Do definitions and historical accuracy matter

Post Reply New Topic

I have noticed a growing use of the 'not a true scotsman' argument. I have ntoitced the prevalence of this argument in the socialist/communist threads and christian threads. I see the misuse of the 'no true scotsman' reaching the levels of GODWINS LAW (of which I will admit to being foth a defenders and an abuser). Recently I have been trying to point out that much that is in the New testament is fictitiously/forgedly authored, this then lead to an attack on Karl Marx resulting in this thread http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt252453.html

My concern is that both Karl Marx and (maybe to a lesser extent) Jesus gave very defined peramiters for there beliefs and predictions. Both would appear to have been mal-represented by so called supporters and detractors alike.

Christianity has its "golden rule" ie do unto others, and Marxist Communism is without doubt the epitome of democracy.

Why then with such clear cut rules are detractors allowed the 'no true scotsman' argument?

Ps thaks to 91 I ended the question with a ?

First of all, when those who sympathize with communism claim that...

- Communism is not... North Korea, despite the fact that private property is outlawed in its constitution
- Communism is not... The Great Leap Forward, despite the fact that it was an explicit Communist policy instigated by Mao
- Communism is not... The Soviet Union, despite the fact that the Soviet Union was based on the teachings of Karl Marx

... then it is entirely valid to invoke the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Communism is a failed ideology which has caused immense suffering and destruction. This is fact, documented again and again and again by countless historians.

In China alone during The Great Leap Forward, Communism killed anywhere between 2 and 4 times as many people than the deliberate Holocaust due to a blunder (23 to 46 million depending on author, and probably closer to the latter).
Or to put it in another way: Even Godwin's Law is irrelevant when it comes to communism, as Mao was much, much, much worse than Hitler .

Second of all, the fact that no real Communist state exists is the entire point of those who criticize communist policies. Communism Does Not Work, so societies that try to implement communism will either collapse or warp into something else.

To illustrate this, let's have a look here...

Exactly *where* in the world is there a Marxist Communist society which is "the epitome of democracy"? China? Cuba? Laos? Vietnam? North Korea?

Even a cursory look at the broader term "socialist states" suggest that communism/socialism has a tendency to produce anything but the epitome of democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Summary:
When people are rabidly defending communism and simultaneously rejecting any criticism of extant/extinct communist states on the basis that these are not "true" communist states, they are not only guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy, they are also guilty of the Nirvana Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Or, to quote François-Marie Arouet:

Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien
Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien

So, if people don't want to see this:



... then stop claiming that [INSERT COMMUNIST STATE/POLICY HERE] is not *real* communism.

Problem solved.

What a load of nonsense and so typical of the misuse of the 'no true scotsman' argument. You like everyone else who holds this opinion seem to base your beliefs on an understanding that ANY popular uprising which purports to be in the interests of the masses IS socialist and therefore has its roots in Marxism, even though it is clearly totalitarian in character. You present what I can only call an ahistorical account.

Hate to tell you but Marx continually warned against spontaneous, opportunistic uprisings, he spoke out against what he called 'utopian socialism'. Instead he gave very deliberate ideas on how his system of economics could be achieved. In the course of the 20th century there were two authentic (albeit fledgling)workers states Germany and Russia, the overthrow of the former by counter revolution was the catalyst for the demise of the latter. All talk of "Communism is a failed ideology which has caused immense suffering and destruction. This is fact, documented again and again and again by countless historians" is utterly misusing the term communist. Note I use the term Workers States and not Communist as communism means something much more, in Marxist economics it is the evolution of socialism to a point where the state is no longer needed, decisions are made on the basis of need and consultation, if achievable COmmunism would be the absolute epitome, the pinnacle of democracy.

You quite obviously have not the slightest understanding of Communism as presented by Marx otherwise you would not have written "Exactly *where* in the world is there a Marxist Communist society which is "the epitome of democracy"? China? Cuba? Laos? Vietnam? North Korea?". If you did you would realise just how laughable that comment is.

