Re: [Marxism] Re: Should socialists call for democratic structuralchange?

[Steve Olson <noarch99@xxxxxxxxx>]

Deviationist, rectificationist, dogmatist, revisionist, et al. are 
paradigmatically textured; as such, I find them interesting linguistic tools 
for they reveal not just the ideas the writer explores but something of the 
writer's political background/context.  True, the NCM engaged in substitute 
analysis by phraseology, but out of this past has come interesting innovations 
in political talk.  Maoists as well as Trotskyists can probably spot former 
members by their phrasing, which is not unlike a superstructure/infrastructure 
model with language use in the former and political trend in the latter.  (This 
is very ad hoc, so forgive the assertiveness of my message.)

"Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect"

> A suggestion to Carlos and anybody else similarly inclined. We should
> avoid jargon like "deviationist" here. It is counter-productive.

Actually, this is something of a chasm in language, I'll try to use less
maospeak here.

But this bear an explanation. In the maoist line method, you structure lines
in the following manner:

1) Correct - not necesarilly your own line. Actually, no real maoist
organization says they are correct. They say their leaders are correct or
imply they are correct by stating things as fact. It is most often used in
polemics when you want to concur with some part of your anti-thesis' line.

2) Rigth-deviationist - This are lines that minimize the differences between
the proletariat/people and its vanguard(s) and the reactionaries. For
example, marxists in the Democratic party are extreme-rigth deviationists.

3) Left-deviationist - This are lines that maximize differences between the
proletariat/people and its vanguard(s) and the reactionaries. Anarchists are
extreme-left deviationists.

These are not absolute consideration, and are usually presented as "I/we
believe that so and so idea is x-deviationist", as any issue of line is take
as a possibility if argumented on the side of struggle. Describing something
as "deviationist" is actually, except among dogmatists, a positive yet
dialectical way of describing a difference: It accepts as rooted in marxism
and doesn't question the method of the analaysis, but rather questions the
underlying assumptions that created the sysnthesis. In programing they call
it a "Gigo" "garbage in garbage out".

It doesn't mean that people are deviant or degenerate, and it has no
relationship to abnormal psychology (unless maybe it influenced it in some
wierd obscure manner???) as it predates Abnormal Psychology as a formulation
. It simply analyzes how a particular political line relates to existing
objective and subjective conditions.

Sure some dogmatists skewer the method and turn it in a banal "insult" like
say geriatric orthotrots calling each other "centrists". But its me you are
talking about. I am neither dogmatic, nor a word fetishists. And I deal with
ideas, not people, a difference I am becoming increasingly aware many people
are not able to do.

sks


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Make Yahoo! your home page
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism