While we're reviving old vocabulary --
-- and now that Bernie Sanders has written his memoir, we have Ryan Cooper over at TheWeek.com explaining "Why America needs a socialist movement." It's a short piece which won't take long to read. Cooper's thesis is simple:
If the American left is to confront Donald Trump, it must have a movement with confidence and energy — one that will defend democracy with the same frantic urgency of conservatives trying to undermine it. In a word, it needs socialism.
Cooper then goes on to depict the Republican takeover of government in North Carolina, interesting stuff perhaps, and then argues:
But nationally speaking, there is nothing on the left like the conservative movement.
Of course, with a little work one can show that there certainly is something out there on the left like the conservative movement -- it's just being continually suppressed, like Occupy was suppressed, like the populist wing of the Sanders campaign was suppressed. But Cooper is undeterred, continuing:
What Democrats need is a fighting spirit to put some energy behind their own popularity advantage. Socialism — the democratic variety, not Marxism-Leninism, of course — is just what the doctor ordered.
Never mind that the Democratic Party is one of the groups suppressing the Left. At any rate, Cooper's strong suit is not that he does political analysis, but that he, as Bernie Sanders once did, continues to use words which have been pushed into disuse by the neoliberal consensus at the top. And we indeed benefit from the revival of those words. So, in that spirit, let's bring back some other words and phrases which need some revival.
At some point in the Seventies talk of the "working class" was displaced by discussion of the "middle class." The idea was to substitute the old, clear definition of the working class, which had to do with whether or not you sold your labor to a business or a government agency for a living (or if you owned enough capital to live off of it), with a new, muddled definition having to do with your wage and income levels. World-society is now headed heedlessly toward global warming toast under the direction of the global owning classes. In these circumstances we might be served with, I dunno, survival or something if we replaced the current owning class oligarchy with a democracy which serves the working class.
Now, to be sure, there is a managerial class, a class which comes from the working class but which takes orders from the owning class in managing the stratified class society. The managerial class is composed of doctors and lawyers and politicians and corporate managers and such. There should at this point be a useful debate about whether or not the managerial class can be persuaded to adopt a more working-class-friendly version of society.
Traditionally, class struggle is the struggle of the working class for a better life. Fight for 15, for instance, engages the class struggle. The reason the neoliberals hate the term "class struggle" is because they themselves are engaged in a class struggle of their own, only their class struggle serves the greater aggrandizement of the owning class and the impoverishment of the rest of us -- and they've been winning. If there is to be a class compromise -- and Bernie Sanders ran a class compromise campaign -- there must also be a class struggle.
At some point in the 1980s, maybe with all of those nice charity concerts (money against apartheid or for farmers or for starving Ethiopians or something), charity replaced solidarity. We the superior deigned to donate our spare change to those maligned bums (the majority of the human race in sum, but whatev) who merely wanted a 40-ouncer of good liberal kudos. But what's needed now, more than ever, is solidarity -- solidarity against the owning class's plans to screw us all with job flight and austerity planning. Solidarity was also replaced in the era of deepening political correctness by a system of "allies," as if being an "ally" was something more than what you did to add to your creative existence when you were a student on break from a nice privileged college or university. It's not. "Alliance" is based on the notion that you can't possibly understand those "other" people who aren't as privileged as you are and so you should "ally" yourself with them so you can look good. But nobody really cares if you look good, and if you are focused upon looking good, then that's what they're going to focus upon as well -- looking good. My advice to "allies": change society, don't just look good.
If there is to be a working class movement once again, then, it needs to be focused upon waging the class struggle, for sure, but as a prerequisite it needs to be focused upon positioning its members toward solidarity rather than charity or "alliance."
Once upon a time there was a Civil Rights Movement, with capital letters and all, and it was focused upon ending segregation through integration. The whole matter acquired a reduced urgency through the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because de jure segregation, separating Black and white people by law, was put to an end. Today, however, people are as segregated racially as they were in the Sixties, and there's still a problem of what they used to call "racial equality," yet nobody talks of integration anymore. Maybe it's time we brought the word back, then.
Once upon a time there was also a peace movement, but nowadays we have endless wars conducted in secret and nobody in the privileged countries really cares a whole lot. If we are to have solidarity, then, we'll need to bring back the peace movement, and thus also peace.
*****
OK, so what are your nominees for vocabulary revival?
Comments
Words I like which need their old defintions.
Bourgeoisie -
In the original sense of the word, complete with the disdain associated.
Libertine -
Because organized religion has far too much power. And I include the political religions in that.
