The left: still dying (was Re: European Unions)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Though I mostly agree with Yoshie on this point, there is still something
>off-putting about the deliberately bad writing of many academic texts. It is
>important to distinguish a technical vocabulary, as of Marxism, 
>psychoanalysis,
>or whatever, from obscurity. A technical vocabulary exists to express thoughts
>for which there are no other precise words. Obscurantism has no legitimate
>purpose. Part of my daily work involves helping patients understand 
>what doctors
>are saying. A medical vocabulary involves making precise distinctions between
>various kinds of empirical observations. But using the initials "CA" to imply
>"cancer" is just a way to avoid saying "cancer."
>Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema

Oh, I definitely agree with you.  There are legitimate technical 
terms that are indispensable for critical discussion, and there are 
terms whose primary function is to obscure the nature of social 
relations (e.g., "the height of wage rates for each kind of labor is 
determined by its marginal productivity" at 
<http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec3.asp>).

That said, technical terms that are the most difficult to grasp & yet 
crucial for critical understanding of the social world are most often 
not polysyllabic jawbreakers but simple words used in everyday 
discourse as well: e.g., class, value, etc.

Yoshie