I picked this argument up somewhere in one of Eric Olin Wright's essays online:
1)Socialists and communists wish to end poverty and class divisions
2)Socialists and communists take over in other countries they impose a statist autocracy, ignoring poverty and creating new class divisions
---------------
3)Therefore, the first premise is false and those goals cannot be achieved.
Valid, maybe the last bit about the goals makes it invalid though. I would argue that the class of 'socialist and communist' is a big issue for soundness. The sort of ideals that are existent in these two (separate) ideologies run totally against what happens in supposedly 'communist' countries. So the class of 'communism and socialism' in the first premise may not be the same as the term used in the second premise.
Note, Really Existing Socialism fits the lexical definition of Fascism extremely well "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (Merriam-Webster)
This creates an interesting paradox...if both premises are true, then the conclusion is false, in which case the argument is a counterexample for itself; but if the conclusion is true, then one of the premises is false and it's not a good argument.
ReplyDeleteIs this even an argument at all? The premises are supposed to support a conclusion. But if the conclusion undermines one of the premises it can't be an argument at all. Right?
ReplyDeleteIs this similar to people picketing with signs that say "Stop Picketing". If they are both true then there is foul play involved. The conclusion does not follow.
ReplyDelete