When you suggest that Stalinism and Marxism are one and the same, and then you by inference mention the terror Stalin inflicted upon the russian people. Are you aware of just why he did it and to whom? He was murdering the Left Opposition who were trying to wrest control of the state back into the hands of the proletariat, away from his increasing dictatorship. They were the Marxists. To equate one with the other is an insult to the heroic stand people like Trostky took to defend the revolution

You mention Maoism again look to the definitions, just because this was a mass rebellion against oppression does not make it marxist, it was a rebellion led into dictatorship, helped in great part by Stalin. Stalinism is not a workers state, and it most certainly is not Communism.

You may argue that Marxism can never happen, that human nature will not allow it. But please stop using terms so erroneously,Russia after 1924, China, Laos, Cuba, North Korea totalitarian dictatorships and by definition they absolutely cannot be classed as communist, at least not communism as understood from Marx.

There are very well understood reasons why the Russian and German Workers states failed, to simply state that they failed because the system on which they were based is fundamentally flawed, is to ignore all that happened in this time.

Well I think were we diverge the most is in who gets to define what is a communist or socialist. The comparison you draw with Christianity is at its weakest when one takes a look at 'who' exactly gets to set the terms of the topic. In Christianity, it is primarily the words of Christ that are subject to exegesis. Certainly chaps like the Apostles, the old law and the early Christians themselves add a fair degree of interpretive power to the discussion but the topic essentially starts and stops with Christ himself.

On the subject of communism, socialism and Marxism, the only time we give Marx a monopoly over interpretation is on the last of the three, the first two were established topics either before or contemporaneously with Marx and so we don't give him the full and final say over the subject. Rather, we can see many of the things you wish to exclude from the definitions, such as state ownership and violent revolution in the slow development of the European left wing, written in the development of those concepts. This makes determining fully the limits of communism and socialism rather more difficult. There is however a steady line of communist thinkers who precede Marx and follow from him and although he is a major author in the area he is not the author of its definitions. Thus men like Lenin and Mao, were communists and what they did was communist; both exist in the long line of thinkers on the subject, even if you want to dismiss them from it.

So 91 would you suggest that gun toting literalists who spew forth judgemental vitriol are christian? After all they claim to be. They use some of christs words or at least they use words supposedly attributed to Christ or the words of divinely appointed apostles.

With regard to Marx, firstly my point was the attack on 'communism' originated as a direct assertion that Marxist Communism had led to the death of millions. My point is that by definition this statement is completely erroneous and shows a typical ahistorical approach to the subject. Secondly whilst there had been many discussions on the way to a more equitable society, notably Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Charles Fourier, Robert Owen they did not give an analysis of how this was to be achieved, Marx did. As a result if you were to ask people who have not studied the subject or who take their political knowledge from the news and current affairs programs, who Karl Marx was, they will invariably tell you he was responsible for communism. Ask them who the other three were, or who the Hutterites were and you will most likely receive a blank stare.

I do not find it acceptable that Communism can mean; the final stage of a workers state; a bureaucratic dictatorship; a totalitarian dictatorship; a familiar dictatorship bordering on deity; an agrarian totalitarian dictatorship; all at the same time. Quite clearly these regimes at not all the same and only one of them has the interests of the masses at heart, only one of them is democratic, surely at the very east can we agree that a communist regime must, by definition, have the needs and desires of the masses as its primary goal and therefore must be truly democratic.

Then of course we have the confusion of socialism, where this can mean A workers state, any of the above definitions, a welfare state, social democracy, or most laughably any capitalist state who uses taxes to support individuals in any way eg the US under Obama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist

To me there is no such thing as a workers' state. States are enemies of the working class. A state may pass laws that help the working class, but it's institutional role is anti-proletariat. That final stage Marx mentioned is a form of anarchy. I don't think his proposed prior stage can result in anything other than total tyranny. Mikhail Bakunin predicted bad dictatorships would happen, if Marx got it all his way.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdN3ixcU8l4[/youtube]

No because extracting single components of a larger text free from context is a different issue from the definition based comparison you are trying to draw here. My point is that there are clear limits on the definition of where the final arbiter of what is Christian sits, there are similar ones with Communism and Socialism but in the case of the last two, Marx does not possess the monopoly over setting definitions. He was just another socialist thinker, one in a long line. He does however have a monopoly over what is 'Marxist'. Perhaps a better way to frame it would be to say that Christ has a monopoly over what is Christian but he does not have a monopoly over the precepts of Abrahamic religion. In the latter case, there are both earlier and later voices that must be included and to pick Christ as the sole arbiter would be to engage in selection bias.



