I do not presume to have a knockdown argument for or against voting in national elections. Approaching voting as an act that can be evaluated in isolation, seems to raise more questions than it resolves. For example, by looking at voting alone, it becomes difficult to confirm or deny that Your Vote Is Important or This Election Is (The Most) Important. On the one hand, in tight races a single vote seems to be become undeniably important, in some sense.
I want to focus on two aspects of norms writ-large (e.g., legal norms, social norms, etc…) in order to tease out some implications about the fetishism of norms (i.e., objective norms that appear as naturalized entities) :
A norm’s purchase A norm’s efficacy Although I think the question of whether these aspects are necessary and/or sufficient conditions for being a norm is interesting, the focus of this post does not hinge on this.
The basic questions When discussions about “Marxism as a science”(MS) pop up, they often involve equivocations between, on the one hand, the meaning of “science” and, on the other, the meaning of “Marxism.” While the latter equivocation is part and parcel of the ‘joys’ of being a Marxist, the former one seems specific to the issue of MS and consequently more primary.Some people take Marxism to be a science in the sense that it operates like a natural science and targets similar phenomena.
When I say something I use words, but the words do not necessarily get at what I am trying to say. They are placeholders, frames, that are part of an attempt to connect my mind and the world for a given purpose. The world is obviously here and I am obviously in it saying something about it, but the words nonetheless do not fully capture the world. Otherwise, there would simply be no distinction between mind and world.