3 ms·

A classic No True Scotsman fallacy. If you really want to dig into this, I recommend Andrzej Walicki's 'Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom'.

pessimizer 13y ago
It's really not. yk is not saying: "it's not 'real' Marxism that has failed, but Leninism as 'fake' Marxism, therefore Marxism hasn't 'really' been tested." That would be a No True Scotsman fallacy. yk said that a type of Marxism called Leninism failed, but other types of Marxism may succeed. Declaring statements like that equivalent to NTS is fallacious. Saying: "although a type of Marxism called Leninism didn't work, other types of Marxism might" is about as fallacious as saying "Frisky the horse didn't win the Kentucky Derby this year, but next year Trigger, who was trained by the same trainer, might."
yk 13y ago
Actually I fail to see, why this is a No True Scotsman fallacy, since I specifically acknowledge state socialism as one form of socialism. However, if you are concerned that I am shifting goal posts, see for example Libertarian Marxism [1] as a Marxist school of thought that opposes state socialism and predates Leninism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism
- gyardley 13y ago
  It's a No True Scotsman fallacy because Marxism has been tried in wildly different cultures under wildly different circumstances using wildly different methodologies, and in each and every case you've lumped them under a single type of 'non-free' Marxism called Leninism, which then allows you to claim that 'Marxism has a lot to do with freedom' - despite a large body of contrary evidence collected, like I said, under wildly different circumstances. Yes, it's true that in each and every case, no matter what the initial circumstances, things wound up devolving into totalitarian dystopias, but it's not because they all started off as Leninism. The more obvious conclusion is that since Marxism, despite the intentions and backgrounds of its adherents, always seems to lead to a not-so-good, not-so-free outcome, there is something about Marxism itself that is not compatible with freedom. This is nothing unusual - ideas often have unintended consequences that differ from the motivations of their holders. But it should make you pause before making statements like 'Marxism has a lot to do with freedom'.
  - yk 13y ago
    Marxism is a political theory, or if you prefer ideology. Therefore the statement: 'Marxism has a lot to do with freedom.' is a theoretical one. And the reason of it is, that the basic idea is to free the workers not only from government oppression, but also ( as much as possible ) from oppression created by the economic system. However, to answer your criticism, there are similarities between the already tried forms of socialism, namely that they were tried by states that were part of the eastern block and as such under the influence of the Soviet Union. And I think that the problem is specific to these similarities, not to Marxism. To convince me otherwise, you would need to show that other forms of socialized ownership of capital, for example employee owned companies, produce also disastrous consequences. About your last point, I actually agree. Marxism proved to be a rather dangerous ideology. But I think that it is at the moment more dangerous to forget Marxism, than that a second coming of the Soviet Union is imminent.
arjie 13y ago
You misunderstand the No True Scotsman fallacy. This is, in fact, a classic example of such confusion. I have seen it often on the Internet. It is usually better to set aside these named fallacies and just follow reasoning from lower principles. Leninism is different enough from many other forms of socialist or communist thought that its failure says nothing about these.

pessimizer 13y ago

It's really not. yk is not saying: "it's not 'real' Marxism that has failed, but Leninism as 'fake' Marxism, therefore Marxism hasn't 'really' been tested." That would be a No True Scotsman fallacy. yk said that a type of Marxism called Leninism failed, but other types of Marxism may succeed. Declaring statements like that equivalent to NTS is fallacious. Saying: "although a type of Marxism called Leninism didn't work, other types of Marxism might" is about as fallacious as saying "Frisky the horse didn't win the Kentucky Derby this year, but next year Trigger, who was trained by the same trainer, might."

yk 13y ago

Actually I fail to see, why this is a No True Scotsman fallacy, since I specifically acknowledge state socialism as one form of socialism. However, if you are concerned that I am shifting goal posts, see for example Libertarian Marxism [1] as a Marxist school of thought that opposes state socialism and predates Leninism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism

gyardley 13y ago
It's a No True Scotsman fallacy because Marxism has been tried in wildly different cultures under wildly different circumstances using wildly different methodologies, and in each and every case you've lumped them under a single type of 'non-free' Marxism called Leninism, which then allows you to claim that 'Marxism has a lot to do with freedom' - despite a large body of contrary evidence collected, like I said, under wildly different circumstances. Yes, it's true that in each and every case, no matter what the initial circumstances, things wound up devolving into totalitarian dystopias, but it's not because they all started off as Leninism. The more obvious conclusion is that since Marxism, despite the intentions and backgrounds of its adherents, always seems to lead to a not-so-good, not-so-free outcome, there is something about Marxism itself that is not compatible with freedom. This is nothing unusual - ideas often have unintended consequences that differ from the motivations of their holders. But it should make you pause before making statements like 'Marxism has a lot to do with freedom'.
- yk 13y ago
  Marxism is a political theory, or if you prefer ideology. Therefore the statement: 'Marxism has a lot to do with freedom.' is a theoretical one. And the reason of it is, that the basic idea is to free the workers not only from government oppression, but also ( as much as possible ) from oppression created by the economic system. However, to answer your criticism, there are similarities between the already tried forms of socialism, namely that they were tried by states that were part of the eastern block and as such under the influence of the Soviet Union. And I think that the problem is specific to these similarities, not to Marxism. To convince me otherwise, you would need to show that other forms of socialized ownership of capital, for example employee owned companies, produce also disastrous consequences. About your last point, I actually agree. Marxism proved to be a rather dangerous ideology. But I think that it is at the moment more dangerous to forget Marxism, than that a second coming of the Soviet Union is imminent.

arjie 13y ago

You misunderstand the No True Scotsman fallacy. This is, in fact, a classic example of such confusion. I have seen it often on the Internet. It is usually better to set aside these named fallacies and just follow reasoning from lower principles. Leninism is different enough from many other forms of socialist or communist thought that its failure says nothing about these.