Looking at Communism from different Engels

[Murkwood]

Runner-ups for thread name: I Guvera it my best shot.
Marx my words.
I'm trying to think of a title, but my mind keeps Stalin.
This thread made me lMAO.

On NSG, debates involving Communist leaders who did horrendous things devolve into the same basic argument from pro-Communists.

"Dictator X killed over 1 million people while trying to turn The People's Republic of Tyranny Communist."

"Countries like those weren't true Communists, as no country has ever implemented genuine Communism."

NSG, what do you think of the actions of heinous individuals like Hoxha, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. in relation to modern Communism? Are modern Communists trying to protect their beloved ideology by throwing facts to the wind, or trying to save it from vilification? And, is true Communism is possible?

I believe modern Communists trying to protect their beloved ideology by throwing facts to the wind, and, in doing so, using fallacious logic. It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy. For an example, see below.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

That argument is no more valid than if someone pointed to Nazi Germany and said "Naziism has never failed, because Hitler didn't have enough time to implent true Naziism." For Communists, there seems to be this mystical land of "True Communism" that they personally espouse, but anyone with any real power hasn't thought of. But Communism has been tried every which way, with no success. There will never be a perfect manifestation of any ideology, and if that's what Communists require for a society to be "true Scotsmen", they should send their flags back.

[Murkwood]

For those who don't get the pun: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels

[Couasia]

*looking at communism from different Engels

[Allet Klar Chefs]

For Communists, there seems to be this mystical land of "True Communism" that they personally espouse, but anyone with any real power hasn't thought of. But Communism has been tried every which way, with no success. There will never be a perfect manifestation of any ideology, and if that's what Communists require for a society to be "true Scotsmen", they should send their flags back.

That's in no way unique to communists. Ardent capitalists who exist for some reason will bitch about how "The Market" in 19xx or 18xx was not truly free, hence the problems at the time with monopolies and so on.

[Lalaki]

While a "true communist" country has never existed, there have been genuine attempts to institute one. And it has never succeeded.

Meanwhile, many countries have adopted social welfare/mixed market systems that reduce poverty, provide equality of opportunity, and low income disparity without the need of communism.

[Chestaan]

Communism: A stateless, classless and moneyless society where the means of production are controlled by the working class.

You aren't the first person to make this incorrect argument and you certainly won't be the last. Anyway, here's the main point, I can say that the USSR/Maoist China/Cuba etc were never communist because they don't fulfill the above definition. Consider this:

Person A: All Scottish people are from Scotland or were born in Scotland.

Person B: I know a Scottish person who's not from Scotland and wasn't born in Scotland.

Person A: Then he's not a true Scotsman.

You're argument is equivalent to arguing that the above is an example of the NTSM fallacy.

[Avenio]

I believe modern Communists trying to protect their beloved ideology by throwing facts to the wind, and, in doing so, using fallacious logic. It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy. For an example, see below.

You're misrepresenting your opponents. (shock, horror!) The line of questioning normally goes something like this;

Person A: Communism killed x million people, and is a terrible, repressive ideology.

Person B: Point of order: the USSR and the like weren't communist. They were sort of a degenerate revolutionary state a la Robespierre's France... etc etc etc, explanation using Marxist criteria etc.

When you give non-circular, specific reasoning as to why Thing 1 is not Adjective 1, you're necessarily not indulging in a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. You would know that if you bothered to read your own link;

When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"),[2] creating an implied tautology. It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements by adding "true" or "real" to the subject.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

While a "true communist" country has never existed, there have been genuine attempts to institute one. And it has never succeeded.

Meanwhile, many countries have adopted social welfare/mixed market systems that reduce poverty, provide equality of opportunity, and low income disparity without the need of communism.

Lot of them are divesting themselves of those aspects about now, though, and I doubt humans will ever have equality of opportunity.

[Chestaan]

Anyway that's been explained several times now so I think we're pretty much done here...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Frankly, it was the realization that several had tried without success that caused me to realize that the problem wasn't necessarily with capitalist bastards or communist bastards, but with people being bastards. The best system in my eyes is one that gives people an outlet for their bastardry without allowing it to affect others to the point of immediate harm or lack of basic necessities.

