Old Vocabulary

[abbielives!]

i think that terms like dialectical materialism, affinity groups, surpus value, direct action, etc. make leftists hard for people to understand, they obfuscate the ideas we are trying to get across, they make it hard for us to communicate with people

[CornetJoyce]

Direct action is hard to understand? Abbie is gonna rise up from the grave and smite you. Affinity group doesn't seem hard to understand but Orwell said we'd have these communication problems with Newspeak.

[abbielives!]

i did not understand what direct action ment when i first became political.
abbie called affinity groups "gangs"

[alooo]

"Write in such a way as that you can be readily understood by both the young and the old, by men as well as women, even by children." - Hồ Chí Minh

[An archist]

is there an other way to say direct action?

[Janus]

I don't see why there should be a problem with such definitions (in the developed nations at least) when the vast majority have access to some sort of reference information whether online or through a dictionary,etc.

[bezdomni]

Word economy.

[Aurora]

This thread is so stupid. :rolleyes:

I cant believe you dont realise that leftists dont use these terms to people on the street.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:11 am
This thread is so stupid. :rolleyes:

I cant believe you dont realise that leftists dont use these terms to people on the street.

i know leftists who do

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 30, 2007 11:09 pm
is there an other way to say direct action?

im working on it, i don't have as much as problem with direct action as i do some other ones

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:34 am
I don't see why there should be a problem with such definitions (in the developed nations at least) when the vast majority have access to some sort of reference information whether online or through a dictionary,etc.

i doubt most people are going to want to do a research project

[Janus]

i doubt most people are going to want to do a research project
:blink: Are you seriously comparing looking up a word or asking someone for its definition to an actual research project? Ignoring the fact that most of your examples are not intellectual terms, I think someone would most likely look up the definition of direct action and affinity group simply because they would've encountered the term in the context of an invitation to either participate or join in said action. I don't know about you but I would want to find out what a group is or what it does before considering being involved with it.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:16 am
Ignoring the fact that most of your examples are not intellectual terms


they are because the meaning of 'surpus value' is not immidately apparent.
there are other examples these are just the ones that came to mind

[Mariam]

Originally posted by abbielives!+July 01, 2007 06:45 am--> (abbielives! @ July 01, 2007 06:45 am)
An [email protected] 30, 2007 11:09 pm
is there an other way to say direct action?

im working on it, i don't have as much as problem with direct action as i do some other ones [/b]
Use Newspeak! :D

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by abbielives!+July 01, 2007 04:43 pm--> (abbielives! @ July 01, 2007 04:43 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 04:16 am
Ignoring the fact that most of your examples are not intellectual terms


they are because the meaning of 'surpus value' is not immidately apparent.
there are other examples these are just the ones that came to mind [/b]
That's why you explain what surplus value is if for some reason you are discussing it.

[black magick hustla]

its for word economy, and this is a revolutionary leftist forum. it is assumed that people know those words.

besides, when you talk in the streets you dont use those terms.

[bezdomni]

Yeah. "Know your audience."

If you are speaking with someone that has no previous knowledge of radical politics, then you'd have no need to talk about the extraction of surplus value from the industrial proletariat. There are more basic things that can be explained more easily and should thus be explained first. Like the concept of "class division" and the exploitation of the working class by the owning class.

Anyway, it isn't debating with every single person we meet in the streets that will create socialist revolution. Every human does not have to be a social theorist. What will create socialism is the realization of the masses of people around the world that the need for socialism could not be any more clear.

People will fight for socialism because it works in their best interests and because they are tired of capitalism.

[Janus]

they are because the meaning of 'surpus value' is not immidately apparent.
No, maybe not particularly if the context isn't given but I don't see why anyone would use the term unless in the midst of an economics discussion or without prior explanation of it. Furthermore, it's primarily the gist of one's arguement that is important not whether someone understands each and every word. Dialectical materialism is a similar case though the other examples presented are not. The question of using specialized terms is more or less a common sense matter: it all depends on the audience and what prior knowledge it has of the topic.

[TheTickTockMan]

We communists are fond of words that Marx and his friends made up back in the 19th century. Words such as "Dictatorship of the proletariat", "bourgeoisie", and, well, "proletariat"! However, such words are no longer common parlance, and, since we communists like to throw them around willy-nilly, have become rather stale and overused. We'd have to explain to modern folks the meaning of all of these old-fashioned words, every time, and each time we risk losing another comrade just through sheer boredom.

So why do it? Why don't we just say "working class" or "working people" or "workers" instead of "proletariat"? And why "dictatorship of the proletariat" for goodness' sake?! "Dictatorship" sounds like a nasty thing to modern people. Why can't we say "worker's state" instead?

