• polonius-rex@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    “people have a negative connotation to the word Marxism” absolutely has baked-in implications, and an argument left unsaid, even in total isolation

    if i say to you “people think the word nazi has negative connotations”, then even with no other context then obviously you’d conclude that i’m a nazi freak

    the post doesn’t make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good

    i don’t think this post’s subtext is as simple as the interpretation you’re providing

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      if i say to you “people think the word nazi has negative connotations”, then even with no other context then obviously you’d conclude that i’m a nazi freak

      Good thing Nazism isn’t sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.

      the post doesn’t make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good

      It does, actually. Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation. Eugenics and Nazism are not popular, and have bad connotations because they are bad ideas in general, not to mention Nazism being based on pure evil extermination.

      You’re not cooking here.

      • polonius-rex@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Good thing Nazism isn’t sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.

        it was brought up to explain why “it’s just saying it has negative connotations” doesn’t make something neutral

        Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation

        you’re kind of just imagining a different post at this point?

        “it does, actually”? you’re going to have to clarify what you mean by “this post makes a justification as to why the concepts behind marxism are sound and good”, unless you mean that “people thinking the ideas sound good” is your justification, which you just argued a second ago wasn’t what the post was doing, and which is exactly what i’m saying is a junk justification

        “Marxism is popular” this post very specifically makes the point that marxism isn’t popular, but its ideas are. that’s like the whole point of the post

        also, “easily understood” what? we haven’t even defined what sort of marxism we’re talking about here

        it says nothing about the reasons for negative connotations; you’re adding that yourself

        Eugenics [is] not popular

        again, i’ve given two examples where the average person would probably support eugenics-in-description-only

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          it was brought up to explain why “it’s just saying it has negative connotations” doesn’t make something neutral

          No, it was brought up to draw equivalence to Marxism, don’t play coy.

          you’re kind of just imagining a different post at this point?

          this post very specifically makes the point that marxism isn’t popular, but its ideas are. that’s like the whole point of the post

          No, Marxism is popular, it’s just sold as different names. Big difference.

          also, “easily understood” what? we haven’t even defined what sort of marxism we’re talking about here

          Is there some other kind we need to worry about here that’s hard to understand?

          again, i’ve given two examples where the average person would probably support eugenics-in-description-only

          No, you pretended the average person would.

          • polonius-rex@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            No, it was brought up to draw equivalence to Marxism, don’t play coy.

            cool ur jets buddy

            it wasn’t, and doesn’t even really make sense when read through that lens

            what kind of person comes into a thread and posts a pro-communism video clip and then angrily equates marxism to nazism?

            No, Marxism is popular, it’s just sold as different names.

            that’s describing the same sentiment i just expressed using different words

            Is there some other kind we need to worry about here that’s hard to understand?

            honestly the term “marxism” is nebulous enough that just deciding on what counts as “in-scope” is kind of non-trivial

            are we talking about the economic theory? marxist communism? the whole body of marx’s work?

            what definition are you using?

            No, you pretended the average person would.

            i’m fairly confused what you’re trying to say here

            are you saying that that, for those two concepts, you don’t think you could pitch the basic ideas behind them in a way such that the average person would agree?

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              cool ur jets buddy

              it wasn’t, and doesn’t even really make sense when read through that lens

              what kind of person comes into a thread and posts a pro-communism video clip and then angrily equates marxism to nazism?

              I dunno, why bring up the Nazis as though they had popular ideas?

              honestly the term “marxism” is nebulous enough that just deciding on what counts as “in-scope” is kind of non-trivial

              are we talking about the economic theory? marxist communism? the whole body of marx’s work?

              What parts of Marxism do you want to chop off? I am referring to the whole of Marxism, ie critique of Capitalism, philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Communism.

              are you saying that that, for those two concepts, you don’t think you could pitch the basic ideas behind them in a way such that the average person would agree?

              Yes, people generally don’t agree with the ideas posed by Nazism.

              • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I dunno, why bring up the Nazis as though they had popular ideas?

                i didn’t and i’ve already clarified that?

                i’m not sure what more there is to say on this

                What parts of Marxism do you want to chop off?

                if you’re referring to everything then that would include stuff like das kapital which i don’t think you can reasonably refer to as “easy to understand”

                “philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism” also seems like it would be a fairly hard thing for the average person to understand

                also, marx didn’t invent communism, so to say communism is contained within marxism is incorrect

                the opening of the communist manifesto literally references the fact that european powers were already trying to “exorcise” the idea from the continent at the time

                Yes, people generally don’t agree with the ideas posed by Nazism.

                nazism proposed pre-natal scanning and graduate family planning stimulus? that’s news to me

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  if you’re referring to everything then that would include stuff like das kapital which i don’t think you can reasonably refer to as “easy to understand”

                  “philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism” also seems like it would be a fairly hard thing for the average person to understand

                  also, marx didn’t invent communism, so to say communism is contained within marxism is incorrect

                  the opening of the communist manifesto literally references the fact that european powers were already trying to “exorcise” the idea from the continent at the time

                  All of these are fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it just takes a while to get into the nitty gritty. Marx did not invent Communism, but Communism is core to Marxism.

                  nazism proposed pre-natal scanning and graduate family planning stimulus? that’s news to me

                  Ah, “the trains ran on time.” We both know that’s not Nazism.

                  • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    All of these are fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it just takes a while to get into the nitty gritty

                    i feel like everything’s “easy to understand” if you assume infinite time to explain it, but for the sake of argument, let’s agree that these in fact “easy to understand”

                    in which case, the ideas behind pre-natal scanning and graduate family stimulus are also easy to understand, so we haven’t really moved anywhere.

                    this post still doesn’t make any case for marxist ideals being sound other than “people like them when they hear them without the label”. which i’m arguing (via the use of the provided two examples) is also true for eugenics.

                    and if “people like the ideas when they hear them without the label” is justification for ideas being good, then eugenics must be good, but we know eugenics isn’t good, so it’s not a good justification

                    so the post doesn’t make a good argument for marxism being good

                    and we already know the post is attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good, because you already acknowledged it’s making the case that “people have a negative connotations about marxism”, and combined with the point about nazis from earlier you enjoyed so much, that’s sufficient to show that it’s attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good

                    Ah, “the trains ran on time.” We both know that’s not Nazism.

                    what are you talking about? why are you trying to bring nazis into everything now?

                    (also, “trains ran on time” is mussolini, who was a fascist, not a nazi)