A worker's eye view on all this.

[VonClausewitz]

This in response to another reply, in another thread, and I think it deserves a little discussion, as it really is quite a big thing.

Is giving someone who is (I presume) a beginner, six chapters of analytical essays on marx a bit mean ? Not everyone can understand some academic rambling for 200 pages. It's one of the most major faults of modern marxism, and I see it a lot;

It went and got all intelligent, and lost touch with those it expects to draw support from. A few students and champagne socialists aren't going to lead your revolution, the actual masses of people have to do that, and in most countries in the world, the majority are not the best educated people out there, through whatever reasons.

Would you give the simple factory-floor machinist six chapters of that to read ?

It's why nationalism and patriotism are so appealing to the masses - it's easier to understand 'be proud of your country' than read analytical philosophy. I grew up in one of the most working-class places in the world (the black country of England), and know that, to quote a friend of the family "stuck up commies"** aren't the most regarded of people amongst said workers.

I'm not suggesting dumbing down, I'm just interested what you're responses are ?

**(this is from personal experience, that statement doesn't represent the views of me, the British government, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Allah, Jehova, or anyone else you'd care to blame, it was one very disgruntled family watching the news one day.)

[redstar2000]

There actually is a Marxist explanation for the phenomenon you describe.

(Isn't there always? :lol:)

Going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, it was thought that "educated language" should not be understandable to ordinary people. That if one wrote or spoke in ordinary language, that was "vulgarizing" the celestial "purity" of "great ideas".

That "linguistic elitism" exists to this very day. Even a lot of working scientists have that attitude and are not hesitant to "pour scorn" on their colleagues who write "popular accounts" of modern scientific work.

All based, of course, on the fact that education has always been a class privilege. Among ordinary working people, only the most determined gained access to "higher thought"...and had a hell of a time with the language, you can be certain.

The "rationale" for "a special language" is that "it's needed" in order to be able to speak coherently about these "difficult subjects".

Sometimes that's really true...but a lot of times it's bullshit. The torrent of unintelligible verbiage serves merely as "fancy dress" for naked speculation or outright ignorance.

A good example of this "on the left" is "dialectics".

Marx and Engels did write some things "for workers". When people ask me if they "have" to read Capital, I always suggest that they first read Value, Price, and Profit and Wage Labor and Capital...and then, if they want to delve further into Marxist economics, go on to Capital itself.

You don't "have" to read Capital to "really understand" what Marx was getting at.

There certainly is a "left style" which is often almost completely incomprehensible to ordinary people. Indeed, look at all the people who come here asking "what do you mean by _______?" or "what do you really mean when you say ________?". I know it took me two or three years before I really felt "at home" in that "style".

As 20th century Leninism fades into the past, I expect a lot of "left terminology" will likewise be discarded...much of it was developed in the first place for sectarian warfare between competing Leninist groups.

I'm in favor of revolutionaries using ordinary language that people can understand. As others have occasionally noted, if you can't explain what you're talking about in ordinary language, there's a pretty good chance you don't really understand what you're trying to explain at all.

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

[Gaius]

I must admit I found the Communist Manifesto to be quite sore on my head... But then again so was Mein Kampf. War and Peace was a struggle in terms of sheer commitment, but the story and the metephor is empowering. I've only read a summary of Das Kapital to my regret :( I've also read a lot of Trotsky and Lenin and a little Bakunin. I'll admit I'm not the most intelligent leftist and neither am I the most committed. For now I'm firmly on the fence as I try and learn more about communism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I think RS summed it up.

Although in a slight defence of Marx's own writings; at the time he was highlighting a view that was still relatively new. What he was explaining could not accurately be done n language as it existed at the time. In fact terms such as "capitalist" have become entrenched in our own language, so in this respect the terms were not created to be technical, but rather because they were necessary.

For the most part though you are right. It is something that many members feel that needs to be addressed.

[VonClausewitz]

Redstar2000 has it indeed.


I'm in favor of revolutionaries using ordinary language that people can understand. As others have occasionally noted, if you can't explain what you're talking about in ordinary language, there's a pretty good chance you don't really understand what you're trying to explain at all.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Great post Red Star. So true. Brought a smile to my face :)

When reading some authors a thesaurus is always handy, sometimes rereading is also necessary. Just because we are of a lower class and work for a living and have not had the greatest of educations does not mean we are incapable of learning. Never to late to learn keep reading, keep learning!!!