He's no true Scotsman...apart from when he is.
When someone says ‘Russia/China was not real communist’ its quite common for people call out: "That's a ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy”. But is it?
A bit about what that is first:
“The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that "no Scotsman would do such a thing." When later confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that "no true Scotsman would do such a thing," thus disavowing membership in the group "Scotsman" to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for not being a Scotsman. However, this is a fallacy as there is nothing in the definition of "Scotsman" which makes such acts impossible. The term "No True Scotsman" has since expanded to refer to anyone who attempts to disown or distance themselves from wayward members of a group by excluding them from it."
Or simply:
“The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position.”
Many have said that if you just claim 'X wasnt really socialist/communist' and use that alone as your argument, then you have committed the fallacy. That is possible if you act like the above and keep "reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position" - if you keep shifting the goalposts so that you never let in a goal. But, and its a big but -as my old teacher in Edinburgh used to say - if you explain the points clearly, and give reasons why you consider that and then KEEP to your position, dont shift your definition, then...its not falling into that fallacy. Sometimes a man really ISN'T a Scotsman!
People often use this fallancy incorrectly, without understanding it. It's become yet one more of the many cliches bounding about in our conversations about how to run our societies. The 'no true Scotsman fallacy' occurs only when there is no clear rule or characteristics or definition of whatever you are talking about. If a clear set of characteristics are given, and not changed in an evasive fashion, then it's simply not a case of 'no true Scotsman'.
So, let's give at the definition of communism and consider whether the U.S.S.R fits it so we can determine if it's really a 'no true scotsman' to say the USSR or China weren't 'true communism'. Lets give a pretty clear set of characteristics, a simple definition. Drawing on various aspects of communist theory and history and aims, we might say it is a system aiming at:
'A classless society based on the common ownership of the means of production...where each person contributes and enjoys the fruits of their labour without an elite class of owners taking part of that...where the accumulation of profit as a source of power is done away with.... where workers control their own workplace and processes via elected and accountable councils...where there is freedom of thought and action in a variety of individual aspects... in which the state withers away and instead things are organised by decentralised associations practising direct democracy.'
So, how did the U.S.S.R measure up to that?
Was it classless?- Oh, possibly. We might say that clear class groupings decreased in importance and factual elements.
Was it based on common ownership?- Hmm, kind of. We could say that rich capitalist type owners decreased and the resources of the country were formally owned by all. But not really since a powerful elite group of so leaders decided what was done with the resources.
Did people enjoy their fruits of the labour without an elite class of owners taking part of that ? - No, the above elite groups took the results of people's labour and used them as they chose, without the workers having much say in it.
Was the accumulation of profit as a source of power done away with? - In a way, but since the elite leaders accumulated power via their control of production then we have to say this aspect was not achieved.
Did workers control their own work? - No.
Was there freedom of thought and action? - No.
Was it stateless?- No, the state became stronger, more repressive and direct democracy was actively squashed, sometimes violently.
Doesn't tick many boxes, does it? These are a clear set of guidelines for measuring if A, B or C country is communist. If they fail to meet several of those guidelines then they are not communist. It's pretty clear cut. The 'no true Scotsman' point simply doesn't apply.
And
What we might say is that the USSR or Mao's China were a VERSION of communism. One type of it, maybe. Just for now, lets say, ok, they were a version of communism that had only some of the characteristics above. The had common control of the means of production, they reduced the importance of class, they reduced the importance of profit/money as a way to get access to goods and services. But since they allowed a powerful elite to dominate, they repressed expression of views, they did not let workers really control their workplaces, etc...so we can not say it was communist as described above. It doesn't tick enough boxes. We might say it was 'part communist', 'distorted communism', 'state communism'. But why call it communism at all if it has so few of the ingredients necessary? This a bit like saying a lasagne is 'part lasagne' if it has no sauce or meat or vegetables in it, only pasta. Maybe a bit of butter... if you ordered lasagne and the waiter brought you three laters of pasts with a small amount of butter between them, and nothing else in it. Then you would rightly say:
'Hey, this isn't lasagne!'