Well in that you are quite mistaken. If you read the work of the French socialist Blanqui, who proceeded Marx on writing about socialism, revolution and communism (although he did not use that term, he was the elected head of the Paris Commune). He promoted a view of a small number of activists who would establish a dictatorship and redistribute wealth from there. Marx is just one writer on the subject of socialism and communism and although you might disagree with his views, his views sit undisputed in the chronology of the use of those terms. Where he would differ from yourself, is that to him, the means justified the ends. A firm line between Lennin and Blanqui is pretty obvious. The first commune elected him its leader, it would take a pretty serious element of selective evidence to say he cannot speak for the term communism. Communism can mean totalitarianism, the first commune was founded on the ideas of such a revolution, thus it cannot be excluded.

91 you are drawing an extremely tenuous bow. Blanqui was in almost every case in opposition to the concepts of the vast majority of socialists at the time. He saw the removal of the bourgeoisie as the means to an end and cared little for what came after. He worked more like a terrorist than a uniter of the masses. Yes he was elected president of the commune, by whom and under what system? was this a democratic election or one foisted on the commune by his thugs? Also his arrest prior to the insurrection gave an elevated status.

To link him to Lenin is ridiculous, Lenin for all his faults was trying to grow a truly workers state based on Marxist principles in great opposition from the west. His attitude towards the peasentary was some what dispicable, but like so many on this site do in defence of the bible you need to look at events from a contemporary perspective. He made mistakes but then what was he to do? The food strike could have been handled far better, but he was faced with western led counter revolution. The issue of the Russian peasantry is a good argument for not trying to install a workers state in a fledgling industrial economy, but again what were the Bolsheviks to do? Say hold on guys we cannot overthrow the tsar cos the peasants need to get up to speed first.?

Blanqui wanted a fairer distribution of wealth but that was it, nothing else no real plan, no real concern toward the resulting economy

Sorry but this entire paragraph is an exercise in special pleading. Either he is a legitimate voice within the discussion of socialism and communism or he is not. The preponderance of evidence shows that even if you might not agree with him, he remains a major component of the history of both terms. Blanquism inspired several groups to engage in similar insurrections, including Babeuf inspired groups like the league of the just (which became the Communist League headed by Marx and Engles). Any reasonable reading of the history shows that insurrection, revolution and forced redistribution of wealth have been a component of socialism since the very beginning. Such a view is evident even in the writings of Marx and Engels. I can see that you are attempting to distill such a view to basic elements that fit with your own precepts but be honest, its eisegesis not exegesis. To a revolutionary communist, Banqui is not an outlier , he is a precursor.



Bolshevism, a vanguard movement without reference to compromise is explicitly Banquist in that they are working from the EXACT same model of revolution. The rest of that paragraph reads more like a apologetics for large amounts of violence. The biggest mistake Lenin made was rejecting the compromise of the republic, after that, a total solution or nothing would be the outcome. The February Revolution was against the Tsar, the October revolution was against a republic.

I don't know if this thread is still active, but perhaps these examples can be used to demonstrate how implementation of Marxist ideology in the real world inevitably leads to totalitarian dictatorships, or at least one-party states where the Party controls everything.

To say that those dictatorships had no connection whatsoever to communism is itself laughable, as they were aimed at establishing communist states. And despite the horrors of the regimes, the economics of said societies did try to follow the Marxist ideologies.

Well Dent is trying to be a little bit sneaky, refining the term Communism to only mean the end state that Marx had in mind. Such a restriction is unwarranted because it denies the reality that Marx does not have a monopoly over what the term communist means. Communism can be a party, a group an end state and a process. It gets even murkier when one looks at the term socialist. The aim is to say that the Soviet Union, Pol Pot etc were not communist and so save the term for himself and his own views. I would support him in that effort, if he could demonstrate that Communism can only mean what Marx says of it, that Marx has a monopoly over its interpretation, but its too much.

