[lbo-talk] Nepal gays and Maoists/Marxist Approach

[Miles Jackson]

andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> Sounds to me like you embrace the reductio and
> preclude the application to people in "different"
> societies (and you don't explain what these are or how
> to tell) of descriptions they would not use; you also
> decree that certain terms mean what YOU say and cannot
> be qualified by explanation. I'd say that is extreme
> linguistic relativism. Also quite wrong.

I find it difficult to believe that you read my post.  Let me try one 
more time.  People can only occupy certain social statuses if social 
relations and social conditions make those social statuses possible. 
Being a construction worker is only possible in a society with building 
technologies; being the president of a nation is only possible in a 
society with formal government; being a Catholic priest is only possible 
in a society that includes the Catholic church; and (again) being a 
capitalist is only possible in a society with an economic surplus and 
various other socioeconomic preconditions.

--This argument has nothing to do with "linguistic relativism"; c'mon, 
this is Soc 101!  Frankly, I don't see how any reasonable person can 
challenge this simple sociological insight.

MIles