The Best Form of Government Thread - Communism Discussions

MikhailBakunin said:

I think you're dramatically overselling the degree to which the Christians and Muslims would call those litmus tests (not that majorities actually matter for that question, but you're the one invoking their internal perspective).

Click to expand...

I'm really not, especially not historically. Some of these very debates were the most vigorously argued at the various ecumenical counsels throughout history, they are even problems still being tackled today in theological circles.

I'm aware and I think that division is, again, a matter of political distinction not whether or not those people are "Muslim" (even as viewed from within the faith).

Click to expand...

It may be now, but it has not always been that way. I think you're attempting to focus on the trees of my point, rather than seeing the entire forest of it.

Those are not litmus tests for christian vs not-christian

Click to expand...

But they are. And many other distinctions are drawn upon by Christians on both sides of that theological divide to justify that claim

Here's CARM.org's article on why Catholics aren't actually Christians from the Calvinist point of view, for instance

Is Roman Catholicism and Christianity the same thing?

And basically a whole litany of various criteria are used as litmus tests for what determines which is a "True Christian" (tm)

Either classifications have necessary conditions or they don't. What those conditions are is a matter debate. Invoking "No True Scotsman" in response to a disagreement about that doesn't do anything to advance that debate. It's just a way to declare victory without having to do the work.

Click to expand...

Ah, no. No one is claiming that because you are appealing to a fallacy of reasoning that you are by definition incorrect. I am saying that so long as the crux of your argument relies on fallacious reasoning, I have no reason to believe your claim. You have not demonstrated that it is a valid claim. You very well could be right. You very well could be wrong. I have no real way to judge that.

It is absolutely not a matter of merely including class distinctions "during the transition to a classless society." That difference that you're calling not-fundamental has to do with simultaneously claiming to want to overthrow the hierarchy of power in the workplace because of its repressive nature while openly reserving the right to maintain that power.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it is founded in your perspective, which strawman's their stated intentions. The communists you are claiming aren't really communists due to this perceived contradiction you are pointing to, actually have an explanation of their intentions, which is to shepherd the revolution and safeguard it. In fact, that reasoning is the foundation of their justifications for most later purges and attempts to "ensure the success of the revolution". I can't read their minds. I don't know if they're just lying for political power, I presume they, as most politicians, are. But the problem is that I can't make that sort of judgement call until after they've accomplished some portion of their plans to see how the results pan out.

Until that point, I have to evaluate their claims as I evaluate yours. They provide a model pathway to get from point A to point B you claim is contradictory, and they claim is not. You refuse to provide a model at all, while criticizing theirs as inherently contradictory and therefore doomed to failure. That may be the case. But your perception of their intentions is not the litmus test for whether or not they are sincere in their beliefs, and that they perceive their goals to be in line with proper communist theory.

If the entire impetus for throwing off capitalism is the elimination of that sort of power, it's not a minor matter to then claim the prerogative of keeping it precisely for the purpose of purifying the very political apparatus that is meant to replace it. That is not a "transition to a classless society." That is a transition away from it.

Click to expand...

In your view based on your assumption of their intentions. But not in their view based on their understanding of Communist theory and based on their models of how to attain the whatever you want to call the ideal Communist society.

The thing is, it isn't like Lenin disagreed with the assessment. However you classify Lenin based on his own proclamations, it's not the case that he proclaimed that what he built was really socialist in character:

Lenin: To the Russian Colony in North America

Click to expand...

The model is that State Capitalism is the transitory step to Communism. Everything he is saying here is perfectly in line with that philosophy, and in no way discredits the claim that his goal was to reach that end point at some time. He even explicitly talks about the sluggish pace of the transition in said letter, the fact that the power of the new governing apparatus is an extension of the will of the proles or the user class, as well as the media and the old Whitegaurd forces spreading lies about his goals and agendas and so forth.

Its just kinda boring at this point.

We've reached the impasse that it always results in.

I don't think you or we are close minded on the issue, I just think there is a fundamentally unbridgable divide here in this debate that hinges on the fact that people outside of communism simply do not, and will probably never, perceive this distinction you have hung your position on as significant.

You do.

That's kinda just the beginning, middle and end of it.

I understand what you're saying.

I'm saying I disagree with you, and that the distinction you believe exists is not significant.

Basically, the same answer you had on every example I gave you in regards to Christianity and the internally recognized distinctions therein that is comparable in my view is how most of us feel about the distinction you have within your philosophy.

Thats my point.

We see no difference. Its just an appeal to fallacy of reasoning to justify your worldview in the same way Matt Slick claiming Catholics aren't true Christians is just appealing to a fallacy of reasoning to justify his worldview.

Whatevs.