4 ms·

It's a No True Scotsman fallacy because Marxism has been tried in wildly different cultures under wildly different circumstances using wildly different methodol

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.

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.