this is mostly a side effect of the rise in popularity of identity politics and small scale direct action in preference to class politics and mass organizations. the benefits and detriments of this are debatable. mostly i believe identity politics have helped flesh out the rather simple class analysis of past organizations.

but the language aspect is not really a problem. the people using the new vocabulary do so today, not in the past. we're not going to time travel so who cares if someone from the past would have been confused by the language?

also, some of the terms on their equivalency table are a little weird. in particular, "calling out" isn't really comparable to "consciousness raising", yet the author repeatedly mentions how one has replaced the other.

anyway...

In particular, one can discern the operation, just below the surface, of three fundamental shifts.

1. A Shift in Priorities from Ultimate Victory to Challenging Everyday Impacts.

2. A Shift of Focus from Analyzing System Dynamics to Analyzing Interpersonal Dynamics.

3. A Shift in Emphasis from Commonality (Among Social Groups) to Specificity.

Taken together, these three shifts go a long way toward explaining the transformation of the way activists talk, which has been noticeable at least since the 1990s. But is this a turn in the right direction? Or has the activist Left gone badly astray?

as for 1, this is necessary. we are in no state to achieve "ultimate victory" and even if we were, classical leftist politics fail to address many of the social divisions that may be able to survive the revolution.

as for 2, it's less of a shift of focus and more of an acknowledgment that system dynamics partially depend on and can at least be partially remedied by changes in interpersonal dynamics. there's a little back-and-forth here but there's no sense in not pushing where we can.

as for 3, this shift hasn't been wholesale. occupy is a counterexample.

In brief, the old vocabulary emerged in a context where opportunities to encourage solidarity and collaboration were actively sought, whereas the new vocabulary emerged out of the frustration of failed efforts to bridge gaps between people and organizations that reflected real differences.

this is pretty accurate,

It seems clear that the attentiveness in today’s Left activist subcultures to interpersonal dynamics within the movement reflects a genuine learning process. It is a step toward beginning to address problems that were, in effect, glossed over and ignored by phrases like “the people” and a complacent view of the prospects for building genuine “solidarity” and “alliances.”

yes.

and then the author goes on about stuff like:

Moreover, the way we challenge everyday impacts should be informed by our understanding that they are not produced simply by individual actions, but by the operation of large-scale systems. The Left needs a vocabulary, and a self-understanding, that highlights and foregrounds the importance of constructing and expanding anti-systemic movements that aim to defeat systems of oppressive and exploitative power.

these failures haven't happened. there is plenty of systems analysis, but the macro stuff has been pretty well hashed out and it's now becoming more informed and detailed by interpersonal analysis. there's plenty of broad-alliance building, and it's less encumbered by internal sexism, racism, and other historical problems.

this is less of a shift and more of a growth. the old stuff is still in the center of the map, we're just charting new territory around the edges.