4 ms·
> Socialism always results in tyranny. ?! Firstly, the countries you listed identified themselves with communism, not socialism. Secondly, they never implemen
by nightcracker 11y ago
> Socialism always results in tyranny.
?!
Firstly, the countries you listed identified themselves with communism, not socialism. Secondly, they never implemented actual communism - there was still an upper class and immense amounts of corruption.
Lastly and more importantly, those systems were put in place by the tyrants, not the other way around.
- PopeOfNope 11y agoAh, the no true scotsman fallacy. I hear that one a lot. It's an oldie, but a goodie. Communism is a subset of socialism; the share they same root philosophy. They never actually implemented true communism because it's not possible. Humans will always create a hierarchy. Where no official hierarchy exists, they will create unofficial ones.
- unprepare 11y agoLet me get this straight: >Communism is a subset of socialism and > Socialism always results in tyranny. but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes. Does that mean that: > Square is a subset of rectangle so >rectangle always results in four right angles given that my only examples of rectangles are squares? Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subset of socialism is plainly incorrect. By your own admission: >Humans will always create a hierarchy Socialism could not have been tested, because it would require social ownership of the production of goods, and co-operative management of those resources. Hierarchy means they did not have co-operative management of resources, they had hierarchical management of resources.
- PopeOfNope 11y agoYour attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.
- wfo 11y agoThe poster you're responding to is trying to show you that your "argument" is nonsensical mindless garbage and has no basis in rational thought. And being very polite about it to boot.
- PopeOfNope 11y agoAnd your response is supposed to represent the height of intellectual rationality, I suppose?
- dang 11y agoPlease don't insult other users on HN, even when you think they're wrong. When the site guidelines ask you not to call names, "nonsensical mindless garbage" is the kind of thing they have in mind.
- wfo 11y agoThe post was so incendiary/insulting my natural inclination to strike back in kind got the better of me but I recognize fighting fire with fire does not make for a good community so I'm sorry about that and will watch it.
- unprepare 11y agoActually, this has nothing to do with mathematics other than one of the two examples being from geometry. This was pure deductive reasoning, a concept borrowed from philosophy. Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
- PopeOfNope 11y ago> Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."
- t0rb3n 11y agoThe GDR was socialist and arguably a tyranny. Edit: As was The Third Reich.
- unprepare 11y agoFrom what little I know about East germany and post-WW2 soviet history - wasn't GDR controlled by the communist state of soviet russia? Was it socialistic in name only, or actually socialistic in structure and policy? Was Nazi germany not a dictatorship? How is that compatible with socialism at all?
- dghf 11y agoIf National Socialism was socialist because it had "socialism" in its name, then the GDR was democratic for the same reason.