About once or twice a month I fwd marxism or lbo posts to the English Dept. maillist at ISU (I am retired from that dept). Not long after I, ah, intervened, in a discussion of the UP strike a year ago there was a vigorous discussion of the list (not *specifically* mentioning any of my contributions) about whether the list should be for departmental notices and other strictly "business communications." I limit my posts (including forwarded ones) to one or two a month to not become a mere scold and part of the static. I would rather like to fwd your post on Bill Gates, and though I personally agree with the nice selection of epithets it includes, it might be politic not to fwd a message containing those epithets.
I think I can generalize this to at least to some degree: if you are writing theory on the one-hand, or intra-group (however defined) polemics on the other hand, use any language you wish. BUT if your post might just possibly of agitational use (addressed to those whose level of shared perspective is limited), then do not include language which, itself, may become an issue, thus blurring the real issues.
Carrol
P.S.: This post should *not* be taken to reinforce those who argue that we should avoid *Marxist* terminology under the label of "reaching the ordinary person." That is a separate issue, and I think popular front language *does* eventually lead to *mere* popular front POLITICS.
Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> >From the Bill Gates reply to Ralph Nader:
>