IF YOU believe, as I do, that the war of ideas is a critical front in political struggle, then clarity and logic become a necessity in that war. Indeed, the war of ideas can often become a war of words or phrases.

When we allow or accept phrases like “the axis of evil” or words like “deplorables” to uncritically enter popular discourse, we have lost a skirmish in the ideological struggle.

This project is not the same as the language-policing so popular with liberals. It is not an excuse for shaming, embarrassing or demeaning people because they are ignorant or dismissive of liberal etiquette.

Instead, it’s a search for focus and rigour, an attempt to sharpen our tools in the war of ideas.

Therefore, it’s time to call out words or expressions that mislead, distort, or poison our discourse. Below, I nominate several candidates for retirement, restraint, or caution.

Terrorism

Those holding power have persistently labelled their weaker opponents who rise up as “terrorists.” Virtually every anti-colonial movement in the post-war period has been called “terrorist,” regardless of the tactics employed in their struggle or whether those tactics were defensive or offensive.

From the Indian National Congress to the Mau Mau movement, to the Palestine Liberation Organisation, to the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, to the African National Congress, oppressors have denounced the oppressed as terrorists. The term lost any even minimal credence with the US government’s blatant and blatantly inconsistent use as a slander against socialist Cuba. Retirement of the term is obligatory.

Middle class

There is no middle class except in the clouded minds of those who dispute that the US and other advanced capitalist societies are class societies. Of course, there is a statistical middle when incomes and wealth are divided into three, five, seven, or more parts. But those divisions are arbitrary and virtually meaningless. We can speak loosely of a middle stratum, provided we understand that there is no significant social boundary with the strata on either side. “Middle” itself identifies no useful socio-economic category.

Of course, there are classes and significant strata identifiable by socio-economic criteria. One such criterion that has stood the test of time is the Marxist class distinction between those who own and control the wealth-producing assets and those who must secure employment from them. This remains a clear and rigorous divide with vast social, political, and economic consequences.

When politicians and labour leaders refer to the “middle class,” we can be sure that they have no intention of challenging real, existing class society and its inevitable inequality, oppression and destruction.

Authoritarianism

When the USSR fell, capitalist ruling classes reserved the shop-worn cold war term “totalitarianism” for People’s China and the remaining countries ruled by Communist Parties. Yet there were many countries that structurally embraced the institutions of bourgeois democracy — regular elections, representative bodies, legal institutions, and constitutions — though earning the ire of the Euromerican ruling classes and their media and academic lapdogs.

A new term was appropriated to condemn the dissenters for allegedly abusing, corrupting, or influencing those institutions: authoritarianism.

Countries like Russia, Venezuela or Iran — while sharing look-alike institutions with the “liberal” democracies — are condemned as authoritarian, even though their institutions function similarly, or sometimes better than their accusing critics.

US critics depicting other countries as authoritarian are particularly hypocritical, coming from a country where political outcomes are determined by money or power to a greater extent than any other place on the planet. International polling consistently shows that the people in supposedly authoritarian-ruled countries have greater trust in their governments than their Euromerican counterparts, a finding that surely sends the word “authoritarianism” to the historical dustbin.

Fascism

The word “fascism” has a legitimate use to refer to a specific historical period, its essential features, and the common conditions that generate its arrival. Its 20th century rise in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, from the volatility in the wake of a global war, and coincident with severe economic instability, is no mere accident, but is vital to our understanding.

Just as the conditions of its development were unprecedented, fascism was unprecedented, generated by a profound challenge to the capitalist order. Fascism was a desperate reaction to a powerful, emergent, revolutionary working-class movement, growing political illegitimacy and economic collapse. The word’s rigorous use requires that these conditions be met.

Instead, the word has come to be used by unprincipled political operatives in the way that the charge of communism has been used so often by unscrupulous red-baiters, trading on emotions.

Bereft of a telling argument for a policy or strategy, philistines fall back on fascist-baiting, to paint their opponents with an association with Blackshirts, Stormtroopers, and the Gestapo. Weaponising “fascism” distracts from revealing the actual obstacles to change and devising real answers to those obstacles.

