3 ms·
> Ah, yes. "No true Scotsman". Refusing to back up certain or all interpretations of an idea by no means amounts to NTS. You're making a fallacy by saying tha
by ue_ 10y ago
> Ah, yes. "No true Scotsman".
Refusing to back up certain or all interpretations of an idea by no means amounts to NTS.
You're making a fallacy by saying that these problems you mention are core to Marxist thought. Modern Marxist philosophers are almost dedicated to finding flaws in 20th century Marxist implementations, and doing research on other models such as anarchism, post-left anarchism and technocracy.
Dismissing this research as "lol no true scotsman, not playing that" is incredibly ignorant and facile.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago"You're making a fallacy by saying that these problems you mention are core to Marxist thought." Nope. I recognize that "Marxist thought" doesn't specifically advocate such things. Nonetheless, those things always happen. So far the scorecard is about Murderous Hellhole: 100, Utopia:0. Usually one only needs to be burned once or twice before deciding that touching a hot stove is a bad idea, even if that glowing burner does look really pretty.
- ue_ 10y agoI don't think they must necessarily "always happen"; capitalism is much more developed now, much more advanced, and the conditions for revolution are more pertinent. I think you should move out of thinking of the way hitherto "Communist" states have been thought of. If you think that the kind of society Communism wants to acheive is desirable, I would also suggest that you help research and develop ideas for how to reach it. You may be interested in anarchist writers, or Murray Bookchin.