post revolutionary society

[Hegemonicretribution]

This may seem daft initially, but I am leading to a valid question: Essentially language exists as a means to which we express deas and concepts to others. In some societies there are no words for even fundamental ideas in other societies, and translation becomes confused.

Communism does not exist until the concept of ownership itself has disappeared, when this has happened the first attack on Marxism has already become irrelevant. "Greed is human nature." People can claim this as idealist all they want, but in the final stages it is the very idea that ownership could exist becomes absurd. At this point there would have not been gain from ownership for some time.

I am sure almost everyone is familiar with the creation of newspeak in 1984, and whilst I am not advocating anything like this I think there are a few questions raised here.

Are certain linguistic devices, for example an apostrophe, really compatable with post revolutionary society? I am not suggesting any sort of ban, essentially pointless when such concepts no longer mean anything, rather I am questioning how and if they will disappear.

I am not just concentrating on the more obvious ownership of material objects "Those are Tom's boots," but also more abstract concepts of ownership "Jack's hapiness increased." It is also not isolated to apostrophies, "my" is also another word that is questionable.

I have quite a few thoughts on this matter, but am saving them for when (if) a discussion developes. Any comments?

[Scars]

I think definitions could change, and the way certain words were used. For instance, when people talk about 'their' _____ they'll be refering to the ____ that they use as opposed to the _____ that they 'own'.

I also think that differences between languages will start to decrease and there is the possiblity of there being a universal language developed one day (through natural evolution of language, as opposed to forcing people all to speak one language). This will encouraged due to the abandonment of reactionary nationalist ideas regarding the relationship between language and identity etc.

And I don't understand why apostrophe's should be got rid of. Is it reactionary to shorten words? (don't instead of do not etc)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:55 PM



. For instance, when people talk about 'their' _____ they'll be refering to the ____ that they use as opposed to the _____ that they 'own'.

That already hapens, but essentially the meaning is still fundamentally linked to ownership.


And I don't understand why apostrophe's should be got rid of. Is it reactionary to shorten words? (don't instead of do not etc)

The apostrophe in this sense is fine, as it is not linked to ownership, but in most cases ownership is implied and it is a useless addition to language.

[Scars]

<<That already hapens, but essentially the meaning is still fundamentally linked to ownership.>>

Yes, but as I&#39;ve said definitions of some words will change- the meaning of the word will no longer be fundementally linked to the concept of ownership.

<<The apostrophe in this sense is fine, as it is not linked to ownership, but in most cases ownership is implied and it is a useless addition to language.>>

Then it won&#39;t be used in such a way anymore.

However, I must note that you can&#39;t simply make change by decree. Language will change as a result of the different social and cultural conditions that will exist after the revolution, not because &#39;the party&#39; or whatever says that this is how you shoudl speak.

[bcbm]

"my" is also another word that is questionable.

But what about my feet?

In any case, I don&#39;t think there needs to be any real concentrated effort to ban the use of those words. Language will evolve as society does and words that are no longer meaningful will drop from common usage.

[Hegemonicretribution]

But what about my feet?

In any case, I don&#39;t think there needs to be any real concentrated effort to ban the use of those words. Language will evolve as society does and words that are no longer meaningful will drop from common usage.

That is to say they are feet belongonging to, or owned by you. This is not compatable with a society that does not have this concept. Also I specifically stated banning words is both oppressive and futile.


However, I must note that you can&#39;t simply make change by decree. Language will change as a result of the different social and cultural conditions that will exist after the revolution, not because &#39;the party&#39; or whatever says that this is how you shoudl speak.

My sentiments exactly. Withering away of language along with the state. This is pretty much my point here, I was more interested in how it would disappear, at what time and in what way. Also new terms that could be created.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don&#39;t think that a communist society would be likely to abandon the use of possesvies with the abandonment of private property. Ownership of things dosn&#39;t necissarily need to mean a property arrangement so people will still say things like "My house" to distinguish between the place where they reside and all other residences.

For example, if food is freely available people might stop saying things like "have a slice of my apple pie" because they do not own it in the sense of paying money for it. But if someone baked an apple pie, they might say "have a slice of my apple pie" meaning have a slice of the pie I made. Ownership in this sense is not a financial arrangement, but an indication of what kind of pie it is and who made it.

Similarly, "Sam&#39;s book" could refer to property ownership but it could also refer to a book written by Sam. In a world where there is no property, the first use of the term my wither away, but the second use of the term would remain.

