btw I’m not assuming that language is static and unchanging, that’s why I said “commonly accepted as standard today”, you on the other hand seem to think that just because what words mean is defined by the people then they don’t really mean anything at all and you may use them as you please, but that’s not really the case.

Your using a word’s meaning as it’s commonly accepted today, and then trying to apply it throughout all of human history. That’s the problem I’m pointing out. I’m saying that even though we have the word “job” currently, that doesn’t mean you can then look back through all of history, and start calling things “jobs” just because they’re similar.

This is like saying that “The United States” existed a millennia ago. Technically, all of the land that is currently “The United States” exists both now, and back in the year 1017, but the social reality of the country did not exist then. If you went back in tine, and told someone that you were standing in the United States, you would be wrong. Jobs did not exist until capitalism created the economic mechanisms and structures that allowed jobs to exist.

So, when I said you’re assuming language is static and unchanging, you’re right, that was a mischaracterization of your view, and I’ll be more precise. Your problem is one of objectivity. You’re assuming that your current linguistic frame of reference is absolute, that the current form of the English Language is somehow capable of adequately describing everything not only within it’s current time frame, but also within the context of every other time frame. Still, that’s not how language works, but is a great example of Capitalistic reification, to assume that our current economic system isn’t just absolute, but capable of being applied backwards onto every single other form of human life that has already existed. That simply isn’t the case, but it’s an easy form of alienation to find yourself caught up in.