Is "jargon" jargon, was Re: dead topix

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Tue Dec 14 19:48:46 PST 1999


Doug Henwood wrote:


> I'm not arguing with you, or commenting on your style; for all our
> differences, I've never seen you talk like these guys at the Labor
> Party meeting did. And while there were quite a few Marxists at the
> LP meeting, there were quite a few non-Marxists too, just ordinary
> unionists of radical bent.

I know you're not. We have differences, but I like to think they are comradely ones.

I still don't know exactly how they talked. Were some of them under the discipline of some political grouping? That can be one source of inappropriate jargon: the necessity to maintain a political line which one does not understand or with which one does not thoroughly agree.

I am only half-critical of such a condition. People have a right, even an obligation sometimes, to accept a position on the basis that while they don't know enough, they trust the honesty / intellect / commitment of the people who push the view. Most of us, for example, are in that position in respect to the content of the physical/biological sciences. I accept the accuracy of Planck's Constant though I don't, really, have the slightest idea what it means. If I were to have to explain it to someone I would have to go to some source and memorize the explanation without understanding what I was saying. And I would be right to do so. If my presentation were too stilted and failed to persuade people, it would be more their lost than mine.

Carrol



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list