Neoliberalism

The era — beginning in the 1970s — identified with policies first associated with Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the US — has often been called “neoliberalism.” There is some logic to labelling the period accordingly, drawing attention to its similarity to an earlier period of laissez-faire capitalism before the Keynesian revolution and before intensified government oversight of the capitalist economy.

Academic writers David Harvey and Gary Gerstle have understood the term in a more precise way: as an effort to “restore and consolidate class power,” in Harvey’s words.

But “neoliberalism” has come to connote a right-wing-imposed deviation from the benign, social democratic, social safety-net regime of the heralded 30 glorious post-war years. With this interpretation, capitalism with a humane, happy face was interrupted by a far-right counter-revolution, leading to massive deregulation, privatisation, commodification, market fetishism, and rabid individualism.

Omitted from this tale is the harsh and telling fact that the post-war social democratic consensus was rapidly collapsing before intensified global competition, pressure on profits, inflation mutating into stagflation and unemployment. That deviation from classical economic liberalism left its own scars on working people. The crisis of the New Deal model — widely followed internationally — opened the door to options, quickly filled by the far-right zealots of market fundamentalism.

Neoliberalism, understood as the disease and not a symptom, deflects attention from diagnosing the real disease: capitalism.

Deep state

The idea that there is a highly visible, superficial state that is widely believed to be the governing body, but merely a facade for a far deeper, secret apparatus, is an attractive alternative to the official, widely circulated myths of popular sovereignty. From various perspectives, that apparatus is the CIA, Freemasons, followers of Lyndon Larouche, George Soros or zombies.

And therein lies the problem: the deep state is whatever the latest schemer, plotter or crackpot says it is. The vague idea of a wizard (of Oz?) pulling strings behind the scenes is the genesis of conspiracy theories, and should be seen as such.

There is a far more robust, time-tested and scientific concept to describe the bogus high-school-civics-class picture of transparent, democratic and representative governance uniquely practised by the advanced capitalist countries.

That well-founded concept is the notion of a ruling class developed by — but not exclusive to — Marxists. A ruling class has both shallow and deep features — overt and covert aspects — that work together to maintain class rule. While elements of the ruling class may differ on how best to guarantee the interests of the elites — typically the employer class — they all agree that they will promote and protect those interests.

Where the so-called “deep state” conjures a picture of puppeteers hidden in the shadows manipulating and distorting a benign government structure, the ruling class concept offers a robust and rational picture of the existing asymmetry of power and wealth-generating a governing body that operates to preserve and protect that asymmetry. Absent a countervailing force organised to wrest the power away, one would expect no less from a social order constructed on inequality of wealth and income.

It is not plotting or conspiracies or intrigues that shape how we are ruled, but the social composition of our states. “Deep State” leads us away from that understanding.

Microaggressions and safe spaces

The “social justice” industry — academics, NGOs, non-profits and consultants — creates its own language of social advancement. Certainly, many engaged in the industry are well-meaning, but they are also transactional. They believe that their services are best commodified and paid for with promotions, donations, grants and direct compensation. Accordingly, they have an interest in creating new justice-rendering commodities new social-justice services. Microaggressions and safe spaces are the basis for such new commodities.

In a just society, all spaces should be safe. Short of a commitment to making all public spaces safe, designating certain spaces as safe is necessarily supporting privilege for those with access to such spaces, whether determined by lot, by merit, or by special characteristics. Safety, like health, is not something merited by a specific time, place, or group. Safe spaces invokes the logic of a gated community.

Microaggressions become relevant in a world without war, poverty, genocide and exploitation. Until those gross aggressions are gone, microaggressions — the bruising of individual sentiments — remain matters of etiquette. Hurt feelings, slights and discomforting words or body language belong in the realm of interpersonal misfortunes and not in the realm of social injustice.

The “social justice” industry fails us because it is caught between sponsors, donors and administrators heavily invested in the existing order and the radical needs of the victims of that order. Too often, they offer the victims empty or useless words as a salve for deep wounds.

Again, the point sought here is not to shame, accuse or denigrate, but to sharpen language to better advance the struggle for social justice, to win the battle of ideas. Those who oppose social change benefit when words are chosen for their emotive power, when they subtly reflect class bias, or when they distort a real insight.

Words have power. We should use them carefully.