Comment on [deleted]
Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 months agoAs I mentioned earlier, you don’t understand the no true Christian fallacy.
I did not use no true Scotsman, I used no true Christian. There is no true Christian because it’s IMPOSSIBLE, it has nothing to do with the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Christians recognize that other Christians are not true Christians, but believe themselves to be, but they are not because it’s impossible.
In the same way there are no true communist countries because it’s impossible. But they are communist in being authoritarian and CLAIM to be communist, and claim to have roots in Marxism.
To what degree they actually have is irrelevant, because all attempts at communism have resulted in oppression of the people and civil rights like freedom of speech. And this is no different in China than all other Communist countries, so as I see it, China is as communist as any other so called Communist country.
Just like a Christian who believes in trinity is as Christian as one who doesn’t.
SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 7 months ago
While the specific context and criteria may differ between the “No True Scotsman” and “No True Christian” fallacies, the underlying logical error remains the same: attempting to maintain a generalization or stereotype by selectively redefining the category to exclude inconvenient counterexamples. There is no meaningful difference. (In a somewhat ironic twist, you’ve essentially applied the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the concept itself.)
I didn’t argue that China isn’t Communist because of trivial reasons like using sugar in their coffee; rather, my point was centered on their significant presence of a private sector. Just as you emphasize that democracy necessitates “free and democratic elections,” I similarly emphasize that Communism entails certain defining characteristics. The absence of private industry serves as a clear benchmark, not a moving target or an impossible standard, but a fixed criterion. Despite whatever label the controlling party in China holds, they fall short of meeting this criterion.
In essence, you’re basing your argument on a false premise. Your definition of Communism holds as much weight as North Korea’s definition of Democracy. While you allow Democracy to define itself based on its ideology, you insist on defining Communism based on the actions of its deceitful actors.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Cooperations are private too, and absolutely a part of Communism.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 months ago
No they don’t, because no true Scotsman is moving the goal post, which no true Christian is not.