[Murkwood]

While a "true communist" country has never existed, there have been genuine attempts to institute one. And it has never succeeded.

Meanwhile, many countries have adopted social welfare/mixed market systems that reduce poverty, provide equality of opportunity, and low income disparity without the need of communism.

While I disagree about the success of such measures, I do find them to be better than apologizing for dictators.

[Chestaan]

While a "true communist" country has never existed, there have been genuine attempts to institute one. And it has never succeeded.

Meanwhile, many countries have adopted social welfare/mixed market systems that reduce poverty, provide equality of opportunity, and low income disparity without the need of communism.

The Free Territory of Ukraine was pretty close to communism.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

While a "true communist" country has never existed, there have been genuine attempts to institute one. And it has never succeeded.

Meanwhile, many countries have adopted social welfare/mixed market systems that reduce poverty, provide equality of opportunity, and low income disparity without the need of communism.

While I disagree about the success of such measures, I do find them to be better than apologizing for dictators.

I find neither to be especially palatable.

[MERIZoC]

Communism: A stateless, classless and moneyless society where the means of production are controlled by the working class.

You aren't the first person to make this incorrect argument and you certainly won't be the last. Anyway, here's the main point, I can say that the USSR/Maoist China/Cuba etc were never communist because they don't fulfill the above definition. Consider this:

Person A: All Scottish people are from Scotland or were born in Scotland.

Person B: I know a Scottish person who's not from Scotland and wasn't born in Scotland.

Person A: Then he's not a true Scotsman.

You're argument is equivalent to arguing that the above is an example of the NTSM fallacy.

Spot on.

Edit: Murkwood does get bonus points for the possible/actual thread titles.

[New Acardia]

I totally agree with the OP .

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

That pun. I like it.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Alright, I see your point.

[Pandeeria]

The attempts at communism haven't worked, and lead to oppression and deaths.

[Yanalia]

Revolution failed in the Soviet Union, and that country subsequently bastardised the revolutions of the 20th century.

[The New Sea Territory]

For Communists, there seems to be this mystical land of "True Communism" that they personally espouse, but anyone with any real power hasn't thought of. But Communism has been tried every which way, with no success. There will never be a perfect manifestation of any ideology, and if that's what Communists require for a society to be "true Scotsmen", they should send their flags back.

That's in no way unique to communists. Ardent capitalists who exist for some reason will bitch about how "The Market" in 19xx or 18xx was not truly free, hence the problems at the time with monopolies and so on.

Well, regardless of how you feel about it, that is true. Those markets were not truly free. Yes, freer than today, but not all around free. Same with communists, who argue that Vanguardist attempts at communism were not truly communist.

[The New Sea Territory]

Revolution failed in the Soviet Union, and that country subsequently bastardised the revolutions of the 20th century.

It also failed in China. The two major communist superpowers were vanguardist hellholes.

[The New Sea Territory]

I totally agree with the OP .

You are a Tea Party Conservative. Tell us again how your opinion is not sensationalist and biased?

[Unitaristic Regions]

Well, no.

Communists are not saying people like Stalin weren't communists, simply that they failed to implement communism.

Communist society is stateless, moneyless and classless. Sounds like the USSR?

The far left is bitterly decided on the issue on how to achieve communism. And if the authoritarian attempt failed, it's not stupid to wonder if a libertarian attempt would work. I smell no scotsmen there.

[The New Sea Territory]

Frankly, it was the realization that several had tried without success that caused me to realize that the problem wasn't necessarily with capitalist bastards or communist bastards, but with people being bastards. The best system in my eyes is one that gives people an outlet for their bastardry without allowing it to affect others to the point of immediate harm or lack of basic necessities.

If people are bastards, why support a government full of bastards, as anyone who serves as a government is a bastard in general.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Well, no.

Communists are not saying people like Stalin weren't communists, simply that they failed to implement communism.

Communist society is stateless, moneyless and classless. Sounds like the USSR?

The far left is bitterly decided on the issue on how to achieve communism. And if the authoritarian attempt failed, it's not stupid to wonder if a libertarian attempt would work. I smell no scotsmen there.

Except the guy above me.

Whatever .