Luddite -
Because the Technocrats are trying to kill us all by relying on technology that diminishes people and destroys the environment, all for a few more pennies on the billionaires score board.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
The one thing the Neo-Liberals fear the most [Trump included]
is the left as you note they go out of their way to try and tear it apart every chance they get. The reason? Their sponsors get worried that one day they might be forced to actually contribute to the society that gave them everything they have.
Vive la Revolution/Live the Revolution.
Nobody with much power represents 99 Percent
It's the reason this website exists. Nobody in power represents 99 Percent of Americans. The political landscape has been remade for the benefit of the 1 Percenters.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
Suppression of the left is scary
I can't help feeling afraid of what is coming. The trend has been unflagging for going on 40 years and I have been mumbling "civil war" to myself for at least the last 15. I showed up at some Occupy protests and I am on this site because I feel very strongly the 99% needs to heard. But as you note it has been suppressed. And the mega rich are filling all the seats of power and get protection from the police, the FBI and the military. Who the hell is supposed to protect the free speech of the 99%?
But yes. The US needs a socialist voice. I am sorry to say I think we are on the cliff edge of blood shed at this point. The right wing is heavily armed and has the floors of power. They have never hesitated to go where we never dreamt. And I doubt the EC vote will turn back this tide on Monday, even if they go against Trump. Trump may be preferable to most options simply for his inexperience and incompetence - he scores goals against his own team all the time.
With Trump not having given a press conference since July I am hoping the media will start to pay more attention to the left, so long term I think things may work out. But I am very frightened of what is in store.
And very fucking happy I live in California where the libtards hold the power.
Yes - we need to dust off the labels. The battle lines are drawn, one side is loaded with guns and the rhetoric to use them. We need to fight and be ready to die again, sad to say. Right here at home. Things are now ugly.
"If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back" - Regina Brett
Plenty of quiet class wars
Rs will join hands with the Ds to try to privatize Social Security to pit the old and infirm against the younger and healthier, while, you guessed it, enriching the owning class.
Funny how everytime there is a surplus, the rich get the tax cuts, and then everytime there is a need for stimulus, well you see the pattern. However, the policymakers demand that the 99% apply for what little help is provided, when in need, or worse; ignore their pleas and only provide the weakest support (OWS, DAPL, BlM, etc.)
Lesson learned: Political support for change should be secondary to public demand for change. If they need to be dragged from their congressional office to face their angry constituents, there will be no shortage of political support.
Fighting for democratic principles,... well, since forever
If we want a habitable planet
and not a mass die off of millions of species, including many millions, if not billions of human beings, we sure need the country with the biggest military in the world, and the biggest financial tentacles, to adopt a politics of cooperation, caring for the most vulnerable, caring for local environments that are under assault from climate disruption, pollution, famine, war, greed, scapegoating the "other" for all our problems and worshiping at the altar of the cult that privileges doing what's best for a few individuals at the expense what is best for all our many communities of people and future generations to come.
Otherwise, we could very well slip into any one of a dozen or more nightmare scenarios that would make the Zombie apocalypse look like a cakewalk.
JMO
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Except...
All that muscle has been bought and paid for by the powers that have created the very mess we are in. It is also a cash cow for them, as they crack open the door of opportunity to those left behind with a promise of escape if they serve.
What I want are the hearts and minds. But the powers that created this mess are busily poisoning those hearts and minds. I don't really trust the muscle. Yes - we can't be all powerless, it is a big influence on the game being played. But I don't think fighting for control of the muscle will ultimately fix things. What we need is to steer things towards sustainability.
Think of the children. That is where the power ultimately lies. Their future, their interests. It is that which will capture the hearts and minds.
"If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back" - Regina Brett
And we have the millennials!
I work in food service with some millennials. They felt the Bern. They want a future; they want an earth biosphere future. Democratic socialism - sign 'em up!
Right.
It is for them that the old vocabularies need to be revived. The new vocabulary, by which we talk of politics in terms of self-serving bullshit, was another neoliberal scam.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Public Good
For the benefit of Constients, Humanity. It is not perfection, it is for the advancement of Humanity.
It costs nothing, but it is more important than the minimum expectations.
Fighting for democratic principles,... well, since forever
The word "Socialism" is always
gonna be a hard sell in the USA. I doubt that trying to revive 20th century political terminology will be an effective strategy. IMO we will need to conceptualize new categories and invent new terms to define them. Though at the moment I have no clear idea of what those might be.
native
Perhaps the old terms were eliminated --
for the reasons old terms were eliminated in "Newspeak" in George Orwell's novel 1984 -- if you can't use the term, you can't think that way anymore. The fact that there is a real class struggle going on to this day, and that we're losing it, should have tipped you off to something.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Socialist?
I forgot when Bernie advocated government takeover of the means of production.
