There are things we can’t say concisely and with sufficient
emphasis because too many words have been softened by political familiarity.
A good word for authoritarian politics is one we could do
with as a matter of some urgency. We have communist,
Marxist, Stalinist, Maoist, fascist and one or two others but we
already know them to be inadequate. They fail to capture the acute political danger
of centralising all decisions. They fail to get behind the fluffy velvet glove.
Communist and Marxist have been shorn of their terrors
by cartloads of fellow travellers infesting western politics and academia.
Somehow, the human horror of killing innocent people by the millions has left no
seriously indelible mark on our language. How convenient that is for modern
central planners - but surely not a healthy situation for the rest of us.
As for Stalinist
and Maoist I think the same problem
applies. Many people of a certain age once knew self-professed Maoists and
comfortable middle class faux radicals with Soviet sympathies. They were those for whom
Stalin and Mao were no more than over-enthusiastic in their ruthless
application of industrial scale murder.
As for fascist, it
has evolved into little more than a term of abuse, although very often it is
all we have. So we drift towards a kind of soft fascism because even our
language has betrayal woven into its threadbare and endlessly ameliorative
fabric.
What else can one say – without better words?
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
3 comments:
I've often thought of providing some commenters with a sheet of sticky labels they can put on me, saves them the pretence of thinking.
I was thinking, in the phrase "Stalinist and Maoist" maybe the problem isn't the "Stalin" and the "Mao" but the "ist".
... goes to what you said about labels.
Sackers - surely that would be too labelist.
Arthurian - you may be right. I don't really like "ists" applied to people, but applied to policies and ideas it isn't so bad.
The point I'm trying to make is that extremely toxic political trends can be virtually neutered by language.
Post a Comment