3 ms·

I think it’s a pointless argument all around because there is too much bias in both defining a state as failed and agreeing on that’s state’s political orientat

I think it’s a pointless argument all around because there is too much bias in both defining a state as failed and agreeing on that’s state’s political orientation. I could argue that there are far more examples of failed capitalist states, but it would just devolve into endless debates of those definitions above based on differences in ideology. Even if my goal is to address the many misconceptions of “communist” states, it’s just not a useful way to go about it. Just to slide a point in here, nearly every leftist of every tendency has a long list of criticisms of countries who have declared themselves communist. The points just tend to be more nuanced than the cartoonishly evil story we are taught in the US.

stale2002 4y ago
> I could argue that there are far more examples of failed capitalist states You might be able to yes. But the whole point is that it is disingenuous to dismiss literally all criticism, of any attempts at either capitalism or communism, by just saying "Well thats not real X!" Eventually, yes, you have to accept criticism of your ideology, by looking at the actual real life attempted examples of that ideology. I am not saying that literally every single bad thing, done by a group that calls themself communist is valid criticism of communism. But some actual examples of attempted communism can be used as criticism of communism. So no, you cannot just ignore literally every single example of attempted communism. Yes, eventually we have to look at those examples. Some of them, at least. > it’s just not a useful way to go about it. Of course it is a useful way to look at problems with a system. A good way to find problems with a system, is to look at actual attempts to enact that system. It does not answer every single possible benefit or criticism of a system. But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence.
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  > But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence. yeah, but the studies have all been tampered with. so they don't tell you what you might want to know, which is the merits of communism. what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is, in the same way that failed slave rebellions don't tell you much about the merit of the rebelling slaves, they show the strength of the slave owners.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is This is a cope unfalsifiable argument and is exactly what I am criticizing. No matter what evidence someone shows, the defense is to ignore it and say it is fake. You are engaging in exactly the problematic behavior that I was attacking, because literally no matter what evidence someone shows you, you can just ignore it. It is an invincible, unfalsifiable defense that allows someone to believe literally almost anything, because any counter evidence can just be ignored because of excuses like what you bought up. Unfalsifiable beliefs, like yours, are, almost by definition, impossible to refute and bad faith almost by definition.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - pasquinelli 4y ago
      i think the problem you really have is that counterfactual conditionals are tautologies. all i've said is that the cold war did in fact happen, and it had an effect on every communist state. maybe if there was no cold war (a counterfactual), things would've been different. it's unfalsifiable like every counterfactual because you can't change history. big deal, everyone knows that and they give counterfactuals their appropriate weight. but what's the alternative? pretend the cold war didn't happen? it's also counterfactual reasoning to critique the communist countries without acknowledging that war was being waged against them. but, the cold war did happen. that's just a fact.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > but what's the alternative? The alternative is not to dismiss literally every piece of evidence, from the real world, that gets shown to you.
        pasquinelli 4y ago
        i didn't.

stale2002 4y ago

> I could argue that there are far more examples of failed capitalist states You might be able to yes. But the whole point is that it is disingenuous to dismiss literally all criticism, of any attempts at either capitalism or communism, by just saying "Well thats not real X!" Eventually, yes, you have to accept criticism of your ideology, by looking at the actual real life attempted examples of that ideology. I am not saying that literally every single bad thing, done by a group that calls themself communist is valid criticism of communism. But some actual examples of attempted communism can be used as criticism of communism. So no, you cannot just ignore literally every single example of attempted communism. Yes, eventually we have to look at those examples. Some of them, at least. > it’s just not a useful way to go about it. Of course it is a useful way to look at problems with a system. A good way to find problems with a system, is to look at actual attempts to enact that system. It does not answer every single possible benefit or criticism of a system. But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence.

pasquinelli 4y ago
> But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence. yeah, but the studies have all been tampered with. so they don't tell you what you might want to know, which is the merits of communism. what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is, in the same way that failed slave rebellions don't tell you much about the merit of the rebelling slaves, they show the strength of the slave owners.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is This is a cope unfalsifiable argument and is exactly what I am criticizing. No matter what evidence someone shows, the defense is to ignore it and say it is fake. You are engaging in exactly the problematic behavior that I was attacking, because literally no matter what evidence someone shows you, you can just ignore it. It is an invincible, unfalsifiable defense that allows someone to believe literally almost anything, because any counter evidence can just be ignored because of excuses like what you bought up. Unfalsifiable beliefs, like yours, are, almost by definition, impossible to refute and bad faith almost by definition.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pasquinelli 4y ago
    i think the problem you really have is that counterfactual conditionals are tautologies. all i've said is that the cold war did in fact happen, and it had an effect on every communist state. maybe if there was no cold war (a counterfactual), things would've been different. it's unfalsifiable like every counterfactual because you can't change history. big deal, everyone knows that and they give counterfactuals their appropriate weight. but what's the alternative? pretend the cold war didn't happen? it's also counterfactual reasoning to critique the communist countries without acknowledging that war was being waged against them. but, the cold war did happen. that's just a fact.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > but what's the alternative? The alternative is not to dismiss literally every piece of evidence, from the real world, that gets shown to you.
      - pasquinelli 4y ago
        i didn't.