>
>
> "Mr P.A. Van Heusden" wrote:
>
> > In my experience, trying to develop a 'Marxism in plain English' way of
> > explaining, understanding and discussing things is not just an academic
> > exercise
>
> O.K. I have no objection to this -- but after you develop that "Marxism
> in plain English" you have to *stick* to that chosen plain english,
> and then that by definition becomes a jargon. On the other hand,
> if you keep changing it so it doesn't become a jargon, you force
> all your followers to keep learning a new vocabulary, and once again
> the movement is in the hands oif a small elite who by education are
> prepared to constantly change their vocabulary.
To a certain extent you are correct, Carrol, but then to a certain extent, I think you're mistaken.
You pointed out - rightly - that it is incredibly important that people not only read pamphlets, but be able to write pamphlets. One way of making the pamphlet writing easier is using a language which is the akin to the everyday language of the people who are writing a pamphlet. So 'plain English' (or 'plain English/Xhosa township mix') Marxism is not a static object - it is an attempt, an activity, from the part of people who have an understanding of Marxism to keep the conversation flowing in a way that people can participate.
The point is, Marxist ideas do not exist in some space far removed from the everyday experience of working people. Lenin's concept of the seperation between intellectuals and workers was a highly historically specific conception - and even when it was written, you can read examples (in Trotsky's 1904 'Our Political Tasks') of where people managed to break down the distinction somewhat. Gramsci, in the 1920s, already pointed out the objective existence, and importance, of members of the working class who are called on, by capitalism, to play an intellectual function (in his essay on intellectuals he points to those workers who organise work as being working class intellectuals tied to the 'common sense' of capitalism).
Gramsci contrasted the 'common sense' of received wisdom under capitalism from the 'good sense' which emerges when working people exercise their intellectual abilities and examine their situation. Our assumptions in our group are that people have elements of this 'good sense' already in their understanding (else, why would they come and talk to socialists?). And that's where our discussion starts - with where people are at. This method of operating in based on the idea that we're not fighting for some 'socialism' which must be learnt from books or leaders - we're trying to organise 'socialism from below' (which, increasingly, we've started seeing as different to, sometimes opposed to, the 'socialism' that parties like the SACP promise to deliver 'for the workers').
So returning to some examples: 'Apartheid', 'imperialism' - of course we have to use these words, like we have to use 'table'. The problem is assuming that everyone knows what they mean. 'Imperialism', in particular, I try and use very carefully in discussions in South Africa, because the understanding of 'imperialism' differs based on whether you're talking to someone from an ANC (nationalist) or PAC (Africanist) or SACP (Communist) background. In fact, the Africanist understanding of imperialism - as action which is fundamentally about domination of Africans by non-Africans - is quite problematic, since it offers all sorts of loopholes for people to support local African bosses.
So jargon - and the lack of it - is a process, not just a set of words. It is a certain relation to and between people participating in a discussion. And in that sense, I'm against jargon - against jargon as a certain relation of one to another.
That doesn't stop me being, at the same time, against pro-capitalist supporters of 'plain speech' (the campaign for plain english in the UK, in emphasising the simplicity of 'anglo-saxon' origin words, strays close to xenophobia, in my mind) or 'common sense' (like the UK Tories with their 'common sense revolution'). Sure Marxists are not speaking in ways which are 'common' - but that's because of the suppression of the working class under capitalism, and the fact that we all learn to tell our stories according to someone else's format.
Peter P.S. on the question of language again - I was told a story by an ex-member of the SAG, the German section of the International Socialist tendency (the semi-Trotskyist group around Tony Cliff's UK Socialist Workers Party) of a case where they had a meeting attended by, amongst others, a Turkish immigrant who did not speak German. When he asked that someone translate for his benefit, the speaker at the meeting (a leading SAG member) retorted that people should go to school (i.e. learn German) before coming to socialist meetings. Such crass racism is shocking coming from someone who was supposedly a Marxist.
Just to prove that it is also entirely unnecessary, in Cape Town we've had meetings partly in English, partly in Xhosa, where some people at the meeting don't understand English, and others don't understand Xhosa. Impromptu translations kept the meetings flowing. To me breaking down language barries between working class people falls into the same general catagory as breaking down sexism and racism. -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk : PGP key available Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower. - Karl Marx
NOTE: I do not speak for the HGMP or the MRC.