• 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.