Communism vs Nazism
What's the difference? Not big enough to respect Communists.
Glen Reynolds has a nice little back and forth over at InstaPundit.
Back in the 1970s I had some German friends in West Berlin who insisted communism was wonderful. They disliked all those governments, like East Germany and the Soviet Union, because they pretended to be communist, but weren't. My friends granted the rights abuses of the "communist" states, but defended communism by saying that REAL communism had never been tried: if it had, the results would have been, as Marx predicted, peace, prosperity, and freedom. Since the commies were not peaceful, prosperous, and free, they were not practicing real communism.
These were pretty smart, and extraordinarily well-read people. I think they were very, very deeply in denial. How can Marxists pretend that Marxism is scientific if every time Marxism is tried at a national scale and the results are not peace, prosperity, and freedom, but violence, poverty, and oppression, they simply claim that therefor "real" Marxism wasn't applied? The results "prove" that real Marxism wasn't applied because the theory is correct no matter what the real life effects?
No real world experiment produces the predicted results, therefor the theory is correct: it was the experimenters who are always wrong.
That's Marxist science for you.
Glen Reynolds has a nice little back and forth over at InstaPundit.
Back in the 1970s I had some German friends in West Berlin who insisted communism was wonderful. They disliked all those governments, like East Germany and the Soviet Union, because they pretended to be communist, but weren't. My friends granted the rights abuses of the "communist" states, but defended communism by saying that REAL communism had never been tried: if it had, the results would have been, as Marx predicted, peace, prosperity, and freedom. Since the commies were not peaceful, prosperous, and free, they were not practicing real communism.
These were pretty smart, and extraordinarily well-read people. I think they were very, very deeply in denial. How can Marxists pretend that Marxism is scientific if every time Marxism is tried at a national scale and the results are not peace, prosperity, and freedom, but violence, poverty, and oppression, they simply claim that therefor "real" Marxism wasn't applied? The results "prove" that real Marxism wasn't applied because the theory is correct no matter what the real life effects?
No real world experiment produces the predicted results, therefor the theory is correct: it was the experimenters who are always wrong.
That's Marxist science for you.
Labels: CDE, Economy, politics, science, socialists
posted by TTB at
7:07 AM
1 Comments:
Right, and Osama isn't a "real" Muslim, Obama isn't a "real" progressive, and Torquemada wasn't a "real" Christian.
This fallacy has a name: "No true Scotsman".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home