One of our frequent commenters made a comment the other day that caught my attention. I felt compelled to respond.<\/p>\n
Why?\u00a0 Because that comment reached a new low, even for “That Guy”, in terms of fallacious argument.\u00a0 So I thought I\u2019d point out to the individual the error of his argument, just in case he might possibly learn something from the correction. Based on past experience, I rather doubt he will; but you never know.<\/p>\n
The comment in question can be found here<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 It purports to show, by giving examples of their behavior, that \u201cof course the Nazis were right-wing\u201d (or words to that effect).<\/p>\n Now, people who are even passingly familiar with logic probably already see the problem with that argument.\u00a0 Since That Guy often seems to have a problem grasping simple concepts, I’ll spell things out for his benefit.<\/p>\n The major fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that a particular behavior by government is reliably indicative of whether that government is \u201cright wing\u201d or \u201cleft wing.”\u00a0 That is, “If a government does a certain thing (‘X’), then it is a ‘right wing’ government.”\u00a0 If that assumption is incorrect, the argument falls apart completely.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, that assumption is not<\/span> universally true.\u00a0 Given similar circumstances both “right wing” and “left wing” governments often behave similarly.\u00a0 Therefore, any argument that “because a government did “X”, it is therefore “right wing” (or “left wing”) is invalid – because here the “if” doesn’t invariably lead to the “then”.<\/p>\n In order to demonstrate just how asinine this particular false argument really is, I\u2019m going to have a bit of fun.\u00a0 Below, I\u2019m going to use literally the individual\u2019s own bogus argument<\/span> to \u201cprove\u201d that the government of the Soviet Union was \u201cright wing\u201d<\/em>.\u00a0 I\u2019ll do so by making minor revisions to the individual\u2019s comment – which will be presented in italics<\/em> – but I’ll leave the original logical structure, and most of it’s original language, completely intact.<\/p>\n Enjoy.<\/p>\n (Note:\u00a0 the grammatical errors and awkward\/incomplete sentence structure in what follows are present in the original; I left them in place because I wanted to make as few changes as possible to the original.\u00a0 I’ve marked many of those errors carried over from the original appropriately, but I won’t guarantee I got them all.)<\/p>\n . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n [BEGIN RE-WRITTEN ARGUMENT]<\/p>\n So lets (sic) look that (sic) the characteristic (sic) of SOVIET SOCIALISM<\/em> based on what THEY ACTUALLY DID. Not merely the rhetoric of speeches made during the decades after<\/em> they rose to power.\u00a0 (sic)<\/p>\n Powerful and Continuing Socialist Symbology<\/em>: They used symbols of\u00a0 Soviet Socialist unity<\/em> everywhere. Flags, slogans, songs, pins, banners, and other regalia. (sic)<\/p>\n Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: The Soviets<\/em> approval (sic) the use of torture, and summary<\/em> executions of prisoners. Their disdain for human rights was particularly true when targeting political dissidents or ethnic minorities desiring autonomy<\/em>.<\/p>\n Identification of Enemies\/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The Soviets were notorious for<\/em> blaming foreign influence, capitalists<\/em>, and \u201creactionary elements\u201d<\/em> for the problems in the nation.<\/p>\n Supremacy of the Military: The Soviet<\/em> military was given a disproportionate amount of government funding. Soldiers and military service were glamorized.<\/p>\n (Sidebar<\/span>:\u00a0 there\u2019s a very good reason the Soviet Union during the Cold War was on occasion referred to as \u201cUpper Volta with Missiles\u201d.\u00a0 Outside the larger cities, the\u00a0 infrastructure and civilian economy of the Soviet Union reputedly was closer to third-world than first-world standards during much of the Cold War.\u00a0 The reason?\u00a0 An absurdly huge fraction of the Soviet Union’s economic production was going towards the nation’s military.)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Rampant Sexism: Soviet Leadership<\/em> was almost exclusively male-dominated ( Initially Blamed and Scapegoated the Media, then Took Control of Media: \u00a0Prior to the October Revolution, \u201cthe Bolsheviks denounced the press itself as being openly hostile and protecting the \u2018rotten\u2019 regime of Nicolas II\u201d<\/a>.<\/em> \u00a0And when they took control they targeted the press and immediately took control over it (e.g., during the October Revolution, by decree)<\/em>.