In response to the “100 year old language” I do think it’s important to not use terminology that is predefined in people’s heads to be “bad” when communicating policy. We don’t have to do that to with “public owned grocery stores” for example. A lot of leftist terminology is only know by people through the definitions given by liberalism.
But, when critics inevitably start saying “that’s Marxist!” its very very important that a politician doesn’t try and say “no, it’s not. <Blah blah here is why I love small business>”.
Instead, the defense to that should always be a clear and simple “I don’t care what you call it. If having affordable groceries is ‘Marxist’ to you then ok” Leave it there. I absolutely hate hate hate when politicians put themselves on defense for no reason. They are afraid of the labels from the right and should not be.
Doing this form of agreement as a defense literally makes their “It’s Marxist” attack help leftist politics in the long term. You don’t have to take the labels of the left as an attack. They are only that way if you accept their definitions. Every time people hear “I guess <good policy X> is Marxist” it is literally helping to correct the lies about socialism in their heads.
The long term consequences of this will actually be that we are allowed to use the language of working class struggle to describe things. It’s not really that it’s “100 year old language” for why it’s bad for communicating right now. It’s that for over 100 years it has been allowed to be defined by liberals.
So, you’re right, in the short term. But the goal isn’t to “not use that language”. The goal is gradually remove the predefined ideas of what leftist terms mean (as defined by liberals) and show what they actually result in; through actual policy that helps people.
We will handicap ourselves in the long run if we are constantly trying to pretend that we have to dissociate ourselves from Marxist vocabulary. It doesn’t have to be the center of our communication right now. But running from it when it comes up (and it will) is even worse.
That’s the conclusion you made from my comment? Like, what do you think I’m talking about here?
Like, at most, you could ask for clarification on what “bad” things I mean here. I could definitely explain that better here.
But, damn, what a jump to a conclusion you made. Especially given the context that the rest of my comment was literally about the importance of NOT being afraid of the language of “the left”.
Maybe my comment wasn’t directed at you? Maybe I was trying to explain something to someone with the opposite belief of you and I?
In response to the “100 year old language” I do think it’s important to not use terminology that is predefined in people’s heads to be “bad” when communicating policy. We don’t have to do that to with “public owned grocery stores” for example. A lot of leftist terminology is only know by people through the definitions given by liberalism.
But, when critics inevitably start saying “that’s Marxist!” its very very important that a politician doesn’t try and say “no, it’s not. <Blah blah here is why I love small business>”.
Instead, the defense to that should always be a clear and simple “I don’t care what you call it. If having affordable groceries is ‘Marxist’ to you then ok” Leave it there. I absolutely hate hate hate when politicians put themselves on defense for no reason. They are afraid of the labels from the right and should not be.
Doing this form of agreement as a defense literally makes their “It’s Marxist” attack help leftist politics in the long term. You don’t have to take the labels of the left as an attack. They are only that way if you accept their definitions. Every time people hear “I guess <good policy X> is Marxist” it is literally helping to correct the lies about socialism in their heads.
The long term consequences of this will actually be that we are allowed to use the language of working class struggle to describe things. It’s not really that it’s “100 year old language” for why it’s bad for communicating right now. It’s that for over 100 years it has been allowed to be defined by liberals.
So, you’re right, in the short term. But the goal isn’t to “not use that language”. The goal is gradually remove the predefined ideas of what leftist terms mean (as defined by liberals) and show what they actually result in; through actual policy that helps people.
We will handicap ourselves in the long run if we are constantly trying to pretend that we have to dissociate ourselves from Marxist vocabulary. It doesn’t have to be the center of our communication right now. But running from it when it comes up (and it will) is even worse.
Then you surrender to the opposition’s framing and end up in semantic contortions because you don’t stand your ground.
That’s the conclusion you made from my comment? Like, what do you think I’m talking about here?
Like, at most, you could ask for clarification on what “bad” things I mean here. I could definitely explain that better here.
But, damn, what a jump to a conclusion you made. Especially given the context that the rest of my comment was literally about the importance of NOT being afraid of the language of “the left”.
Maybe my comment wasn’t directed at you? Maybe I was trying to explain something to someone with the opposite belief of you and I?