Change the font to the standard.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Say what we mean, not what we meant
Let’s say what we mean, not what we meant
The one thing on the left I find most common is the inability of anyone to speak in plain terms. Rather, they use grandiose terms and ancient slang to make their point. I will be the first to admit, it sounds impressive! In fact when I was new to the left one of the first things I noticed was how intellectual everyone sounded.
However as time went by I found more and more these strange terms were a mark of inexperience rather than intellect. The best have always said it plainly. Marx himself was praised for simplifying difficult concepts. It holds true on this very board. The most respected members have a knack for putting things in plain English. I know they know what they are talking about because I know what they are saying, you know?
So I figure, why can’t everyone on the left be like that? Well our “Comrades” as progressive as they claim to be have a problem with letting go of the past. Take any Left publication. Why would you ever write a paper supposedly appealing to the masses in a language only a very small minority can understand?
I’m not underestimating the worker’s ability to think, I just seriously doubt the amount of time they have to absorb antique English. It takes time to learn, some less than others, but it still takes time. And what you say in that language may not always speak to someone, no matter how clearly you explain it. Arcane language invites arcane concepts. It’s not the workers who can’t seem advance, it’s the language!
The problem is a large majority of people on this board are self taught. They pick up the communist manifesto, or what have you, and just go with it. Don’t get me wrong there’s nothing wrong with that! It’s just when human beings are learning something new they begin by repeating it. It takes time before someone starts to think critically about what they are absorbing and apply it to the real world, whether it’s the Materialist Conception of History or Algebra.
So what we end up with is a bunch of articles that read like first draft rejects of a dyslexic Lenin. Its progress, people are learning, but it’s not all around progress. It may convince and even impress our “E comrades” but your average worker won’t understand much less care what you are talking about. Make no mistake; Marx said it’s the mass workers who have the potential for revolution. So it makes sense to appeal to them as much as possible.
Of course, the solution is simple. We need to bring Communism into the 21st century, for real! It doesn’t take much, only a little imagination next time you set out to write an article or make a post.
For instance, when arguing contemporary issues use contemporary facts to back up your claim, sometimes quotes just won’t due. Show that Imperialist bastard why his system is a fucking failure; the evidence is everywhere you just have to look. No one is going to care if some Leninist from 80 years ago “got it right” however if you can say this Bourgeoisie article from today says “your system is a fucking failure”, that’s really saying something.
Same goes for vocabulary. It’s your job as an essayist to communicate a message to your readers in a coherent manner. It has to be digestible to a large international audience, not just a few intellectuals. Don’t be afraid to say “factories and shit” when you are talking about the means of production. Actually that’s how someone literally explained what means of production was to me and I got it instantly. It happens all the time, you explain something in grandiose terms and people stare at you like you have a penis sticking out of your forehead then you explain it again in simpler(better?) terms and the “why didn’t you just say that in the first place?!” reaction is instantaneous.
When it comes right down to it purposely speaking in higher terms is arrogant. You cease to use language to communicate and begin using language to lift yourself up to a higher plain. You start speaking from a podium at people. It’s self promotion in the guise of communism! Workers already have people above them, they are called bosses, and do you want to become one? I would sincerely hope not.
So why don’t we cut the crap and say what we mean in the first place?
I'm kind of new at the whole article writing thing, so criticism is welcomed.
Last edited by La Comédie Noire; 25th March 2008 at 13:51.
But now we must pick up every piece
Of the life we used to love
Just to keep ourselves
At least enough to carry on
Change the font to the standard.
Well said!
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" must give way to proletocracy ("rule by the working class"), and the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" must give way to plutocracy.
Last edited by Die Neue Zeit; 26th March 2008 at 00:05.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
Yeah Jacob. Using made-up five syllable words makes Marxism way more stomachable.
We all know your a proletocrat. Whatever that means...
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin
"The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong
^^^ Do the words "plutocrat," "autocrat," and "democrat" ring a bell (as well as the neologism/new word "corporatocracy")?
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
