post-industrial, postmodern 'individualist' egoism.

However one term that I have noticed is increasingly seeping into the discourse of the 'Bernie' Left (the newer generation of the Left) is neoliberalism, a term they are starting to be acquainted with, because as they see this word being used, it confuses them and naturally they are forced to distinguish 'neoliberalism' with the 'liberalism' they are used to (which before Bernie, vaguely refers to anyone who is not a reactionary). For that reason, it may be better to replace 'liberal' with 'neoliberal'.

It is perfect, becasue the petty pseudo-individualist tendencies that are outlined, can be squarely placed in the context of neoliberal ideology, which has absorbed into it the counterculture of 68', and so on.

[Luís Henrique]

So, I've been thinking about the usefulness of "translating" texts from specialized political language, kitschy outdated language, etc. into language that is more "pop cultural" (and, therefore, presumably more comprehensible by more people?) - in the popular vernacular, a "reboot" . What might texts lose in this? What might they gain?

It depends, I suppose, of the text being "translated" (or, as it seems to be the case, "transdated"). "Pop language" does not necessarily have the vocabulary to deal with some subjects. "Value" is an example: in "pop language" (in ordinary language, indeed), it is used in several different acceptions, which must be distinguished if we are going to deal with "value" as the substance that is created and transferred in capitalist production and which is in fact the vital sap of capital. How to do that in "pop language"? Also, "pop language" is much more regional than standard language; Rafiq points out that "liberal" for instance, means a different thing in the US than in the rest of the world (and I would say that "liberal" in Mao's idiolect means also something quite different, closer to the use that is made in some left organisation, in which "liberal" mainly means "reckless regarding security culture").

Also, I don't see the need for your "liberal" use of the word "fucking", nor why its abuse would be considered necessarily "popular".

Further, I would say that "pop language" changes quickier than standard language; I fear a "transdated" version of, say, the Manifesto, may sound even more outdated than the original in twenty or thirty years into the future.

And finally, I fear the effect that in Portuguese we would call "enturmar" (to pretend one is part of a given subculture, ie, a turma, when one is not). It may look like college professors pretending to be closer to their students than they actually are, by abusing student slang, not necessarily with a clue.

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The way you phrase it really depends on which audience you're talking to. Some might like the 'liberal' use of four letter words, while others might just be distracted and put off by it. You also don't want to come off as if you're talking down to anyone, which is always a risk when translating arcane political discourse into "everyday" language.

As for the term "liberalism", its use depends on our aims. If that aim is to make Mao's argument understandable, we have to stick with "liberalism" since there was no such thing as "neoliberalism" during his time. However, we would obviously then need to explain how his (or our) use of the term differs from how conservatives use it (the US is a country where liberals are routinely accused of being Communists, after all). If our idea is to communicate a broader critique of contemporary ideology as opposed to anything which existed in the 50s and 60s, then "neoliberalism" would be appropriate, but at that point I wonder if we're writing a new text based on the ideas of the old. That said, if we are serious in critiquing liberalism to a contemporary Western audience, it's also important to note that the critique of liberalism doesn't mean we want to wholly abandon even the best aspects of the liberal tradition. We merely want to move beyond it, and not remain religiously committed to its shortcomings.

[A Psychological Symphony]

It certainly seems like a good idea. Introducing other people to these ideas would be a much smoother process if somebody who is apolitical and not much of a reader could just pick up and understand the texts themselves. Only thing concerning could be the accuracy of the translation, which I'm sure couldn't be worse than translating them through different languages

[The Idler]

Kind of like a Street Bible?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Word_on_the_Street_%28book%29

[Sewer Socialist]

Maybe we could start by identifying writers who use language we'd like to emulate. What do we really want our writing to look like? What would accessible language look like? What do we want to avoid?

Personally, I absolutely love Loren Goldner's writing. Definitely says some shit that is anything but simplistic or trite, and yet it's very easy to read; very much a rarity for someone so far left as him. Michael Parenti is more of a speaker; an orator. I definitely have lots to disagree with him on, but he is a very gifted speaker, and I think the audience generally not only understands his every word, but actively pays attention. He is very engaging.

Tiqqun is, IMO, what to avoid if we're going for accessibility. This is not to say their writing style is without merit, but if accessibility is a concern, they are not to be emulated. Deleuze & Guattari are fun to read as well, but fuck me if they wanna make a clear point that everyone can pick up on.

I definitely have my Marxist Way of Speaking, and my Uninitiated Way of Speaking - I don't talk about the Reproduction of the Proletariat or whatever to my coworkers.

[(A)]

Need to translate Kapital. Every time I read it I get a headache. I have some really nice early English editions I got from my Grandfather. He was a socialist way back. He was on no fly lists in the U.S.

Also some Proudhon. I would like to see some Anarchist works floating around. I think Anarchism could be FAR more prevalent in modern times if people has not been told it means chaos for the past two generations.

[The Idler]

Need to translate Kapital. Every time I read it I get a headache. I have some really nice early English editions I got from my Grandfather. He was a socialist way back. He was on no fly lists in the U.S.
Here you go
http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Marxs-Capital-Illustrated
http://redquillbooks.com/portfolio-posts/capital-manga/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Marxs-Capital-Fifth-Ben-Fine/dp/0745330169
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Companion-Marxs-Capital-David-Harvey/dp/1844673596

[Sewer Socialist]

I think David Harvey's Seventeen Contradictions is pretty good, though I think his analysis of what we can / should do is unnecessarily stagist.