• polonius-rex@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 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
        4 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]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 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
            4 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]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 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
                4 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)