Documents menu

Abusive language in working-class culture

Jim J. and Haines B. continue their exchange,
22 December 2000

Haines Brown assaults me with his basically irrelevant POV, which hinges on a perhaps technically 'true' -- but irrelevant -- proof, IMO.

Below is a current example of where Brown's logic leads -- just so we know why people such as myself can be so 'unreasonable' -- and why the matter really is NOT that simple...:

From: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/corr-d22.shtml

"...Chile is a strange country with a peculiar type of democracy where everyone rules except the people. A strange country where the military lost their power but none of the cowardly politicians had the courage to tell them. So, they just keep ruling the country as in the good old times. Not that they need it, because the Appeal Court also protects Pinochet. The magistrates had no problem in overruling a brave judge's decision to indict the general. So, it's back to square one again: Pinochet is still a free man, the military is happy and the government is relieved, because they fear the military.

The Catholic Church also protects the military, for in a recent liturgical ceremony the bishops asked for forgiveness for all sins committed in the last three decades. As if we are all guilty of what happened in Chile before and after the military coup in 1973. They also valued a letter sent to them by Pinochet, because the dictator thinks "with grief in the suffering that so many Chileans have experienced or still experience." How dare the bishops believe a murderer, how dare Pinochet talk about sorrow when it was he and his men who inflicted untold pain on our people? The dictator is unable to feel remorse, his words are not only hollow, but outright offensive."

So many 'polite' people in Chile...

My first impulse was to ignore the ad hominem intro and focus on the document which Jim so usefully conveys, but given the subject line and the fact that I think his introductory comment brings up an important and somewhat valid point, I'll venture to reflect upon it briefly.

> Haines Brown assaults me with his basically irrelevant POV, which > hinges on a perhaps technically 'true' -- but irrelevant -- proof, > IMO. > > Below is a current example of where Brown's logic leads -- > just so we know why people such as myself can be so 'unreasonable' > -- and why the matter really is NOT that simple...:

A lot hinges on how I take Jim's comment. Let me try a paraphrase it. It seems to suggest that the pressure of circumstances is so great that we can't afford to waste time on side issues (Haines' POV) or picky logic (being reasonable standing in the way of action).

If my grasp of Jim's point is correct, then to a degree I agree. There are surely times when we need to focus all our time and energy on what really counts, and there are certainly situations in which gut instinct is sufficient to direct our action.

Even though I agree in principle, allow me some qualifications.

1. I'm not sure we all agree on the target, on the appropriate strategy of our attack or on an appropriate tactic. Before Jim jumps all over me, let me hasten to presume that most of us would like to bring about a structural change in the prevailing sytem, which for most of us means changing existing relations of production and therefore power relations.

Unfortunately, things in practice don't seem quite so simple. There's the tension between a social democratic approach and a revolutionary communist one (I'm not trying to be precise in my vocabulary) which seems due more to their differing assessement of circumstances than a difference in philosophy. Historically, for the most part it arose out of a differing reaction to the so-called second industrial revolution and the expansion of empire. Without getting involved in all that, I suggest we now live in new times, with capitalism and empire assuming new forms. A century has passed. What is going on is in some ways quite new, and in some ways not. It begs for a convincing analysis that implies appropriate courses of action.

I don't see that analysis. [...]

If such a consensus is lacking, it seems unwise to be impatient with those who march to a different drummer. I often agree with gay liberationists, environmental radicals, feminists, etc, but my own core commmitment lies elsewhere. If those folks were holding back a concerted class struggle, I suppose I'd loose patience with them. However, if they are all part of some amorphous, hard to define struggle, my attitude will be one of patience and good will (within limits, I admit). Blowing the bugle to sound the attack makes no sense if there's no disciplined army behind us.

I'm not arguing that such a consensus should emerge spontaneously, for I think it needs to be built. My point is only that going into battle before there is a coherent class outlook by at least the leadership seems foolhearty. Until then, it makes no sense to criticize others for not following our own banner, for they have their own.

2. My second point is about how consciousness emerges. I certainly don't think it arises from intellectual discourse, but I don't for that reason critize those who like to pursue it. If I get bored, I change the channel, but nevertheless assume that intellectual clarification is of great importance. I personally feel that a great deal has been accomplished in detail, but not for an overall synthesis.

[...]

Acting on instinct really begs the question. Someone who has fallen victim to a criminal might naturally stike back. While I am sympathetic to that behavior, an instinctive reflex action might not be the wisest or ultimatly most satisfying course of action. On the other hand, if the person has a class consciousness, then the reflex action is inspired by personal emotion, but informed by class experience. So, I don't trust knee jerk reactions unless I am confident the person has been in the front line of class struggle. Only then can I accept the wisdom of an unreasoned behavior ;-)

Without any consensus on such issues as these, I think all we can do is exercise forebearance, tolerence, and patience [with each other]. [...]

Haines Brown

At 04:44 PM 12/23/00 -0500, Haines Brown muttered:

> My first impulse was to ignore the ad hominem intro and focus on the > document which Jim so usefully converys, but given the subject line > and the fact that I think his introductory comment brings up an > important and somewhat valid point, I'll venture to reflect upon it > briefly.

Hey -- I'm not finished with you. I'm just tied down with agent provocateurs on another Listserv...

The problem is that you have a lot of nerve, 'calling' me on 'politeness' -- but then, that is a common problem on an extremely demoralized Left.

Do you even BELIEVE in socialist revolution, Haines??

Jim J.