The Dazzling Brilliance of Poodle Logic

One of our frequent commenters made a comment the other day that caught my attention. I felt compelled to respond.

Why?  Because that comment reached a new low, even for “That Guy”, in terms of fallacious argument.  So I thought I’d 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.

The comment in question can be found here.  It purports to show, by giving examples of their behavior, that “of course the Nazis were right-wing” (or words to that effect).

Now, people who are even passingly familiar with logic probably already see the problem with that argument.  Since That Guy often seems to have a problem grasping simple concepts, I’ll spell things out for his benefit.

The major fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that a particular behavior by government is reliably indicative of whether that government is “right wing” or “left wing.”  That is, “If a government does a certain thing (‘X’), then it is a ‘right wing’ government.”  If that assumption is incorrect, the argument falls apart completely.

Unfortunately, that assumption is not universally true.  Given similar circumstances both “right wing” and “left wing” governments often behave similarly.  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”.

In order to demonstrate just how asinine this particular false argument really is, I’m going to have a bit of fun.  Below, I’m going to use literally the individual’s own bogus argument to “prove” that the government of the Soviet Union was “right wing”.  I’ll do so by making minor revisions to the individual’s comment – which will be presented in italics – but I’ll leave the original logical structure, and most of it’s original language, completely intact.

Enjoy.

(Note:  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.  I’ve marked many of those errors carried over from the original appropriately, but I won’t guarantee I got them all.)

. . .

[BEGIN RE-WRITTEN ARGUMENT]

So lets (sic) look that (sic) the characteristic (sic) of SOVIET SOCIALISM based on what THEY ACTUALLY DID. Not merely the rhetoric of speeches made during the decades after they rose to power.  (sic)

Powerful and Continuing Socialist Symbology: They used symbols of  Soviet Socialist unity everywhere. Flags, slogans, songs, pins, banners, and other regalia. (sic)

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: The Soviets approval (sic) the use of torture, and summary executions of prisoners. Their disdain for human rights was particularly true when targeting political dissidents or ethnic minorities desiring autonomy.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The Soviets were notorious for blaming foreign influence, capitalists, and “reactionary elements” for the problems in the nation.

Supremacy of the Military: The Soviet military was given a disproportionate amount of government funding. Soldiers and military service were glamorized.

(Sidebar:  there’s a very good reason the Soviet Union during the Cold War was on occasion referred to as “Upper Volta with Missiles”.  Outside the larger cities, the  infrastructure and civilian economy of the Soviet Union reputedly was closer to third-world than first-world standards during much of the Cold War.  The reason?  An absurdly huge fraction of the Soviet Union’s economic production was going towards the nation’s military.)

Rampant Sexism: Soviet Leadership was almost exclusively male-dominated (one member four members in Politburo history were female). While either gender was in theory free to “be all they could be”, in practice traditional gender roles remained traditional and largely unchanged. Rampant homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. (sic)

Initially Blamed and Scapegoated the Media, then Took Control of Media:  Prior to the October Revolution, “the Bolsheviks denounced the press itself as being openly hostile and protecting the ‘rotten’ regime of Nicolas II”.  And when they took control they targeted the press and immediately took control over it (e.g., during the October Revolution, by decree).

Obsession with National Security: The Soviet government’s use of fear and the constant rhetoric of threats post (sic) domestic and international as a motivational tool by the Soviet  government over the masses was ubiquitous.

Religion and Government were Intertwined: The Bolshevik leadership was overwhelmingly Atheist and when they took power the (sic) persecuted Orthodox Christians and Muslims. Lenin, Stalin, and later Soviet leaders attempted to substitute State Atheism as a de facto state religion and unifying force. That failed, but notions of a unified and pure Atheist Soviet Socialist State obsessed Soviet leadership. They thought religion was a corrupting and dividing influence on the purity and strength of Soviet Socialism and it (sic) needed to be replaced for the good of Soviet Socialism. Their long game was a ubiquitous state-sponsored Atheism that would replace religion and become a source of unity in the country rather than one of division.

Labor Power was Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor (particularly independent worker movements) was a threat to Socialist government, in the Soviet Union labor unions were either eliminated, co-opted, or controlled by the Soviet government.

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: In the Soviet Union, free expression in the arts was openly attacked. Intellectuals and artists were targeted and jailed.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment: In the Soviet Union, police and other internal security personnel were given almost limitless power to enforce laws – and if necessary, to act completely outside them. Physical abuse and violence by police and other government security agents was overlooked because it was very unwise to criticize the government because it was regarded as taking the side of “reactionary elements”. (awkward, run-on sentence structure from original)

It is clear that in actual ACTIONS that SOVIET SOCIALISM was  a RIGHT WING movement.

[END RE-WRITTEN ARGUMENT]

. . .

Astute readers will note one omission in the above.  The paragraph in the original comment beginning, “Corporate Power is Protected:  . . . .” is not addressed.

That was by design.  I didn’t address that paragraph because it was absurd on its face.  “Central control via a combination of coercion, intimidation, appropriation, and regulation” is decidedly not the same as a “partnership”.

A cursory review the 1931 National Socialist Program – particularly points 11-17 – 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.  They were so successful that none other than Albert Speer himself opined that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground”, and further warned that Germany’s industry was becoming “the framework for a state-socialist economic order.”  In short:  the Nazis were actively working to gain central control of Germany’s means of economic production – and were succeeding.

Oh, and starting in 1936 the Nazis also instituted “Four Year Plans” for the German economy.  Sound familiar?  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.

Bottom line:  that paragraph in the original comment was so absurd on its face that IMO it was already a parody of historical reality.  So I didn’t bother to even attempt to re-write it as parody.

. . .

As I said above, I hope most readers have enjoyed this article.  Or, if you’re a leftist tool who doesn’t 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.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Especially if you’re going to imply, inaccurately, that I’m lying the next time you wax ignorant, clown.  For that bit of mendacity, let me pass along to you a message from TG – which I heartily endorse.

 

 

Let me know if you need that translated.

 

 

(Author’s Note: Edited to account a minor factual error in the original article. Later research showed that three women besides Yekaterina Furtseva had briefly been members of the Soviet Politburo/Central Committee – one during the immediate post-Revolutionary period, and two others near the end of Gorbachev’s regime.)

Category: "Teh Stoopid", Historical, I hate hippies