|
Words, words, words...
By Ulli Diemer
One of the most striking things about the left - or most of it,
at any rate - is its habitual abuse of language. While this vice
is by no means confined only to the left, it seems to take on some
of its worst forms among socialists. The fuzzy, jargon-ridden language
of leftist writing is perhaps' the most immediately noticeable thing
about the left to the ordinary person, and it is one of the main
reasons that most of what the left has to say is not even listened
to. The problem is by no means a new one - Orwell wrote about it
more than a generation ago, in essays like "Politics
and the English Language" (which should be required reading
for every socialist), in various reviews, and in 1984.
As Orwell, and a very few other political writers such as Paul Goodman
have pointed out, abuse of language is not simply an incidental
failing. Language is the form through which thoughts are (or are
not) developed and communicated. The misuse of language implies
the failure to think clearly, to analyse correctly, to communicate
with others. (Alternatively, it may imply the deliberate misleading
of others.)
The question of language is an important one in the development
of critical thought, and I hope that it will be a continuing theme
in The Red Menace. Here I would like to make a start by mentioning,
a few common examples of the abuse of language which I find particularily
irksome.
Concrete thought: Whenever leftists are about to
get specific (rarely enough, to be sure) they seem to have an irresistable
compulsion to preface their venture down to earth with 'concretely',
or, 'to get down to some concrete facts', or 'we have to be more
concrete'. Perhaps this is the curse of the intellectual, who can't
do anything without first announcing that he is going to do it,
then proclaiming he is doing it as he does it, and finally pointing
out that he did it after it's over. l worry that such people will
find themselves doing the same thing during their sexual activities
and in the process driving their bed-partners 'round the bend. I
also have visions of them thinking about chunks of concrete, not
so far-fetched when you consider that many 'Marxists' do handle
Marxian categories as if they were so many blocks of cement. The
point is that while the intention is undoubtably good, and in keeping
with Marxism ('All the propositions of Marxism, including those
that are apparently general, are specific'. - Karl Korsch)
the constant announcements of intention are wearisome, and the choice
of imagery is poor. Unfortunately, all too many leftists forget
that words do evoke images, and so they use them mindlessly, to
produce writing that obscures meaning rather than making it more
vivid. Take concrete (please!): if thought is really concrete, it
will harden quickly, the last thing we want our thinking to do.
We want our thinking to be specific, we want it to be precise, we
want it to be fluid, we surely do not want it to be concrete. It's
good to get down to particulars, to talk about the nitty-gritty.
It is not good to wear out any given word or expression in unnecessarily
announcing the obvious. Why don't we just practice getting down
to specifics without first proclaiming that we are going to do so?
While we're speaking of construction materials... is it really possible
that there are people calling themselves socialists who think that
it's a good thinq for a political organization to exhibit a unity
of steel? Or who think a party should possess monolithic
unity? Do these people know what a monolith is? (Oxford Dictionary:
'monolith': 'a single block of stone'; 'monolithic': 'solidly uniform
throughout, showing or allowing no variation'). And how about the
Leninist's contribution to the theory and practice of S & M:
iron discipline?
Rank and file: Phil Mailer points out in his excellent
book 'Portugal: The Impossible Revolution' that the term 'ramk and
file', so popular with trade unionists and socialists, masks an
authoritarian conception, although many people who use the expression,
having never thought about what it means, may not intend it that
way. But 'rank and file' is a military term, referring to soldiers
drawn up in rigid formation on the parade ground. It may accurately
convey the ideas of those who think of themselves as leaders commanding
their working class troops in the struggle, but it is a poor choice
for those of us who have a libertarian view of working class organization.
Intervening: How many political groups describe
their activity as 'intervention'? Too many, at any rate. Those who
are fond of this word should pause to consider what it implies.
The concept of intervention, whether or not the user realizes it,
betrays a Leninist way of looking at class struggle. The Concise
Oxford Dictionary defines 'intervene' as 'come in as something extraneous'.
This is precisely the Leninist conception of revolution, as spelled
out in 'What is to be Done' and adopted by every Leninist party
since. According to Lenin, the working classes cannot develop socialist
consciousness themselves; it has to be brought to them 'from without',
by the socialist intellectuals organized in a vanguard party. The
party represents the objective forces of history, as uncovered by
the method of 'dialectical materialism'. This view places the revolutionary
outside of and above social and historical forces, and then has
him 'intervening' in them. It is a conception that is fundamentally
elitist, undialectical, and ahistorical. It is neither libertarian
nor Marxist.
And, incidentally, all those 'Marxists' who use the term 'dialectical
materialism' as a synonym for Marxism, who say that Marxism
is 'dialectical materialism', might be interested in knowing
that Marx never used the term. 'Dialectical materialism' is the
invention of Plekanov, one of the key figures (with Kautsky and
Lenin) in the vulgarization of Marxism. Plekanov coined the term
for his interpretation of Marx eight years after Marx's death. Those
who take their 'Marxism' (often without realizing it) from followers
of Plekanov (even after his political split with Plekanov, Lenin
repeatedly praised his exposition of Marxism) might do well to read
Marx's criticism's of Plekanov's rigid dogmatism. They would do
even better to read Marx himself, rather than his interpreters.
Finally, 'in terms of': If this expression once
meant something, I don't know what it was. I am certain, however,
that all those people - and they are many - who use the expression
now don't use it to mean anything. 'In terms of has simply become
the leftist's way of saying 'um' or 'uh'. Let's go back to saying
'uh'. It may sound dumb, but at least it doesn't sound pretentious
as well.
Published in Volume 2, Number 2 of The
Red Menace, Spring 1978.
(CX5142)
Contact information for Ulli Diemer:
Phone: 416-964-7799
E-mail: 
www.diemer.ca
Connexions
Links - Connexions
Directory A-Z Index - Connexions
Library
Periodicals
& Broadcasters Online - Volunteer
Opportunities - Publicity
& media relations resources
Connexions
Phone: 416-964-5735
E-mail: 
www.connexions.org
|