I think that communist rhetoric and theory would be a lot more palatable to people if we just toned down the archaic-sounding words and concepts and made it more accessible to anyone. Communist rhetoric should sound simple enough to be understood by a foreigner learning the language.

@~TTTM

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Marx used "working class" much more than he used "proletariat".

[Axel1917]

The bourgeoisie would just trace it back to Marx anyway and then just label the new vocabulary as bad as well.

[PRC-UTE]

You're right that we should avoid terms like bourgeoisie when talking to people not as familair with our jargon. Changing your style of speaking to suit your audience is always advisable.

...the phrases and watchwords which might serve to express the soul of the movement in one country may possibly stifle its soul and suffocate its expression in the other...
-James Connolly

[TheTickTockMan]

Not only that, PRC, but we could begin to phase it all out in our own parlance. I know I start to see the words dribble liquidly off the page when I meet up with reams and reams of communist jargon. After all, do we really need to stick with 150 year old vocabulary, when modern, up-to-date language is so much easier to understand?

?~TTTM

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:56 pm
Not only that, PRC, but we could begin to phase it all out in our own parlance. I know I start to see the words dribble liquidly off the page when I meet up with reams and reams of communist jargon. After all, do we really need to stick with 150 year old vocabulary, when modern, up-to-date language is so much easier to understand?

?~TTTM
I'd disagree somewhat. Those terms exist for a reason, they have a specific meaning. But they're not necessary when dealing with people who are formally outside our movmeent.

[R_P_A_S]

i got a couple more modern alternatives

bourgeoisie= assholes
proletariat- cool people

:D

[TheTickTockMan]

I like the way you think, R_P_A_S!

In fact, why should we even say "capitalists" or "working class"? Why not say "rich people" and "poor people"? Communism and all its leftist trappings is long overdue for a dumbing-down.

Labour theory of value: Money-Stealing.

@~TTTM

[Mariam]

No one is forcing you to use that terminology after all!

[TheTickTockMan]

Certainly true, my dear, and I, in true leftist activist fashion, am trying to recruit you all to join my "Communism for Dummies" movement.

!~TTTM

[Faux Real]

"Dumbing down" the words would seem to help, even better if it discredited by the 'rich people'. Introducing people to what 'rich people' or 'working class' originally meant wouldn't hurt at all, either.

If the target audience is children then for sure, use modern-day terms. :lol:

Otherwise, a little vocab lesson wouldn't hurt.

[TheTickTockMan]

Ah, yes, my comrade, but every time we pause to explain our vocabulary is a moment lost in which we could be embroiling ourselves in the passionate argument and fiery rhetoric for which we are famous!

!~TTTM

[Faux Real]

True, it's generally good to try to just get to the gist of the subject with people who, as PRC said, aren't "in the movement" quite yet.

[Marion]

Of course, one of the problems is that "working class" does not mean the same as "poor person" and capitalist does not mean the same as "rich person"... But yeah, obviously using loads and loads of complex vocab to someone who's not familiar with it doesn't make any sense.

[Bilan]

Working class and ruling class make it pretty clear, I think.
I mean, to change that to "Rich people" and "poor people" almost sounds almost patronising.
Sure, some words like bourgeoisie should not be used as often as they are, but things like "working class", "ruling class", or "employing class" get the message across.
And if people are struggling to understand what you're saying, perhaps you're speech/article/whatever is not articulate enough in it's content, rather than because of the old school jargon you're using.

But as for "bourgeoisie" and "bourgeois", it's not so much that they're "old school" as such, just that they're so over used in leftist circles.

Adapting to new times is important, but you have to draw the line between adaption to modern language and being patronising.

[Mariam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:18 am
Certainly true, my dear, and I, in true leftist activist fashion, am trying to recruit you all to join my "Communism for Dummies" movement.

!~TTTM
But still when those dummies reach an advanced level they'll be more likely to use what you called the "old vocab".

[Tower of Bebel]

could anybody find a decent word for "bourgeoisie" please, it would be fine for me if I could use another word.

[midnight marauder]

Why do we have to dumb ourselves down for the people?

There isn't anything about a person being working class that makes them less able to understand "big words" or whatever terms we're deciding to use. People are people, and people, generally, are capable of understanding these arguments. After all, we're not talking about rocket surgery, we're adding names to class relations that for the most part oppressed people already understand but just don't know why these relations are the way they are or how to go about changing them.

We may be "vanguards" in the marxist sense, but we aren't some elite club of ruling class academics. Most of us on here are proletarians! Do we need these concepts to be dumbed down for us? Why do we still separate ourselves from the working class? By and large, we are the working class. We are not their savior, nor their mother, nor are we better or smarter than "them."

Because honestly: if the first thing you say to a person when you introduce them to leftism is, "the capitalist bourgeoisie is alienating you from the profits of your labor and it is your job to expropriate the means of production from them and put them back into the rightful hands of the proletariat" then the problem isn't the words being used, it's that you have your entire approach skewed. Of course people don't know what words are the first time they hear them!

