• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Right and my contention is that it is not correct to equate parlance like that.

    I guess I look at this from a completely different perspective. My view is that there is a particular state the society goes through which is the transition between capitalism and communism. We gain increasingly more understanding about how this transition looks like based on developing increasing complex theories and testing them. I’m not sure if you’ve seen this essay, but it sums up the process pretty well https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

    From this point of view, what matters is that there is a necessary transitional period, and it makes sense to refer to this period as socialism in the context of Marxist theory. Whether Marx used the term or not is not really an interesting or even important question. This is why I don’t see this as conflating ideas.

    • jackalope
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      You seem to be incapable of separating map and territory in your mind. I do not know what more I can say.

      The issue is not that Marx did not merely use a specific piece of vocab. It is that you can not treat ideas as transhistorical.

      Here’s another way to put it by analogy: the gravity of Einstein is not the gravity of Newton. Newton’s worldview and his understanding of his theories in that worldview does not reflect in the worldview of Einstein. We can certainly recognize how Newton influenced Einstein and how that gave foundation for new ideas and evolution of ideas but when Newton says “gravity” he does not mean the same thing as when Einstein says “gravity”. They are using the same word to mean different things. Their use of the word is historically contingent.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Here’s another way to put it by analogy: the gravity of Einstein is not the gravity of Newton.

        As I’ve just explained, I don’t think that’s a very useful way to look at the world. Gravity is gravity, and Newton’s conception of gravity was less accurate than Einstein’s conception. How each individual conceived of gravity does not change how gravity works. Similarly, the socialist phase of development is a material phenomenon that the society must go through. How Marx or Lenin conceived of this phase does not change the nature of this phase. Fixating on historical understanding of this phenomenon is not useful outside of doing historical analysis.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            That’s literally my point, the words are just labels for underlying concepts. I didn’t say the word socialism is equivalent to the material transition of society. What I said is that it best captures our current understanding of this concept.

            • jackalope
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              And I’m arguing that concepts have no independent reality apart from words.

              The word is not the concept. But the concept is also jot the material reality. You’re reifying concepts and treating them as if they have some sort of transhistorical reality.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                I completely agree that the word is not the concept, that’s literally what I’ve been saying in the past few comments in several different ways.

                I’m not reifying concepts and treating them as if they have some sort of transhistorical reality. I’m saying that at any point in time we have a particular understanding of the concepts which builds on prior ideas.

                I feel like we’re just talking past each other at this point, and we’re clearly not getting anywhere. I propose we stop here. Nothing new has been said for a while.