I nominate using words like "socialist" and "democracy" as though they meant what they did maybe a century ago, instead of the meaningless mishmash we've made of them, in order to avoid truth.
Part of the reason I wrote this diary --
was that using the terms at all can be counted as a victory in its own right. Battles over the definition of the terms can be waged once we liberate America's political discourse from the Newspeak into which it has drifted. And, yes, I do advocate the government nationalization of fossil fuels.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
My "socialist" comment was obviously about Bernie.
However, Truman would have agreed with you as to oil. http://caucus99percent.com/content/harry-truman-may-17-1952-americans-de... Query whether nationalizing fossil fuels = socialism, though, or only nationalizing fossil fuels. I don't know if it worth spending a lot of time on because I doubt it's going to happen.
It's a valuable diary.
If you are saying that using a term at all is a victory, even if we or, more likely, those with whom we disagree, use it incorrectly, then we disagree. When people use words willy nilly, they assume communication has occurred, but it hasn't. Only miscommunication has occurred and that, IMO, is far worse than no communication at all. For example, I don't think calling Medicare socialism or socialized medicine when it is neither helps anyone but the Pete Petersons of the world. On the other hand, talking about government control of the means of production as though it were a legitimate option does help. We should do that.
While we're at it, let's revive terms like "the poor" and "the most vulnerable among us."Thanks to our politicians and their policies, the group referred to as the poor has grown. However, the more it has grown, the more politicians limit their promises and concern, both of which generally prove worthless anyway, to "working people" and the "middle class."
I don't want unemployed people and/or people who don't make it to the middle class to die, Kissinger and his useless eater class notwithstanding. So, I would like to force politicians to, once again, at least acknowledge that the poor and the unemployed exist and deserve to live, which means food, shelter and medical care.
When words and concepts get muddied, best to go to their roots.
Agree with all the words you've brought up to a greater or lesser degree. Also "Public Good" as fight2befree suggested. I would add:
"The Commons" (which includes national parks, and also areas for Free Assembly and Free Speech)
"Public Airwaves" and its modern equivalent "Net Neutrality"
"Equal Time" (for opposing views in major media)
But also "propaganda" which started out neutral, but has itself been hijacked by the establishment. As in, if we don't like what you're saying, it's "propaganda" or "conspiracy theory" or "fake news". I've been studying it, and we are swimming in it, and it's not ours. What I found interesting about use of that word in the early 20th Century, is that it was treated implicitly as neutral, a mere container, rather than the contents. I found old writings where various people might lament that their political opposition had superior propaganda, or state that their own propaganda needed improvement. It was propagation of ideas, and something the Left also needs to learn to do effectively. The alt-Right or whatever the extremists are calling themselves lately is very effective with their propaganda, yet we likely outnumber them. So why are we perishing under an avalanche of their bullshit? In the oldest sense of the word, our propaganda is lame.
Somewhere around the Cold War, we accepted a right-wing frame of that word. Many of you here remember "Commie propaganda". It was always bad. And we didn't use it, right? -Except we did. Our RW of the time was hitting the "Commies" with the English-language version of Nazi propaganda, non-stop, and largely unchanged. By accepting the frame that propaganda=deception and lies, we cut ourselves off from learning the techniques used to propagate messages. Honest or not. True or not. OTOH, the RW never forgot those techniques. Which is why they pretty much own the field. So, yeah. "Propaganda".
And a few more really old words, since old-school socialists like FDR used them freely.
"Freedom"
"Liberty"
"Ethics"
"Morality"
-And yeah, I'm an atheist, but I still respect that Socialist Carpenter from Nazareth as being one of the greatest philosophers ever. My point is, those words have meaning, and are sadly lacking in our political scene. Instead of that level of philosophy, in our ruling class We have a fat lot of Randite assholes pretending to be Christians, while gladly screwing real Christians, and everybody else as well. -Oh, and also the planet.
I haven't heard those last four old-school words used much in any sane context during this last "election". Perhaps if the establishment players spoke them out loud, they would burn like wax candles floating in a vat of gasoline.
I like to dream big.
Leftists used to use those words. Socialists used to use those words. Hell, even Democrats used to use those words, though they may never do so again. We need to reclaim them, because we may be the only political grouping in this country that still cares about them. We need to own them, and propagate them, and quit pretending that they are always "relative". Moral relativism leads fairly directly to LOTE voting, and the entirety of our political "discourse" during the general. -And incidentally, to every evil of neo-liberal "thought".
And on the subject of reclaiming "Socialism", I'd like to point out that the opposite of "Socialism" is "Antisocial-ism". People that practice Antisocial-ism are Antisocial-ists, or simply Antisocial. They hate society.
And I'm done. Must get to work.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes