Worse than capitalism despite being more well intentioned.
Cs Lewis nailed it while talking about religion:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Ask yourself, do you really want the people of .ml holding power over every facet of your life?
Show me an implementation that doesn’t end up like that.
I don’t care about some great pie in the sky ideals, show me a real tangible example of a communist government that doesn’t violate its citizens for “their own good.”
Sure but that’s true of anything. However there is a theory of communism. You can, and should, weigh the various implementations at the scale of this theory
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.
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.
Says the guy who cried fallacy but couldn’t name what it is.
You’re not a serious person, I engaged with what you said and you couldn’t respond with shit. You are obviously just pissed that I preempted what you were going to say.
Worse than capitalism despite being more well intentioned.
Cs Lewis nailed it while talking about religion:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Ask yourself, do you really want the people of .ml holding power over every facet of your life?
I don’t think communism = oppressive morality.
Show me an implementation that doesn’t end up like that.
I don’t care about some great pie in the sky ideals, show me a real tangible example of a communist government that doesn’t violate its citizens for “their own good.”
OP asked about communism, not marxism-leninism specifically
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.”
Its a shame that no true no true scottsman fallacy has ever been tried.
Sure but that’s true of anything. However there is a theory of communism. You can, and should, weigh the various implementations at the scale of this theory
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.
“Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself.”
What fallacy is that?
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.
I think you’re just angry that I preempted you with an argument you can’t refute.
I guess it’s easy to convince yourself of that when you haven’t really engaged with what I said, lol
Says the guy who cried fallacy but couldn’t name what it is.
You’re not a serious person, I engaged with what you said and you couldn’t respond with shit. You are obviously just pissed that I preempted what you were going to say.