But why is the review written using Marxist terminology?
Radical is a perfectly good word. No reason why Marxists should be allowed to appropriate it for their exclusive use.
http://www.amazon.com/Andy-Wightman/e/B0034OO3HA/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
Private property rights are an endangered species in the UK and the UN would do the same to us by way of Agenda 21.
Maybe it's an attempt to not let the other side
define the discussion; maybe it's the other side
equating dissent from government to evil.
I don't know.
This misapplication -- or redefinition -- or radicalization, if you will -- of language isn't merely something journalists titillate one another (and torture everyone else) with. It has seeped into the mind of the generation now starting a career making any communication beyond the most superficial nearly impossible; and ensuring that the young mind interprets history through a Marxist filter. So I have observed. And since language is the medium of the mind, the ramifications for the proper intellectual formation of this generation are ominous indeed.