this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2022
23 points (89.7% liked)

Socialism

5433 readers
45 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Gravity is not the word gravity though! The idea of gravity is not the same thing as the force itself. The word "socialism" is not the material transition of society.

Seriously please take this issue under consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 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.