The Best Form of Government Thread - Communism Discussions

MikhailBakunin

MikhailBakunin

Golden Knight of the Realm
121
62
jihodj said:
I'm saying I disagree with you, and that the distinction you believe exists is not significant.
Click to expand...
Well if contradicting the entire premise of socialism isn't significant then I'm sorry but I don't think you have a rational view of what's significant. In fact, that sort of argument makes me suspect you're arguing in bad faith.

jihodj said:
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.
Click to expand...
No offense but I think that's based on a notion of communism defined FIRST by its association with certain countries and then backfilled to allow anything it takes to reach that conclusion. I don't think for a second that you've started by trying to distill the fundamental claims of socialism and then working forward.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
MikhailBakunin said:
FTFY
Click to expand...
Getting paid to learn learn and be an expert to consult government clients in the field of molecular diagnostics or learn about some shithole that "existed" for three years in an area that has been consistently a shithole throughout history? Yep.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
MikhailBakunin

MikhailBakunin

Golden Knight of the Realm
121
62
Mario Speedwagon said:
Well I failed. Already high speed scrolling through 90% of the posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
TL;DR Version: "communism" can mean anything including systems of massive inequalities of wealth and power because it has to be the case that the Soviet Union counts.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
MikhailBakunin

MikhailBakunin

Golden Knight of the Realm
121
62
ZyyzYzzy said:
Getting paid to learn learn and be an expert to consult government clients in the field of molecular diagnostics or learn about some shithole that "existed" for three years in an area that has been consistently a shithole throughout history? Yep.
Click to expand...
How about just learning something so that way you don't look retarded when you talk about it?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
MikhailBakunin said:
Well if contradicting the entire premise of socialism isn't significant then I'm sorry but I don't think you have a rational view of what's significant. In fact, that sort of argument makes me suspect you're arguing in bad faith.
Click to expand...

There are versions of Christianity even today that contradict the entire premise of Christianity, according to various sects of Christianity. The Mormon belief that when Christians die, they inherit their own planet and become gods over it is inherently contradictory to Evangelical Calvinism and Protestantism and Catholicism, yet they are Christians.

I could accuse you of bad faith arguments as well, but I'm not.

No offense but I think that's based on a notion of communism defined FIRST by its association with certain countries and then backfilled to allow anything it takes to reach that conclusion. I don't think for a second that you've started by trying to distill the fundamental claims of socialism and then working forward.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Like I said, this is why I think we've just reached the intractable position that is inevitable in this conversation and its now boring and pointless to continue because we're literally just going to circle this drain endlessly if we try to continue it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
MikhailBakunin

MikhailBakunin

Golden Knight of the Realm
121
62
jihodj said:
There are versions of Christianity even today that contradict the entire premise of Christianity, according to various sects of Christianity. The Mormon belief that when Christians die, they inherit their own planet and become gods over it is inherently contradictory to Evangelical Calvinism and Protestantism and Catholicism, yet they are Christians.
Click to expand...
Again, you're conflating every contradiction with core beliefs. If your goal here is to covertly reject my claims about what does and doesn't constitute the core of socialism I'd rather you simply come out and say it. Those aren't points I'm really interested in debating (any more than the sky is blue) but if your views are predicated on rejecting the idea that socialism necessarily rejects political and economic elites I'd say that as a matter of honesty you ought to lead with that fact when you talk about this stuff in the future. That's kind of important in terms of people's ability to evaluate your claims.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Mik, you're missing the forest from the trees of my argument. You're caught up in trying to disprove the comparison, rather than addressing the underlying point the comparison is attempting to make.

Dig bro?
 
MikhailBakunin

MikhailBakunin

Golden Knight of the Realm
121
62
jihodj said:
Mik, you're missing the forest from the trees of my argument. You're caught up in trying to disprove the comparison, rather than addressing the underlying point the comparison is attempting to make.

