Jargon Buster – a Start!

Following ideas on Progresive Pulse here and later ideas on the Tax Justice blog I’ve been grateful to Nick Koronka for creating the outlines and I’m trying to start with a new word. And also something that might be a shade controversial to get the Jargon Buster directory going.

Please do comment below and please do suggest other definitions – the most mundane ideas may, I suspect, prove the most difficult to nail…

The actual Jargon Buster page is here  (currently available only to editors and contributors until we get a core of knowledge! when it will be properly public.)

Do please add your comments and suggestions below  Рregardless. They can be honed and discussed.

This is my first suggestion, which is, I think, a new word. So it suggests why, if we value our proper lives, we should view the commercial world wide web with an element of circumspection..

Technofeudalism: you’re working for the enhanced concentration of the control of knowledge and software.

In short, it is probably what you’re helping to create – if you are not giving Amazon and Google a wide berth. (Incidentally I like Duckduckgo because it doesn’t track you!)

2 thoughts on “Jargon Buster – a Start!”

  1. This might be slightly off message, however, it seems to me that part of the re-branding of the social economy, since Thatcher, has involved a re-education in the way we’re supposed to think about the society we live in.
    One example being Social Security which became the Benefits Office, “allowances & entitlements” became benefits.
    When we read about the NHS privatisation such as proposed in the Naylor Report they talk about “assets” rather than publically owned property and land. The shift in the use of from language which is inclusive into commercial or business jargon seems only to benefit those intent on dismantling our social structure, so an asset becomes something we can profit from, if sold, rather than something we should hold as an important benefit for us all to treasure and keep.
    I guess my point is can we counter this in a jargon buster or is it too deeply embedded to challenge?

    1. I entirley agree – I think it is important we point out the way terms are manipulated and how they affect what people think. Similar to the National Debt and National Savings being one and the same – but with National Savings ‘good’ and National Debt ‘bad’.
      And one person’s asset is another’s liability. The Naylor report wants us, the state, to swap those round out of the kindness of our hearts in order to give the rentiers easy pickings!
      It won’t make things easy – I fear we will end up having to do lots of crossreferencing to make matters clear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

[aps-counter theme="theme-3"]