I don&#39;t think Communism means the end of the concept of induviduality, just the end of a particular sort of arrengement of induviduals to the rest of society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note, I always wondered how a revolution might effect linguistic in countries where romance languages are spoken and there are gender-specific forms of words. If a revolution does away with sexism, would romance languages begin to become more unisex? Or would the language stay more or less the same, but the differences would simply cease to hold any connotations regarding "gender characteristics".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words and phrases which would wither away after a revolution:

"My boss..."
"loan"
"Finance"
"market"
"purchase"
"police"
"nation/al"
"racism/sexism/homophobia"
"casualty of war"

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:14 AM


I don&#39;t think Communism means the end of the concept of induviduality, just the end of a particular sort of arrengement of induviduals to the rest of society.
--------------------------------
Since when are we even trying to abolish individuality?

Individuality is important.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:14 AM
I don&#39;t think that a communist society would be likely to abandon the use of possesvies with the abandonment of private property. Ownership of things dosn&#39;t necissarily need to mean a property arrangement so people will still say things like "My house" to distinguish between the place where they reside and all other residences.

For example, if food is freely available people might stop saying things like "have a slice of my apple pie" because they do not own it in the sense of paying money for it. But if someone baked an apple pie, they might say "have a slice of my apple pie" meaning have a slice of the pie I made. Ownership in this sense is not a financial arrangement, but an indication of what kind of pie it is and who made it.

I would argue communism isn&#39;t complete until this stage, although what you are implying in your examples are less definitive ownership, ownership still exists in a sense. To offer pie implies that it is your&#39;s to give away, and not the that of the person who you offer it to who would otherwise have no right to it.

This is what I see as the more philosophical branch of Marxism. Understanding of social concepts is all that is really needed, but there are implications on several levels, at least as far as I understood from Marx and others.

Property in every sense will be meaningless, and the language would have no need to justify such an impossible concept, just as this concept has not truly gone until the language justifying its meaning has also.

[Gura]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:14 AM
"loan"
"Finance"
"market"
"purchase"
"police"
"nation/al"
"racism/sexism/homophobia"
"casualty of war"
Perhaps the existence of these things would wither away, but such words (or ones like them) woudl have to still exist in order to teach what life was like before the revolution and the withering away of the state (and such concepts).

[Commie Rat]

They would still be offically part of the language but yet obsolete in the popular culture as some shaksperian phrases and mannerisms are today

[Amusing Scrotum]

What about the term "my girlfriend" or "my boyfriend"?

I have been thinking about a substitute for "my" for these words and I can&#39;t. If anything the obvious substitute, "the," seems even worse. "The girlfriend/boyfriend is angry with me." Sounds very derogatory.

What does everyone else think?

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s possible that some of you may be aware that feudalism had a substantial "technical vocabulary"...but it&#39;s very unlikely that any of you would actually be aware of the details.

In 1300CE, knowing the details could be a "matter of life and death" -- today, only historians who specialize in medieval studies are aware of them.

The words have been abandoned because they describe property and political relationships that no longer exist.

Think of all the contemporary words used to describe the details of modern capitalism. They will someday be as obscure as a late medieval legal text.

I also agree that there are words which we use to describe attitudes that are intrinsic to all forms of class society...and those worlds will fall into disuse as time passes and fewer and fewer people have any need to express those attitudes.

For example, all of the words and expressions that we use to convey the impression that there are those who are "naturally superior" and "should be deferred to" will pass away out of disuse. I think this is already beginning to take place in late capitalism.

Finally, I agree that a "global language" will eventually emerge...it&#39;s a logical extension of trends that have been noticed since the 18th century. But I think we&#39;re talking about 5 or 10 centuries here.

I tend to think it will be an amalgamation of "western languages" ("Spanglish" for example) that will become "the" global language...but that may just be Euro-centric prejudice on my part. It&#39;s certainly not "out of the question" that an amalgamation of Chinese and Arabic, for example, might win the "prize".

After all, we don&#39;t know at this point who will be "doing communism best" in 2500 or 3000CE -- where the "centers" of global civilization will be. Therefore, we can&#39;t say which language will be "the one to know" if you want to take an active role in human discourse.

It will be a very different world than the one we know...and will certainly possess a very different language.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[TheComrade]

This is facinating&#33; Just goes to show that language, writing, is power, total power - there is nothing more powerful than words. The Newspeak example is good - actually preventing words, phrases from exsisting. If there ever was a revolution - the world became communist - might it be nessecary to alter language? You always get dissenters, those who do not agree - which is good for a society to a certain extent but those say, extreme anti communists cannot be defeated with law and order. To inhibt what they can convey - wouldn&#39;t that solve alot of problems without affecting the lives of the majority?