Dig bro?
Click to expand...
Which point? That no necessary conditions can be claimed by anybody because people have different ideas? Great.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
If I'm outside some ideological category looking in, such as in this case, communism or Christianity, and I see two groups within that category arguing over who is the truer adherent to their ideological category, that's an internal dispute that, when appealed to as the basis for claims that one side or the other of that in-group don't truly belong there, simply is not a convincing argument for why I, as an outsider, should consider that portion of that category "Not really part of it" or whatever.

Lets take hypothetical umbrella category Alpha for example here.

Under this umbrella category Alpha are two similar but slightly different ideologies X and Y.

Ideology X believes in rules A, B and C

Ideology Y believes in rules A, C and D

Rules B and D appear to be diametrically opposed with one another.

An adherent to Ideology X comes to me and tries to convince me that his ideology is the proper understanding of the Alpha category.

He claims that his belief in Rule B over Rule D demonstrates that his interpretation of the Alpha category is the proper interpretation.

He claims that adherents to ideology Y believe in Rule D, and belief in Rule D is absolutely contradictory to the original tenants of Alpha category. Therefore, no true adherent to the Alpha category can adhere to Rule D and remain within the umbrella category Alpha.

That is, by definition, a no true scotsman fallacy.

You can replace every one of these categories with your arguments.

Umbrella category Alpha is Socialism

Ideology X is Anarcho-Syndicalist Communism

Ideology Y is State Capitalist Socialism

Rule B is a absolute adherence to a complete and immediate eradication of all social class distinctions upon the success of the revolution

Rule D is an absolute adherence to a slow and gradual "shepherded" transition to a classless society upon the success of the revolution.

This is, step by step, the No True Scotsman fallacy bro.

Its simply inarguable. Your entire argument is premised on a fallacy of reasoning.

The structure of the argument is fallacious, and so no amount of trying to context the argument out of fallacious-ness can ever succeed, basically.
 
Last edited:
MikhailBakunin

MikhailBakunin

Golden Knight of the Realm
121
62
jihodj said:
If I'm outside some ideological category looking in, such as in this case, communism or Christianity, and I see two groups within that category arguing over who is the truer adherent to their ideological category, that's an internal dispute that, when appealed to as the basis for claims that one side or the other of that in-group don't truly belong there, simply is not a convincing argument for why I, as an outsider, should consider that portion of that category "Not really part of it" or whatever.
Click to expand...

No. This is totally fucking wrong. You don't have to agree with a particular ideology in order to be able to examine its claims and look for internal contradictions. That's just totally and completely wrong.

jihodj said:
This is, step by step, the No True Scotsman fallacy bro.
Click to expand...
Only if I'm wrong about the necessary conditions to qualify as "socialist" (and I'm not).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Internal contradictions do not lead to the expulsion of a subcategory from the larger category.

We are at an impasse.
 
MikhailBakunin

MikhailBakunin

Golden Knight of the Realm
121
62
jihodj said:
Internal contradictions do not lead to the expulsion of a subcategory from the larger category.
Click to expand...
They do if the contradiction is one of the necessary factors for being a member of the group.

jihodj said:
We are at an impasse.
Click to expand...
It would be easier if you put forward an alternative means for discerning "not-socialism" that wasn't based on first trying to include or not include certain people and was actually based on some ideological position.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
MikhailBakunin said:
They do if the contradiction is one of the necessary factors for being a member of the group.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

It would be easier if you put forward an alternative means for discerning "not-socialism" that wasn't based on first trying to include or not include certain people and was actually based on some ideological position.
Click to expand...

Define socialism and I'll tell you.
 
MikhailBakunin

MikhailBakunin

Golden Knight of the Realm
121
62
jihodj said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...
Okay well then you're arguing that there are no necessary conditions for classifying anything.

jihodj said:
Define socialism and I'll tell you.
Click to expand...
Socialism is fundamentally a critique of the power structures intrinsic in capital relations (which are typically expressed in terms of profit, interest, and rent). The base moral claim of socialism is that people ought not have power wielded over them simply because they're trying to survive.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.