Re: [Marxism] Re: Should socialists call for democraticstructuralchange?

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "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.)

Man, I dug that.

I think the "language divide" is a relevant marxist academic category to
whom we don't pay attention. There is actually a lot of similarity in many
of the more relevant theoretical developments within different traditions
that gets, so to speak, lost in translation.

For example, "permanent revolution" has two different but overlapping
meanings in the trotskyist and anti-rev traditions. Yet theoretical and
practical developments don't get shared in large measure because of quite
literally the different language spoken...

sks


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