The above statement succinctly illuminates my point. The ONLY states which had Marxism as their founding principles were Germany and Russia, if you think otherwise I would ask you to provide evidence that states like N.Korea and PPR China used Marxism to get where they were going. People who claim that Marxism/Bolshevism lead inevitably to totalitarianism do so by isolating Bolshevism from all that happened around it, they simply look at the events as if they were all the product of Bolshevism rather than a multitude of events and interference that the fledgling state needed to deal with.

To quote Leon Trotsky in 1937

"Is it true that Stalinism represents the legitimate product of Bolshevism, as all reactionaries maintain, as Stalin himself avows, as the Mensheviks, the anarchists, and certain left doctrinaires considering themselves Marxist believe? “We have always predicted this” they say, “Having started with the prohibition of other socialist parties, the repression of the anarchists, and the setting up of the Bolshevik dictatorship in the Soviets, the October Revolution could only end in the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Stalin is the continuation and also the bankruptcy of Leninism.”

The flaw in this reasoning begins in the tacit identification of Bolshevism, October Revolution and Soviet Union. The historical process of the struggle of hostile forces is replaced by the evolution of Bolshevism in a vacuum. Bolshevism, however, is only a political tendency closely fused with the working class but not identical with it. And aside from the working class there exist in the Soviet Union a hundred million peasants, diverse nationalities, and a heritage of oppression, misery and ignorance. The state built up by the Bolsheviks reflects not only the thought and will of Bolshevism but also the cultural level of the country, the social composition of the population, the pressure of a barbaric past and no less barbaric world imperialism. To represent the process of degeneration of the Soviet state as the evolution of pure Bolshevism is to ignore social reality in the name of only one of its elements, isolated by pure logic. One has only to call this elementary mistake by its true name to do away with every trace of it."

Now it has been argued as 91 has just done the the Bolsheviks should have just accepted the dictates of the Provisional Government, and worked toward a democratic republic and a capitalistic economy, once again this claim is made as if the Bolsheviks acted in a vacuum. Instead the government was a mess, it did not have broad support, the Bolsheviks were required to deal with the The Kornilov Affair and the final straw was the refusal of the Provisional Government to withdraw from World War 1, not forgetting that to work towards a capitalist republic would be to work against everything they stood for and have been a tacit betrayal of the working class.

With regard to the definitions of Communism and Socialism, yes others who differ from, Marx have used these terms, and yes some of them had developed vague ideas on how such regimes should be implemented and how they should work. But it was Marx who wrote extensively on the subject, who fully developed the various aspects of both socialism and communism, it was his methods that led to the only workers states that have so far existed on this planet, and it is Marxism which is erroneously blamed for the advent of a string of supposed totalitarian 'communist' regimes. Marx was the result of decades perhaps centuries of thought on the matter, It seems reasonable and correct to refer to totalitarian regimes as such, and not add the communist or socialist to their description if for no other reason than most people (as ezbzbfcg2 has so eloquently demonstrated) recognise Marx as the founding father of communism and then go on to blame him for totalitarian dictatorships.

There is a major problem with that, you are conflating the factors that brought Lenin into power with his ideology. The provisional government failed, partially due to its own weaknesses but its failure did not trigger the ideology of Lenin or his supporters to shift, quite the opposite, Lenin's position was the same throughout the entire process. Just read his April Theses, his policy was to undermine the government so as to bring on the second revolution. Thus treating the revolution as the independent variable in the ideological shift of the country is appropriate but it was certainly not the independent variable in establishing either Bolshevik or Marxist-Lennist policy. Far from being required to 'deal with' the Kornilov Affair, the intention throughout the year was to exploit the government and undermine it, so as to bring on the revolution that they desired. Lenin certainly should have helped the democratic government and is due his part of the blame for the government's collapse, since it was his obvious intention. Lenin was explicit in favoring an anti-democratic position throughout, his was a small minority out to undermine the majority and Lenin's own writings say as much.