Yes, leftism has a specific set of vocabulary. That's part of the reason why, just like every other field of interest ever, becoming a leftist is a gradual thing. There's a lot to learn. But there isn't any point in switching out words so we can be more "acceptable" to the average worker. The average worker is quite capable of thinking on their own, thank you very much, and is more than likely no stranger to specialized jargon. They're going to learn the terms anyway eventually, and we don't need to hold their hands for them to do it.

I agree with PRC-UTE 100%. It's incredibly important to adapt to your audience, as any teacher knows, but even if it were possible to phase these words out of the left's vernacular (it isn't) I wouldn't see the point.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:11 am
could anybody find a decent word for "bourgeoisie" please, it would be fine for me if I could use another word.
The capitalists, the capitalist class, the employers, the owners of means of production.

Why not bourgeoisie? Here at least, it is the common term.

If we are going to conquer the world, conquering a few words in the way shouldn't be that difficult.

Luís Henrique

[Janus]

Why don't we just say "working class" or "working people" or "workers" instead of "proletariat"?
:blink: We do. Variety always helps out since you can only use the term proletariat so many times in a speech.


And why "dictatorship of the proletariat" for goodness' sake?!
Call it a worker's state, worker's republic; it really doesn't matter as long as you get the point across.

[Janus]

Merged.

[RGacky3]

Using up to date language and words that people are familiar with is not dumbing down Communism AT ALL, its just using words that people are familiar with, using common language does'nt make it less intelligent, you can talk about intelligent and complex comcepts but use modern language that people understand.

I think using old language just makes leftists and Socialists look like elitist intilectual wankjobs that just think they are smarter than everyone else and like to show off their vocabulary and knowledge of theories. I think people like Noam Chomsky do a good job of talking about complex issues but in common language, it seams to be Marxists that are stuck on the old time words.

Its time for Socialists to get a little more down to earth.

[Mariam]

Its time for Socialists to get a little more down to earth.

Aren't they already "down" to earth?


using common language does'nt make it less intelligent, you can talk about intelligent and complex comcepts but use modern language that people understand.


For some reason this reminds me of a supposedly rap version of the bible..haven't seen one myself, but its the same concept.

[RGacky3]

Aren't they already "down" to earth?

Many of them are not.


For some reason this reminds me of a supposedly rap version of the bible..haven't seen one myself, but its the same concept.

Difference is the Bible is considered the word of God, Marx was just a guy, his ideas were just ideas, I'm not suggesting rapping Marx, or even changing his writings at all, I"m just talking about the way things are discussed and talked about, I think using modern language when discussing and talking about Socialism just makes sense.

I think language is a very important thing when it comes to organising and agitating, it was'nt for nothing that Eugene Debs used alot of biblical language, it was because thats what the working class at that time were familiar with and could relate to.

[Mariam]

I think using modern language when discussing and talking about Socialism just makes sense.

Modern, like what? Or how modern should a word be?
That's if we can agree on a definition of modernity.
I mean working class is not that modern after all, its been there in dictionaries for ages.

[Tower of Bebel]

This old vocabulary is used to discribe how we analyse the world. You can say most peopel find our words ridiculous, but even without the old vocabulary many find our classless society already stupid enough. It's a mather of persuading. If we can get people to see the truth then they wont bother our vocabulary because they understand what it means.

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by abbielives!@June 30, 2007 04:11 pm
i think that terms like dialectical materialism, affinity groups, surpus value, direct action, etc. make leftists hard for people to understand, they obfuscate the ideas we are trying to get across, they make it hard for us to communicate with people
Obfuscate is a pretty weird word, eh?

I think using more intelligent vocabulary would help one to be more respected politically.

EDIT:

But true, one who does not know the terms that Marx coined waybackwhen would be better off hearing, instead of "proletariat", the "working class".

I like how writers like Noam Chomskey used a rich array of modern words to explain terms a newer Leftist would never understand without weeks of study.

I really only use old vocabulary with a fellow Leftist, like how I do on this forum. I do find myself saying Capitalists and Working Class much more than Bourgeoise and Proletariat, however.

[Luís Henrique]

Use difficult words, and people will complain that they can't understand you. Use easy words, and people will complain that you are taking them for children, or idiots. :mellow:

Luís Henrique

[Dominicana_1965]

I don't think we utilize a "old" vocabulary when we speak to random individuals, instead we use it when we speak to comrades and people we feel might know what they already mean. Of course not everybody is the same way, but thats what we have a universal understanding for... we can simply change terms for specific people. Regardless though I think we should always start with a "basic" vocabulary especially if we are to reach the working class members of more oppressed regions.