The name of the book is "In Denial" the ISBN is just a guide to locating it for those who know how to use it. ISBN 1893554724.
I suppose if we did an article on Marxist studies that language and its alternatives could be fully set forth. What is needed here is the information that due to interest by American intellectuals who perhaps were involved in the upheavals of the 60s and 70s and entered Marxist studies a climate of hostility to criticisms of Marxism became established in American academia. There are a few scholars who have continued to research the problems of what caused Marxism in practice to go wrong and armed with the material resulting from the opening of the Soviet archives have made significant contributions to the field. Fairness in our articles requires both viewpoints be set forth.
For example 172 did not like the phrase, "Red Terror". Lenin and Trotsky liked it and put it into practice but 172 didn't like it. So it couldn't be in the history of the Soviet Union.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:37:13 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172
So now you add arrogance to sophistry. You may have expressed your POV at [[jargon]] and [[technical terminology]] but that does not change the fact that you use "revisinism" as jargon. We already have eight defininitions in the article "revisionism", why not just add your own revised definition as a ninth? Being coy about the definition and citing only an ISBN number, seems only a thinly veiled attempt to market the tract an behalf of the authors.
To discuss with this elite crew we must accept a revisionist (in the ordinary sense) interpretation of the term "revisionism". We need to accept this ultra conservative premise put forth by these tractarians.. We are not allowed to depend on the out-of-fashion Marxist "revisionism" of Bernstein and Kautsky.
Nobody is requesting "complicated new verbal constructions". A definition comparable in length to those already in [[revisionism]] would be enough. Better still avoid the jargon altogether.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Entry into a discussion of Marxist studies requires a willingness to become familiar with the vocabulary used in the field just as in the case of other specialized areas. Requiring the construction of complicated new verbal constructions is unreasonable. (And ultimately uncomprehensible.)
I wrote the original article [[jargon]] but eventually wrote [[technical terminology]] also.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
I have no reason to doubt that the indicated book used these terms in a specialized way. (The book appears to be anti-Marxist, and a pro-Marxist book would likely use it in a different way.) Neither way advances anybody's cause in these debates. It's the "specialized way" that gives the problem, and turns the term into jargon. If there is no definition of a term which the participants in a debate can hold in common, then perhaps it would be better to find a more appropriate term.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Marxist studies uses the terms "revisionist" and "traditionalist" in a specialized way. See page 2 of In Denial, ISBN 1893554724.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l