• turdcollector69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If you’re trying to say true communism hasn’t been tried please let me stop you because that’s a no true Scotsman fallacy.

    Everyone who’s ever instituted a flavor of communism would call their preferred flavor “true communism.”

    • Robaque@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself. I’m not talking about a “truer” or “purer” form of communism which marxist leninists failed to realise, because the definition I’m working with - of communism as a classless, stateless, moneyless society (and the ideas and ideologies branching from that definition) - encompasses far more than that specific ideology. This isn’t even a defence of communism - if anything, I’m pointing out there are other facets of communism that would make for a more interesting discussion than rehashing how bad the soviets were for the millionth time.

      • turdcollector69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        “Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself.”

        What fallacy is that?

        • Robaque@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Hey, idk all the names people have made up to categorise fallacies, but I do know you misapplied the no true scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, or at least a misunderstanding.

    • Hadriscus@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Sure but that’s true of anything. However there is a theory of communism. You can, and should, weigh the various implementations against this theory