Jim D. writes about the origin of PC within Maoism. He is partly correct (pc). "Political incorrectness" was current within Maoism to describe views, actions, speech practices etc. which analysis could demonstrate had politically negative consequences, i.e. retarded the advent of socialism. The term was favored over "wrong" because the objection was not based on bourgeois morality. Much like the term disgruntled, it didn't have a serious positive counterpart. "Politically correct" was used within Maoism as a term of self satire, meaning, as Jim states, holding overly rigid views. I'm not sure this term was used widely on the left, but it was only with its adoption by the right as a term of derision aimed at, ironically, the very non-Maoist identity politics tendency, that it achieved its present meaning. It's important not to let the right write our own political history even in matters like this. I also think this discussion is a small manifestation of an ongoing process which is of more importance. With the Sokal affair marking a turning point, the Marxist left has sought to distinguish itself from identity politics and its theoretical manifestation in pomo, separating itself from the more negative aspects of this tradition. At the same time it has had the responsibility of helping to defend a predominantly left-wing tendency from rightist attack. The Marxist left has had to separate the contributions of identity politics from its weaknesses. One example of this is the tricky distinction between the laudable sensitivity to the politics of language on the one hand and over-sensitivity on the other. This is a difficult distinction but a necessary one. On the one hand, being antiPC is the liberalism of fools. On the other hand, Marxism is a distinct tradition on the left and is not responsible for the excesses of identity politics (it is of course responsible for its own excesses). Terry McDonough I think the present discussion
