Where Have The T's and The's Gone?

A lot of people are annoyed by the misuse of apostrophe's (intentional).  Then we have other  linguistic annoyances, such as phrases like "Going forward", as though given the nature of time, and our perception of it, we could actually be "going backwards".  There is the straightforward misuse of words, for example, using "of" instead of "have", as in "Could of", rather than "Could have".  Dave Gorman, in Series 3 of "Modern Life is Goodish", did a whole programme on the misuse of idioms, such as "Bowl in a China Shop", "From the Gecko", "And his Elk", "Catphrase", and "Escape Goat".  But, I've noticed another feature coming from the mouths of supposedly educated politicians, and public figures.  It is that the word "the", and the letter "t", seems to be gradually disappearing from their speech.

For example, on numerous occasions, I have heard Theresa May, and others, from the dispatch box, talk about "Leaving European Union", rather than "Leaving the European Union".  The European Union is a thing, just as the United States is a thing, or a car is a thing.  It is this thing that, if Brexit goes ahead, Britain will be leaving.  If you were getting out of a car, as a thing, you would not say, "I am getting out of car", you would say, "I am getting out of the car", or, at least, you would if you were using the English language and grammar correctly.

European union, is, of course, also a valid phrase too, but it describes not a thing (noun), but an activity (verb).  In other words, union is the act of joining together.  But, it is not that activity that is being ended, indeed, at the point that Britain joined the EU, the activity itself ceased, apart from any further development in the nature of that union was concerned, and the act of union itself became congealed in the form of an institution, i.e. the Union.  It is that institution, the Union that Britain would be leaving.

And, its not some act of the Brexiteers to try to besmirch or somehow diminish the nature of the EU that leads to this transformation of the European Union from a noun to an adjective, because the same people, and others, omit the required "the" prior to other nouns, in their speech.  It is as though they are unable to distinguish proper forms of speech from abbreviated forms of language for use on Twitter.  But, the reason for abbreviations on Twitter, or in text messages, is for a specific purpose, i.e. to be able to communicate within the limits of the medium.  In the original forms of telegraphy, it was also necessary to miss out some letters from messages, because of the limits of the technology, but as soon as new technology developed, so that those limits no longer existed, it became possible to send messages using the full alphabet, though in the case of telegrams, still in abbreviated form in order to save on costs.

But, there is no such reason for speech to be abbreviated in that way.  Doing so, is simply an indication of laziness, and sloppiness of thought, a disregard for the rules of language and grammar.  The same thing can be seen in the fact that, often, people come on to TV, and refer to "poli-ics", and other words, containing "t's", which appear to have gone AWOL from their pronunciation.  Why?  It may again be laziness, it may be that this is the way they have always spoken, but, usually, these are educated people who know the correct pronunciation, and the whole point about education is that you are able to shape your own being, as well as the world around you.  The other explanation is that it is simply an attempt to appear synchronous with "youth culture", in which case it is simply the kind of populist dumbing down that we should oppose.  The job of socialists is to raise people up, not to dumb everyone down.

The issue was dealt with by Gramsci in his "Prison Notebooks", where he talks about the need for the proper study and use of grammar, for example, in his essay "On Education"  Gramsci notes that if someone is sloppy in their use of language then it means that they are also going to be sloppy and disordered in their general thought processes too.  Language is, or should be, the verbalisation of our thought processes, and the means of communicating those thought processes to others.  Its not always the case.  There appears little connection between the words that come from Trump's mouth, and any prior cerebral activity.  The words that come out appear to flow without any necessary connection one to another, other than the production of phrases deemed likely to provide a positive feedback from his supporters, and the ire of his opponents, or any other thinking human being.  It is a verbal equivalent of the internet troll, whose ranting is not the product of any great knowledge, or cognitive process, but simply an autonomic response to others, designed to promote hostility.

But, for thinking human beings concerned to have an intelligent dialogue, language should be the end result of such manipulation of knowledge via cognitive and thought processes, to produce new ideas, as the basis for discussion and intellectual development.  If you can't be bothered to use language correctly, by using the appropriate forms of grammar, or to enunciate words correctly, then what is anyone to think about your ability to think about anything complex correctly, to be meticulous and painstaking in your thought processes, as Gramsci describes?  

The same laziness applies in the apparent inability for anyone to have an attention span longer than that of a gnat.  Yet, as Gramsci says, work created the conditions in which workers by hand become disciplined to operate in a systematic and persistent manner.  It is something that capitalism imposes upon them, as against the idiocy of rural life.  But, the same must be true of intellectual labour, and the process of developing ideas.

"In education one is dealing with children in whom one has to inculcate certain habits of diligence, precision, poise (even physical poise), ability to concentrate on specific subjects, which cannot be acquired without the mechanical repetition of disciplined and methodical acts. Would a scholar at the age of forty be able to sit for sixteen hours on end at his work-table if he had not, as a child, compulsorily, through mechanical coercion, acquired the appropriate psycho-physical habits? If one wishes to produce great scholars, one still has to start at this point and apply pressure throughout the educational system in order to succeed in creating those thousands or hundreds or even only dozens of scholars of the highest quality which are necessary to every civilisation."

But, if today our intelligentsia, our media personalities, and our politicians do not have the rigour, the diligence, the precision or the discipline to even express their thoughts correctly via a proper use of language and grammar, or by the proper enunciation even of the words they are using, how can anyone have faith in their ability to have first applied the kind of rigour, precision and discipline to the thought processes they should have undertaken before making those utterances?

