“I don’t believe your country was under communism, that’s not real communism” is EXACTLY the scotsman fallacy. But by all means, go for a lengthy post that says nothing.
Comment on We live wasted lives
squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoThrowing around the names of fallacies that don’t apply instead of actual arguments doesn’t further your cause just as much as you might think it does.
The no true Scotsman fallacy applies if:
- Person A makes a generalized statement (“No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”)
- That statement is falsified by providing a counter-example (“I know a Scotsman who puts sugar on his porridge”)
- Person A does not back away from the original falsified statement but instead modifies the original statement and signals that they did modify that statement (“Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”)
The main issue here is that using this fallacy, the claim becomes a non-falsifiable tautology. Every Scotsman who puts sugar on his porridge is not a true Scotsman, thus the claim becomes always true by excluding every counter-example.
Let’s apply that to the situation at hand.
- Genius@lemmy.zip made the statement that communism can work, providing an example where it apparently did work. This statement is not generalized, so the first condition for the true Scotsman fallacy already doesn’t apply.
- Maalus@lemmy.world provided a counter-example, where communism didn’t work. This doesn’t actually contradict the first statement, because Genius@lemmy.zip never claimed that communism always works, so providing a single counter-example doesn’t negate the statement that communism can work.
- Genius@lemmy.zip then pointed out that USSR states never actually claimed to have achieved communism, and that statement is true. According to USSR doctrine, the goal was to get to communism at some point, but that point was never reached. While this can sound like an appeal to purity, there’s no basis for a “no true Scotsman” fallacy here.
Please read up on your fallacies before throwing around the names of them.
When you claim that something is a fallacy, even though the fallacy you claim doesn’t actually apply, then you are doing so to discredit the whole argument without actually engaging with it. This is a perfect example of the Strawman argument, which itself is a fallacy.
Maalus@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Zombie@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Communism (from Latin communis ‘common, universal’)[1][2] is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Let’s see how the USSR performed against this definition of communism.
-
Common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.
Kind of, the state owned most means of production and distributed products. Arguably based on Russian need rather than any other Soviet republic’s need. Let’s be generous and say partial pass for this one. -
Absence of private property and social classes
Presumably this is private property as in the distinction between personal and private property set out by Proudhon. In that regard, as the state owned most all private property, in a way it was absent. But the state still owned it, and the state is counter to communism. Social classes still remained. -
Ultimately money
Still existed. -
The state.
That definitely still existed.
So what part of the USSR was real communism? Kind of common ownership of the means of production and kind of the absence of private property. All other criteria were failed.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Tbh, I don’t even think the first two points apply.
Ownership by the state, especially a state that the people have no control over, isn’t really ownership of the people. The main point of ownership (also under communism) is control. If I own something, I control it. I can decide what happens with it. Under capitalism the worker doesn’t own the factory, because the worker has no control over it. The worker has no say over what or how or when the factory produces, so the worker doesn’t own the factory.
Under the USSR system, the worker also has no say over anything regarding the work. The only difference is that the owner isn’t another person but the state.
Something like the early stock corporations would be closer to communism. There each worker owns stock in the company and thus can vote on what the company does.
Same goes with social classes. There certainly was a class difference between party member (or at least high ranking party member) and non-party-members.
Private property also still existed, just on a lower scale. People still owned their cars, their stereo systems and all the other items of daily usage.
(I’m not disagreeing with you, just trying to reinforce the point)
Zombie@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Aye that’s fair. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” and all that.
Just to clarify though, owning your own car and stereo falls under personal property, not private property. See my comment here for a brief distinction of the two: feddit.uk/comment/18187961
-
squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Go, read what I wrote, then come back.
Genius@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
So if someone calls you a git, and you say “I’m not a TRUE git”, is that a no true scotsman too?
Maalus@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If someone gives you an example of a communist country and then you go “no no that’s not communism” when in fact yes, it was communism, because otherwise as you yourself said “no country in the last 2000 years was communist” then that’s the true scotsman.
Genius@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I said YOUR country wasn’t communist in the last 2000 years. Many were. Like Catalonia. Like I told you.
dbtng@eviltoast.org 3 weeks ago
Nerd up!
Genius@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Actually, I think this is a case of the fallacy fallacy
squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I have to admit, a did not know that one. It’s even more fitting than the strawman argument! Thanks for sharing, TIL.
(Though I do believe the fallacy fallacy is a subcategory of the strawman argument.)