7 ms·

That does not apply here. There's not an exact definition what a Scotsman is, except that he's from Scotland. Communism is actually a completely worked out ideo

That does not apply here. There's not an exact definition what a Scotsman is, except that he's from Scotland. Communism is actually a completely worked out ideology. It has never really been tried. In Russia for example, it was State Capitalism under the guise of Communism.

elcapitan 10y ago
> In Russia for example, it was State Capitalism under the guise of Communism. LOL. Sorry, but that is really beyond absurd.
- actionwords 10y ago
  leftist denialism is truly a sight to see.
- marxidad 10y ago
  - http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm - http://www.hetsa.org.au/pdf/34-A-08.pdf http://www.hetsa.org.au/pdf/34-A-08.pdf - http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31567-socialism-means-abolishing-the-distinction-between-bosses-and-employees http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31567-socialism-means-abo...
  - elcapitan 10y ago
    Yes, I already said that it's a weird sectarian fringe opinion, you don't need to post weird sectarian fringe group sites to prove it, but thanks.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Communism has a lot of different varieties (you may be thinking of Marxism specifically), many of which have not been tried. While among Communists there might be some point in arguing over whether Leninism (and it's descendants, Stalinism and Maoism, etc.) are really forms of Communism or something else, in more general contexts it's probably better just to note the specific, rather extreme, departures from Marxism that they involve, and note that while they may have failed, those failures cannot be generalized to Communism more generally or, e.g., to Marxism specifically.
- mc32 10y ago
  Forgive me but that's like batting aside misgivings about capitalism and saying, well that's neo-liberal capitalism or capitalism with eastern values, or government regulated capitalism, etc. When someone points out some deficiencies in capitalism. A form of not a true Scotsman argument.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    It's not no true Scotsman to point out a faulty generalization (particularly, because there is no denying that the specific cases are examples of the general concept, merely that they are isolated to a particular subclass of the general type and thus are not sufficient to demonstrate a conclusion about the broad class rather than merely the subclass). But nice try invoking one fallacy falsely to protect another.
    - mc32 10y ago
      You were basically saying "None of those were TRUE Marxism -they were perverted, etc.". So in that form basically anyone with any issues with capitalism can be dismissed by saying, well, what east Asian and western economies are living under is not true "free enterprise" capitalism, so don't knock it. However, the reality is we've tried a variety of both and they are known values and the ones we _can_ talk about and anything else is pure speculation and quite beside the point.
      - Natanael_L 10y ago
        We tried for centuries to make both airplanes and perpetual motion machines. Eventually we succeeded with one and proved the other physically impossible. A long series of failures only proves that those specific things didn't work. You need more than that to come to a final conclusion.
        mc32 10y ago
        That may very well be true but such thing will not be "Marxism" or "Capitalism" it will be however a "political and economic system" Just as what we have flying now may be a flying machine or aeroplane but not an "Ornithopter".

elcapitan 10y ago

> In Russia for example, it was State Capitalism under the guise of Communism. LOL. Sorry, but that is really beyond absurd.

actionwords 10y ago
leftist denialism is truly a sight to see.
marxidad 10y ago
- http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm - http://www.hetsa.org.au/pdf/34-A-08.pdf http://www.hetsa.org.au/pdf/34-A-08.pdf - http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31567-socialism-means-abolishing-the-distinction-between-bosses-and-employees http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31567-socialism-means-abo...
- elcapitan 10y ago
  Yes, I already said that it's a weird sectarian fringe opinion, you don't need to post weird sectarian fringe group sites to prove it, but thanks.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Communism has a lot of different varieties (you may be thinking of Marxism specifically), many of which have not been tried. While among Communists there might be some point in arguing over whether Leninism (and it's descendants, Stalinism and Maoism, etc.) are really forms of Communism or something else, in more general contexts it's probably better just to note the specific, rather extreme, departures from Marxism that they involve, and note that while they may have failed, those failures cannot be generalized to Communism more generally or, e.g., to Marxism specifically.

mc32 10y ago
Forgive me but that's like batting aside misgivings about capitalism and saying, well that's neo-liberal capitalism or capitalism with eastern values, or government regulated capitalism, etc. When someone points out some deficiencies in capitalism. A form of not a true Scotsman argument.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  It's not no true Scotsman to point out a faulty generalization (particularly, because there is no denying that the specific cases are examples of the general concept, merely that they are isolated to a particular subclass of the general type and thus are not sufficient to demonstrate a conclusion about the broad class rather than merely the subclass). But nice try invoking one fallacy falsely to protect another.
  - mc32 10y ago
    You were basically saying "None of those were TRUE Marxism -they were perverted, etc.". So in that form basically anyone with any issues with capitalism can be dismissed by saying, well, what east Asian and western economies are living under is not true "free enterprise" capitalism, so don't knock it. However, the reality is we've tried a variety of both and they are known values and the ones we _can_ talk about and anything else is pure speculation and quite beside the point.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      We tried for centuries to make both airplanes and perpetual motion machines. Eventually we succeeded with one and proved the other physically impossible. A long series of failures only proves that those specific things didn't work. You need more than that to come to a final conclusion.
      - mc32 10y ago
        That may very well be true but such thing will not be "Marxism" or "Capitalism" it will be however a "political and economic system" Just as what we have flying now may be a flying machine or aeroplane but not an "Ornithopter".