Proletarian Strategy - Part 6

The Weakest Link

In Part 5, I made the comparison between the strategic nature of a Workers State, and a Co-operative. Both represent a physical manifestation of Workers Property, of territory that can be won and held, and developed as a power base by workers. In the first case that is true not just in the sense of property in the form of enterprises, but in the fuller sense of actual geographic territory. There is another similarity. Lenin argued that the Russian revolution occurred because it was Capitalism breaking at the weakest link. It was easier for the Russian workers to carry through the revolution, precisely because of the condition of Russian Capitalism and the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie. But, for the same reasons, it would be more difficult to construct Socialism – or even to compete effectively with the surrounding Capitalist States – than for a more developed economy. Similarly, the most frequent places where workers might establish Co-ops will be where they have been led to as a result of that firm collapsing. In a vibrant, dynamic, and profitable firm the existing Capitalist owners are not likely to voluntarily hand ownership to the workers. That doesn't make it impossible. Most such firms are publicly listed companies, and can be bought out. Indeed, I've suggested that if workers had control of the £800 billion in their pension funds, they could mobilise these funds to take over such companies on a strategic basis, and then use these companies as further leverage to take over further companies. But, as yet, we have not won that basic democratic right to control the money in our pension funds. The other alternative is to use the funds in the Co-op Bank, but currently there is no real workers democracy exercising control over the Bank, or the Co-op. As with the Trades Unions and Labour Party, a key part of working-class strategy involves a struggle for greater democracy within the Labour Movement.

However, as I have suggested, the development of modern industry has led to a situation in which the old argument about size being a limit to entry does not necessarily apply. The most profitable, most dynamic industries in the modern economy are those involved in high-technology of various kinds. Many of these industries require little in the way of Constant Capital (buildings, machinery, materials), but do require very highly skilled, complex labour-power. In fact, many of them are based on, and have been developed by Universities and their academics. There is considerable scope here, for a determined socialist, co-operative strategy. By developing worker-owned co-operatives in these enterprises, the kinds of problems encountered by the Worker Co-ops of the 1970's can be avoided. In addition, as the Lucas Plan demonstrated, the fact that workers take over a firm in a failing industry does not mean that they have to simply try to make what is failing under Capitalism succeed. Workers can switch existing production to other channels, where the specific benefits of a Co-op can be maximised.

Of course, none of that in any way suggests that none of these Co-ops will fail, or that there is some kind of linear progression. That is not true of any War, or very few. Every war sees advances and retreats. Territory is gained, and territory is lost. But, it is a very strange War, in which one side decides on principle, not to attempt to seize and hold on to territory for the fear of losing it! In many ways, this is the distinction that Gramsci made between a “War of Position”, and a “War of Movement”. In reality, people only adopt a strategy of war of movement, or guerilla tactics, because they begin from a position of weakness, a position in which they have no territory of their own to base themselves in and upon. That was the position that workers found themselves in, having been deprived of their means of production. But, it is ridiculous to make a virtue out of necessity, and refuse to establish your own territory. And unless you are an Anarchist, any force that did establish its own territory would not want to see it as just a piece of property in which everyone simply went about their activities as individuals. As soon as possible, it would be necessary to establish some form of Government, it would be necessary to establish means of making decisions, and of enforcing them. It would be necessary to look at how best production could be organised to strengthen your defences, and war fighting ability. It would be necessary to make alliances with others, and to consider how your forces could be combined to best effect. And, any kind of strategy would have to look at where further advances could be made, how the enemy could be undermined.

That is the whole point about the strategy that Marx and his followers adopted in relation to Co-operatives. Just as Trades Unions were rallying points to assemble the troops for the task of conducting battles that could establish some meaningful progress for workers, some advance that they could hold on to, so the Co-operatives were not the end in themselves, but the territory that the workers need to seize in order to make these further advances. The workers in the Co-op would need to establish a form of Worker Democracy to make the decisions, just as a force having seized territory would need to establish its method of decision making. In fact, the extent to which that form of Workers Democracy was seen by Workers as furthering their interests, the more it would be a reason for workers having secured it to defend it, and at the same time would be an inspiration to workers still exploited by Capital, to want to emulate it. That was the experience of the French Revolution, which even on the basis of a limited bourgeois democracy gave French workers something to defend, and acted to inspire workers in Britain. The same was true of the Russian Revolution. One of the biggest factors that led Peasants to support the Bolsheviks against the Whites, was the experience of how quickly the Whites reinstalled all of the cruelties of the old Tsarist system in those areas they were able to recapture. In WWII, as with any such War, a central aspect of strategy was to ensure that lines of communication were kept open, and that territory captured that was under attack could be supported. The same is true for a strategy of developing workers property. As Marx pointed out, the whole point of each Co-op being an integral part of a National Federation, was that not only could the surpluses be centralised so that they could be used to expand the number of Co-ops, and the degree of the economy in the Co-op sector, but it also meant that any individual Co-op could be provided with resources to overcome a short-run setback, rather like the system of Lend-Lease operated by the US towards its Allies in WWII. Moreover, the more different territories combining to provide such mutual support, means that the normal operations of specialisation, and exchange can operate. Similarly, a wide range of Co-ops involved in a range of activities can support each other, each using its specialisation to provide at lower costs for its partners within the Federation.

Back To Part 5

Forward To Part 7