If the waiter angrily replied:
'Oh, that's just a 'no true lasagne' fallacy - eat it!'
Then you would be quite justified in thinking them nuts and that what they have put down in front of you REALLY isn't lasagne. Just as we are quite justified in saying Stalin or Mao's rule was really not communism.
Another analogy. for fun: it's like someone who CALLS themselves a Scotsman, insist they are...but who has no kilt, doesn’t like shortbread, supports Argentina in world football games, etc. Someone who has no Scottish family connections, almost no knowledge of Scotland and who has, in fact, never even been to Scotland. Someone who does not exhibit the behaviour or characteristics of Scotsmen, and who actually behaves in ways that are specifically disliked by most Scotsmen.
But...he has a tartan hat!
In what way could such a person be called a Scotsman? We can establish, in clear terms that they do not fit the definition or characteristics of a Scotsman. They don't tick the boxes. Surely, therefore, it would be ludicrous to still believe their claim to be Scottish, their claims to be acting like a Scotsman and to be aiming towards a state of pure ‘Scottishness’. It’s a bit like agreeing that Ida Amin WAS indeed the King of Scotland, because he said so, because he firmly believed it to be true, despite all the evidence indicating that he was not. No matter how loudly he claimed it he was not the King of Scotland. And neither was Stalin a communist - by apply clear characteristics, which you don't move around evasively, we can establish that pretty clearly.
Though, he kind of was the King of Russia.
I'll give him that.
What we might say is that the USSR or Mao's China were a VERSION of communism. One type of it, maybe. Just for now, lets say, ok, they were a version of communism that had only some of the characteristics above. The had common control of the means of production, they reduced the importance of class, they reduced the importance of profit/money as a way to get access to goods and services. But since they allowed a powerful elite to dominate, they repressed expression of views, they did not let workers really control their workplaces, etc...so we can not say it was communist as described above. It doesn't tick enough boxes. We might say it was 'part communist', 'distorted communism', 'state communism'. But why call it communism at all if it has so few of the ingredients necessary? This a bit like saying a lasagne is 'part lasagne' if it has no sauce or meat or vegetables in it, only pasta. Maybe a bit of butter... if you ordered lasagne and the waiter brought you three laters of pasts with a small amount of butter between them, and nothing else in it. Then you would rightly say:
'Hey, this isn't lasagne!'
If the waiter angrily replied:
'Oh, that's just a 'no true lasagne' fallacy - eat it!'
Then you would be quite justified in thinking them nuts and that what they have put down in front of you REALLY isn't lasagne. Just as we are quite justified in saying Stalin or Mao's rule was really not communism.
Another analogy. for fun: it's like someone who CALLS themselves a Scotsman, insist they are...but who has no kilt, doesn’t like shortbread, supports Argentina in world football games, etc. Someone who has no Scottish family connections, almost no knowledge of Scotland and who has, in fact, never even been to Scotland. Someone who does not exhibit the behaviour or characteristics of Scotsmen, and who actually behaves in ways that are specifically disliked by most Scotsmen.
But...he has a tartan hat!
In what way could such a person be called a Scotsman? We can establish, in clear terms that they do not fit the definition or characteristics of a Scotsman. They don't tick the boxes. Surely, therefore, it would be ludicrous to still believe their claim to be Scottish, their claims to be acting like a Scotsman and to be aiming towards a state of pure ‘Scottishness’. It’s a bit like agreeing that Ida Amin WAS indeed the King of Scotland, because he said so, because he firmly believed it to be true, despite all the evidence indicating that he was not. No matter how loudly he claimed it he was not the King of Scotland. And neither was Stalin a communist - by apply clear characteristics, which you don't move around evasively, we can establish that pretty clearly.
Though, he kind of was the King of Russia.
I'll give him that.