"Politically Correct" (part 2)
The discussion in "Politically Incorrect" in Humor revealed to me that most other people here do not know where "politically correct" came from. It is from Marxism-Leninism of the Bolshevik revolution. It is a concept that allows the differentiation of successful action from mere "reforms" that do not change the economic structure of a society.
In Marxist terms, when a self-styled "feminist" argues for equal wages to end the oppression of women by men, she is being politically incorrect. The politically correct analysis is that the ruling class (capitalists) use gender to divide workers against each other.
The ruling class uses "race" the same way. Every true Marxist knows that there is only one "race" the human race. Marxists are univeralists who deny the validity of arbitrary distinctions of "nationality" or "ethnicity" which are social constructs. So, "Black Lives Matter" is a reform movement that fails to solve the problem of exploitation because it fails to identify the cause: capitalism. The ruling class wants workers to argue about race because that prevents people from identifying the true enemy. Any self-styled "progressive" who supports a racial identity cause is a "revisionist" who is betraying the revolution.
As for "handicappers," the politically correct way to speak about people is to put the person first: person with a disability; person who is blind; person with a walker; person with a service animal; person in a wheelchair; person recovering from surgery ...
That also applies to other socially-constructed identities such as gay, Black, white working class, patriot, Ravens fan, ...
It can be cumbersome to always say "a person who self-identifies as African-American" but the first danger in not doing that is the de-personalization of people labeled "African-American." The second and equal danger is the division of the working class into categories that have no objective condition to support them. ("Skilled worker" and "petit bourgeoisie" have objective meaning to a Marxist.)
In conclusion, it would be politically correct for us to refer to "a person who owns a business" or "a person who knows their self-interest." Not to do so opens the door to the de-personalization of selfish capitalists; and once you deny a person their personhood, you can deny them any or all of their political rights.
In Marxist terms, when a self-styled "feminist" argues for equal wages to end the oppression of women by men, she is being politically incorrect. The politically correct analysis is that the ruling class (capitalists) use gender to divide workers against each other.
The ruling class uses "race" the same way. Every true Marxist knows that there is only one "race" the human race. Marxists are univeralists who deny the validity of arbitrary distinctions of "nationality" or "ethnicity" which are social constructs. So, "Black Lives Matter" is a reform movement that fails to solve the problem of exploitation because it fails to identify the cause: capitalism. The ruling class wants workers to argue about race because that prevents people from identifying the true enemy. Any self-styled "progressive" who supports a racial identity cause is a "revisionist" who is betraying the revolution.
As for "handicappers," the politically correct way to speak about people is to put the person first: person with a disability; person who is blind; person with a walker; person with a service animal; person in a wheelchair; person recovering from surgery ...
That also applies to other socially-constructed identities such as gay, Black, white working class, patriot, Ravens fan, ...
It can be cumbersome to always say "a person who self-identifies as African-American" but the first danger in not doing that is the de-personalization of people labeled "African-American." The second and equal danger is the division of the working class into categories that have no objective condition to support them. ("Skilled worker" and "petit bourgeoisie" have objective meaning to a Marxist.)
In conclusion, it would be politically correct for us to refer to "a person who owns a business" or "a person who knows their self-interest." Not to do so opens the door to the de-personalization of selfish capitalists; and once you deny a person their personhood, you can deny them any or all of their political rights.
+1