> > Can you point out "jargon" in any of my posts?
>>
>> Yoshie
>
>Well, since I don't save your posts, I'll have to rely on the only one I
>have.
>
>"We have seen that the capitalistic mode of production thrust
>its way into a society of commodity-producers, of individual
>producers, whose social bond was the exchange of their products. But
>every society based upon the production of commodities has this
>peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own
>social inter-relations."
>
>Say this out loud to a guy sweeping floors or to a woman washing dishes. Or,
>for that matter, to a person toiling at a computer for a large company. What
>do you suppose they'd say in response? Might the word "Huh?" be muttered?
>
>Many of your posts contain the type of jargon quoted above (either written
>by you or by someone else). You obviously exist in an orbit where it is
>understood. And, as kelley reminded me, this is such a place. My only
>question is, Does this jargon relate to the everyday lives of average
>people? Or is LBO Talk simply an intellectual circle jerk?
Does everything have to "relate to the everyday lives of average people"? Since when did that become the measure of all discourse? How much does a biography of Michael O'Donoghue relate to the everyday lives of average people? A lot of ordinary folks might find him disturbing, weird, or repulsive.
There's a lot of nonsense in "common sense"; what seems simple and obvious often depends on a lot of inherited and unexamined ideology. Challenging that takes time and makes people uncomfortable, but you could never have any kind of seriously radical agenda without challenging it. So there's something deeply conservative about calls to simplicity.
Doug