Our words are our weapons

I was just thinking yesterday I wanted to write about this, but Rebecca Solnit at Tomdispatch.com beat me to it:

Let’s rectify some names ourselves. We often speak as though the source of so many of our problems is complex and even mysterious. I’m not sure it is. You can blame it all on greed: the refusal to do anything about climate change, the attempts by the .01% to destroy our democracy, the constant robbing of the poor, the resultant starving children, the war against most of what is beautiful on this Earth.


Calling lies “lies” and theft “theft” and violence “violence,” loudly, clearly, and consistently, until truth becomes more than a bump in the road, is a powerful aspect of political activism. Much of the work around human rights begins with accurately and aggressively reframing the status quo as an outrage, whether it’s misogyny or racism or poisoning the environment. What protects an outrage are disguises, circumlocutions, and euphemisms — “enhanced interrogation techniques” for torture, “collateral damage” for killing civilians, “the war on terror” for the war against you and me and our Bill of Rights.


Change the language and you’ve begun to change the reality or at least to open the status quo to question. Here is Confucius on the rectification of names:


“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”


So let’s start calling manifestations of greed by their true name. By greed, I mean the attempt of those who have plenty to get more, not the attempts of the rest of us to survive or lead a decent life. Look at the Waltons of Wal-Mart fame: the four main heirs are among the dozen richest people on the planet, each holding about $24 billion. Their wealth is equivalent to that of the bottom 40% of Americans. The corporation Sam Walton founded now employs 2.2 million workers, two-thirds of them in the U.S., and the great majority are poorly paid, intimidated, often underemployed people who routinely depend on government benefits to survive. You could call that Walton Family welfare — a taxpayers’ subsidy to their system. Strikes launched against Wal-Mart this summer and fall protested working conditions of astonishing barbarity — warehouses that reach 120 degrees, a woman eight months pregnant forced to work at a brutal pace, commonplace exposure to pollutants, and the intimidation of those who attempted to organize or unionize.


You would think that $24,000,000,000 apiece would be enough, but the Walton family sits atop a machine intent upon brutalizing tens of millions of people — the suppliers of Wal-Mart notorious for their abysmal working conditions, as well as the employees of the stores — only to add to piles of wealth already obscenely vast. Of course, what we call corporations are, in fact, perpetual motion machines, set up to endlessly extract wealth (and leave slagheaps of poverty behind) no matter what.

Go read it all.

3 thoughts on “Our words are our weapons

  1. Adam Smith and his “The Wealth of Nations” is often referred to even though very few people have ever read it. Smith believed that government should interfere as little as possible with private enterprise. That’s his Doctrine of Laissez-Faire. The Capitalists (Republicans) love that doctrine. In the last twenty-five years of the nineteenth century everybody was forced to admit that the policy of laissez-faire must be modified for the greater good of “we the people.” The Capitalists have never accepted that conclusion and have fought an ongoing war to reestablish Adam Smith’s Doctrine of Laissez-Faire. And that’s what Romney and the Republicans are up to in this election cycle.

  2. Imho you are a one trick pony. This article is not about Adam Smith, it’s about Gingrich and Armey, “jobcreators”, “victims”, “entitlements” and “redistribution”. Our politics is held hostage by their language.

  3. Yes, but what Imho is saying is closely related to the topic.
    Their language is a weapon in the war that they are waging on the other 99.1% of us.

    And I think that Imho knows at least two tricks, maybe even three.

Comments are closed.