Political Vocabulary

Originally Posted by Andross

The constitution is in major need of an overhaul if the Bourgeoisie expects to hold its sway over the Proletariat; it's becoming painfully obvious that it doesn't account for human rights and liberties in this modern era. Of course, it's also becoming obvious that the human species as a whole is slave to a select handful of.tyrants, so whatever changes they make won't be all that significant.

On a total side-note, this is why nobody takes communists seriously. "Bourgeoisie"? Seriously? Why use a word originating in French adapted by a Russian for use in the 19th century, when we're 21st century Anglophones? It's just trying to display intellectual superiority via pretentiousness.

The constitution is in major need of an overhaul if the wealthiest in society expect to keep worker's rights in such a poor condition; it's becoming painfully obvious it doesn't account for human rights and liberties in this modern era. Of course, it's also becoming obvious that people in general have very little sway compared to a select group of the rich and influential, so whatever changes we make won't be all that significant.

It says exactly the same thing; but communicates in a way that means people don't go "one of those nutters again".

I do not see at all how it is an attempt to sound intellectually superior or pretentious. It has been a commonly used part of the left wing lexicon for generations. It is as widely used as the word "entrepreneur" (So by that logic, you must think the same of capitalists) by the English-speaking world, and might as well be considered English.

Originally Posted by Andross

I do not see at all how it is an attempt to sound intellectually superior or pretentious. It has been a commonly used part of the left wing lexicon for generations.

Exactly; the left-wing lexicon. The minute you say "bourgeoisie", it's a warning flag that goes up saying "this person is addressing a small select clique of people, which I am unlikely to be a part of". You're excluding a huge amount of your audience. If you actually want to persuade people, you need to use their language. Otherwise, you may as well go shout at a wall. Which, in fairness, is what much of the left do much of the time.

It is as widely used as the word "entrepreneur" by the English-speaking world, and might as well be considered English.

"Entrepreneur" is far more frequently used. I mean, look. Not exactly scientific, but it demonstrates my point. By using entrepreneur, you're communicating with a far wider group of people, and hopefully convincing a few. By using bourgeoisie, you're communicating solely with the people who already believe you. What's the point in that?

The words "entrepreneur" and "bourgeoisie" have two completely different meanings and connotations, and the only people who do not understand the word "bourgeoisie" are likely those who do not understand the word "entrepreneur" ("Quit speaking funny and speak AMURICAN" and the like). Even though the word "bougeoisie" is a part of anti-capitalist tradition, it is often used by the right-wingers/non-leftists, as well, for various purposes. Even then, though, this is all just arguing semantics in an attempt to sidestep the point. If someone is willing to disregard a point due to wording alone, and they have a pretty decent understanding of the various forms of economy (So they'll be able to spot my affiliation a mile off), then they'll disregard my position no matter what rhetoric I use. Some people are beyond conversation, which is unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Andross

The words "entrepreneur" and "bourgeoisie" have two completely different meanings and connotations, and the only people who do not understand the word "bourgeoisie" are likely those who do not understand the word "entrepreneur" ("Quit speaking funny and speak AMURICAN" and the like).

I wasn't saying they were? I pointed out that it's fairly easy to see using a quick Google trawl that the word bourgeoisie is used approximately 18 times less than the word entrepreneur. Regardless of whether people understand it or not, the word has connotations that the speaker using it has absolutely no intention of wanting to communicate with them.

Even though the word "bougeoisie" is a part of anti-capitalist tradition, it is often used by the right-wingers/non-leftists, as well, for various purposes. Even then, though, this is all just arguing semantics in an attempt to sidestep the point. If someone is willing to disregard a point due to wording alone, and they have a pretty decent understanding of the various forms of economy (So they'll be able to spot my affiliation a mile off), then they'll disregard my position no matter what rhetoric I use. Some people are beyond conversation, which is unfortunate.

Not really. I'll perfectly happily conduct a debate with somebody who talks about the state of the global economy, even if they disagree with me, but when they start talking about post-classical neo-endogenous growth theory having resulted in metastasis between financial intermediaries under geopolitical suzerainty, then I'm bailing out. Not because I disagree or agree with the speaker, but because the ability to communicate well with an audience is important, and they clearly don't wish to communicate well.

Split the discussion on the nature of bourgeoisie and entrepreneur from the US Constitution thread.

Credit for the title goes to Nesi; she came up with it since I'm running on an hour of sleep here.

A problem inherant with bourgeoisie is that it has shifted meaning some over time. We often associate it with the priviledged, and especially with those responsible for exploitative labor practices. However, this is a shift from its original label of 'upper-middle-class', which itself is not defined as it once was.

The issue with the word is that for most purposes it isn't specific enough. It also carries the extra baggage of being overused by socialists and communists over time, so its use, intentionally or not, may accidentally link your own argument with theirs--leading to any number of assumptions and misconceptions.

There's a similiar issue with proletariat, as it particularly was describing industrial workers but could be applied to any wage earner. The issue is these words come from a different era of stark class divides, and some would make the contention that the dichotomy was a gross oversimplification to push a political agenda.

Heh, I consider myself on the left, at least as far as categorization in the U.S. goes, and I very rarely run into the terms in question.

When I was in college, I was acquainted with a market anarchist. He was (and still is, I think) such a zealot that it would be hard to have any conversation with him without him trying to force it to be about anarchism and the "evils" of government. On Facebook, almost all of his posts are concerned with how evil he perceives government to be, and how great it would be if everyone could just do what they wanted and work together without government.
One of my relatives almost always turns conversations political and goes straight for conspiracy theoretic talk about how "they" (the rich and powerful in, and in bed with, government) are trying to kill off everyone else.

In general, I loathe conversations being hijacked by political/economic zealotry, and the use of uncommon political/economic terminology usually tells me that such is about to happen. If someone is versed well enough in a certain train of thought to constantly use the associated jargon in a conversation in which other people are not similarly well-versed, it tells me the former person isn't willing to communicate with said others in good faith. This is regardless of whether or not the aforementioned train of thought has been demonized by society at large.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

On a total side-note, this is why nobody takes communists seriously. "Bourgeoisie"? Seriously? Why use a word originating in French adapted by a Russian for use in the 19th century, when we're 21st century Anglophones? It's just trying to display intellectual superiority via pretentiousness.

It says exactly the same thing; but communicates in a way that means people don't go "one of those nutters again".

This post does nothing except demonstrate that you possess a cognitive bias against the use of terminology you yourself deem pretentious. The lexicon typically associated with communist and socialist ideology is not widely used and does carry a certain connotation, but if the same meaning is conveyed then there should be no problem.

Originally Posted by Razekial

This post does nothing except demonstrate that you possess a cognitive bias against the use of terminology you yourself deem pretentious. The lexicon typically associated with communist and socialist ideology is not widely used and does carry a certain connotation, but if the same meaning is conveyed then there should be no problem.

Not at all; connotations are important. I can, of course, understand Andross; but I'm also immediately alerted to the fact that in all likelihood he does not really intend to address with me and converse with me, but instead just wants to air his opinion - all monologue, no dialogue. This is, of course, a generalisation; not all people who use technical political jargon are doing so because they effectively want to drown the other person out, but it is common enough that it is an immediate warning flag. As such, if you want to avoid people switching off, it's a good idea to avoid such terms.

This is not unique to terms like "bourgeoisie", incidentally. I'm leftwing myself, and I have no objection to the ideas of the left. Using "job-creator" or some such as a replaceable term for "wealthy" is a rightwing equivalent.