<\/p>\n Obsession with National Security: The Soviet government’s use of<\/em> fear and the constant rhetoric of threats post (sic) domestic and international as a motivational tool by the Soviet \u00a0government over the masses was ubiquitous<\/em>.<\/p>\n Religion and Government were Intertwined: The Bolshevik leadership<\/em> was overwhelmingly Atheist and when they took power the (sic) persecuted Orthodox Christians <\/em>and Muslims<\/em>. Lenin, Stalin, and later Soviet leaders<\/em> attempted to substitute State Atheism as a de facto state religion and unifying force<\/em>. That failed, but notions of a unified and pure Atheist Soviet Socialist State<\/em> obsessed Soviet leadership<\/em>. They<\/em> thought religion was a corrupting and dividing influence on the purity and strength of Soviet Socialism<\/em> and it (sic) needed to be replaced<\/em> for the good of Soviet Socialism<\/em>. Their long game was a ubiquitous state-sponsored Atheism that would replace religion and become<\/em> a source of unity in the country rather than one of division.<\/p>\n Labor Power was Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor (particularly independent worker<\/em> movements) was a threat to Socialist<\/em> government, in the Soviet Union<\/em> labor unions were either eliminated, co-opted, or controlled by the Soviet government<\/em>.<\/p>\n Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: In the Soviet Union,<\/em> free expression in the arts was openly attacked. Intellectuals and artists were targeted and jailed.<\/p>\n Obsession with Crime and Punishment: In the Soviet Union,<\/em> police and other internal security personnel<\/em> were given almost limitless power to enforce laws \u2013 and if necessary, to act completely outside them<\/em>. Physical abuse and violence by police and other government security agents<\/em> was overlooked because it was very unwise to criticize the government<\/em> because it was regarded as taking the side of \u201creactionary elements\u201d<\/em>. (awkward, run-on sentence structure from original)<\/p>\n It is clear that in actual ACTIONS that SOVIET SOCIALISM<\/em> was \u00a0a RIGHT WING movement.<\/p>\n [END RE-WRITTEN ARGUMENT]<\/p>\n . . . <\/strong><\/p>\n Astute readers will note one omission in the above.\u00a0 The paragraph in the original comment beginning, \u201cCorporate Power is Protected: \u00a0. . . .\u201d is not addressed.<\/p>\n That was by design.\u00a0 I didn’t address that paragraph because it was absurd on its face.\u00a0 “Central control via a combination of coercion, intimidation, appropriation, and regulation” is decidedly not<\/span> the same as a “partnership”.<\/p>\n A cursory review the 1931 National Socialist Program<\/a><\/em> \u2013 par<\/em>ticularly points 11-17 \u2013 clearly shows that the Nazis envisioned government control over the means of production if and when they gained political control. After they attained power, they took action to achieve this.\u00a0 They were so successful that none other than Albert Speer himsel<\/a><\/em>f<\/a> <\/em>opined that \u201ca kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground\u201d, and further warned that Germany\u2019s industry was becoming \u201cthe framework for a state-socialist economic order.\u201d\u00a0 In short:\u00a0 the Nazis were actively working to gain central control of Germany’s means of economic production – and were succeeding.<\/p>\n Oh, and starting in 1936 the Nazis also instituted \u201cFour Year Plans\u201d for the German economy.\u00a0 Sound familiar?\u00a0 It should – and it also sounds to me as if they were trying to “one-up” the Soviet Union’s well-known Five Year Plans.<\/p>\n Bottom line:\u00a0 that paragraph in the original comment was so absurd on its face that IMO it was already a parody of historical reality.\u00a0 So I didn\u2019t bother to even attempt to re-write it as parody.<\/p>\n . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n As I said above, I hope most readers have enjoyed this article.\u00a0 Or, if you\u2019re a leftist tool who doesn\u2019t like looking like an idiot . . . maybe you’ll take it’s lesson to heart, learn to think – and use logical reasoning – before you wax ignorant once again.\u00a0 But I’m not holding my breath.<\/p>\n Especially if you’re going to imply, inaccurately<\/span>, that I’m lying the next time you wax ignorant, clown.\u00a0 For that bit of mendacity, let me pass along to you a message from TG – which I heartily endorse.<\/p>\n <\/p>\none member<\/del> four members in Politburo history were female). While either gender was in theory free to \u201cbe all they could be\u201d, in practice<\/em> traditional gender roles remained traditional and largely unchanged<\/em>. Rampant homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. (sic)<\/p>\n