Then again - people always find a way, don&#39;t they? SO they can&#39;t express it in words - why not art? drawing? dance? motions of the hand? facial expressions? There are things that cannot be said in words which can be conveyed in art - Turner is a good example, it is impossible to descibe the beauty of some sunsets but Turner captured the motion - the feeling - the meaning in his art....

[our_mutual_friend]

Words have the power to change everything. But it is not always what is being expressed but how they are interpreted. Yes, Turner&#39;s paintings are amazing, whether sunset or storm at sea, but it depends how you see them - one person could see the storm as disater and destruction and connotate it to what Turner saw happening for the human race (hypothetically) and another could see it as a piece of nature and part of a beautiful natural cycle that has been momentarily captured.

All depends on point of view and what the other person sees.

What someone says can be taken in any direction.
The power and the flaws of expressing yourself.

[TheComrade]

Well exactly - but that does not prevent someone from seeing a painting in a way that cannot be conveyed by words. If it was impossible to convey that humans are failing in words - it is still visable in Turners work.

What others see in work is irrelevant to the fact that you can put things in art that you cannot say - the langauge restrictions are defeated - dissent can fester.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:46 PM
Well exactly - but that does not prevent someone from seeing a painting in a way that cannot be conveyed by words. If it was impossible to convey that humans are failing in words - it is still visable in Turners work.

Beethoven said something on this. "music is a higher revelation than philosophy" I always took it to mean that certain things cannot be expressed through language alone.



What others see in work is irrelevant to the fact that you can put things in art that you cannot say - the langauge restrictions are defeated - dissent can fester.

That sounds like a very authoritarian streak there. Reliance on vanguards, and condemnation of ideas is was one of the main reasons life has been poor in so called "communist" nations of yesteryear.

I think when dealing with disenters you must first ask yourself why they dissent. If their material existence is poor, then it is either; improvement of these conditions or rejection of the society that allowed those conditions to arise.

Why, if conditions are good, and there is no percieved benifit (concepts of capital and power) from disenting then why do it? I personally do not want to live in a society where there is no life, and there are still class divides (such as dissenters). Technically dissenters cannot exist in communism, because class struggle has ceased.If these problems do arise they are a result of socialism. They are part of the transitory stage, because it is transitory until problems are ironed out.

[TheComrade]

I was not implying that art is bad - or that dissent is bad. I was merely stating one of the potential impacts of art - how controls on langauge doesn&#39;t affect the meaning within art.


Technically dissenters cannot exist in communism, because class struggle has ceased.

What about those that do not agree with Communism?&#33;?&#33; Some people find equality disgusting - they will be dissenters in a Communist society&#33;

[encephalon]

"My feet" and "my house" are not merely phrases of personal ownership (especially not in the bourgeoisie sense; such linguistic devices were around long before capitalism). "my house" or "bob avakian&#39;s house" is also in reference to association, not just ownership.

Language develops along lines that are the easiest and most comfortable to speak. You could say that, in a post-revolutionary society, people would say "the house where bob avakian lives" instead of "bob avakian&#39;s house."

However, I think this is sincerely misunderstanding the role of language. Definitions of words and syntactical arrangements may stay the same throughout millenia of a language&#39;s history (there&#39;s a contemporary example of associative apostrophe), but the meaning and context of such arrangements might mean something entirely different between one century and the next.

When I say "my house", I&#39;m not saying I own it (especially since I rent). I&#39;m saying it&#39;s the house in which I live; e.g. the house associated most exclusively at the current time with myself.

I imagine that trend will continue: the ownership context will be gradually replaced with associative context, even though the actual syntax might remain the same.

[TheComrade]

encephalon is right&#33; Language rarely makes sense (english is a brilliant example) and the logical meaning of a phrase isn&#39;t always the actual intendent meaning.

[RedDemocrat]

It all goes to show that language cannot be controlled and evolves in ways which are hard to understand. There is no way one can eradicate theory or belief through the &#39;banning&#39; of particular words. In order to get people to agree with you, the conditions need to be created which will show them that yours is the right path.

1984 tells us of a society where the &#39;right path&#39; is not being taken and where activities like the creation of Newspeak take place not to show people truth but to blind people of untruths.

[Hegemonicretribution]

RedDemocrat, nobody suggested banning anything, this was a musing on whether words would naturally disappear as they became irellevant.

Encehalon, I agree with you to some extent, and I think that meaning of words will change. The noise that we make and the letters will be the same but that is all. I guess the word has ceased to exit if its meaning is taken over.

Anyway I do think that in some cases this will be the case, and in others they will fall comletely out of use, as has hapened in the past.