A Communist's Guide to Logical Fallacies

people too often overlook the importance of rhetorical discipline in political debate this is understandable as the quality of general online discourse has been declining over the past several years but thankfully you a big brain communist well the tools you need to combat common anti-communist logical fallacies thanks to this compact compilation let's get into it in most debates with people who argue against communism despite knowing little about the ideology they will often utilize poor and inaccurate knowledge accumulated from a presumably establishment or far-right media sources this often involves proclaiming a certain feature or characteristic to communism that the ideology and the majority of its followers do not adhere to in the first place for example communists want to give everybody equal wages alternatively one can crudely ascribed characteristics or events surrounding the 20th century Marxist Leninist socialist states to the ideology for example people constantly starved under communism when an opponent uses a strummin in their argument it can be addressed in a number of ways the simplest and most effective of which is to directly point out their use of a fallacy in his or her argument identify what portion of the argument is fallacious and explain why using one to a few counter points with evidence the explanation part is important as ideally a highly effective one will be able to shut down your opponent on the subject stopping them from further challenging your refutation of their fallacious argument in some cases opponents will try to attack your character rather than your argument thankfully this will most likely mean your argument is strong or the arguer is poured arguing alone and ad hominem attack can be put down fairly easily you can either quickly reverse the pressure saying attack the argument not my character or more formally state attacking me or my character isn't challenging the merits of the arguments I have made this quickly puts the focus back on the opponent to develop a proper response to your assertion made prior to their attack if a clever arguer tries to intertwine in ad hominem attack as a part of a larger statement it is possible to use it as a stepping stone to help deconstruct the rest of your opponent's argument provided that you are capable of doing so this logical fallacy is most often used to undermine the communist ideology by alluding to the extinction of most twentieth-century Marxist Leninist socialist states any argument involving the appeal to an American advantage in favor of modern liberal states generally falls into the range of this fallacy typically it isn't effective to call out and analyze the use of a bandwagon as a fallacy alone because the point of the argument your opponent is making most likely encompasses is fallacy and he or she would likely argue the validity of his or her use of said fallacy rather it is wiser to directly address the particular argument the opponent is making then and follow up with the analysis of his or her use of the fallacy as it means to strengthen the larger counter-argument for example if your opponent does say communism has clearly failed almost all modern states are capitalist now you can explain that these nations were socialist and they were unable to make it to the 21st century because of Coos economic sabotage revisionism etc and not because the system alone wasn't able to sustain itself then like frosting on a cake your kind of argument can close by pointing out the use of the bandwagon and then explaining why using the predominance of liberal capitalist states as a sign of the shortcomings of socialism or communism is not valid for reasons that can be tied back to the points you made earlier in your counter argument simply put to tackle the bandwagon fallacy in an argument is most often ideal to break down the whole argument first before asserting that said argument was partly or entirely fallacious in its logic all along out of any logical fallacy used in anti-communist rhetoric this one is likely the most unchallenged in a youtube comment section ready to comment section or chann thread anonymity gives a certain freedom to political debate but not enough so to escape the commitment of logical fallacies in rhetoric anti-communists will occasionally bring up a personal account of their relatives their friends relatives displeasure or hatred toward living under a socialist state most often the USSR for those located in the West the typical format is that they are a person they know tell their suffering under the oppressive socialist system that subjugated them starve them and/or impoverished them whether the opponent is lying or telling the truth it is logically fallacious to draw a conclusion regarding the entire socialist state in which this took place much less the entire communist ideology on the basis of the single incident especially in the face of contradicting historical facts evidence and statistics to effectively counter the use of this fallacy in debate it is necessary to utilize hard evidence contradicting the narrative expressed in the debaters anecdote this without questioning the validity of the argue is account undermines it and establishes their tale as an isolated case that does not speak for the rest of the population of the socialist state in question for example if an opponent brings up how bad their Cuban American relatives not living under socialist Cuba was and the plethora of evidence showing domestic Ubud support in high opinion of their system can be brought into play depending on what factual support the opponent uses their points based on those supposed facts can be challenged with contradicting evidence thus putting into question the arguers entire statement if that isn't enough to put your opponent's anecdote to rest then you can go further questioning the reliability of the argument and therefore reversing the pressure of the debate on to them if a piece of evidence seems too good to be true for an opponent they might question the reliability of the information within the source based purely on its origin unless the arguer has either one evidence contradicting the information you presented or two evidence proving its authors untrustworthy any claims of reliability based on the sources origin are logically fallacious refuting genetic fallacies is fairly simple make a direct inquiry to the opponent questioning them for any counter evidence either contradicting the information in your source or proving that the creator of the source is misleading or inaccurate most of the time the arguer will either be unable to make a valid response or in the unlikely case will provide a discussable reference to which the debate can progress to so I hope you guys enjoyed this video I also hope that it will be used to help improve your rhetorical skills for debates and other purposes besides that I'll see you in the next video

  1. here is MY opinion of every government system ok
    capitalism: its kinda hards to do well and harder with a neo liveralist ideology but tends to do extreemly well when used well
    socio-welfaireism (whaterver finland has im not sure of the name): a different form of capitalisim witch is better but has more monetary requirements and even with the high taxxes you need somebody else to pay for something inportant to maintein it well
    soft socialism: good for a developing nacion but at a surtain point it will stunt the development of your cuntry
    socialism: it works when eather everyone else is socialist or you are compleatly isolated
    comunism: if all humans were purely good it whoud work fine but humans always want to get more so in its purest form it dosnt work
    technocracy(aka what china has right now): it woks fine but the pepole have lesser rights
    anarchism: YES humans are generaly good but not all humans are good then how do you protect yourself
    anarcho-socialism: good theory never put in to practice for a long or big enough time to be 100% sure
    anarcho-comunism: sightly contradicts the idea of anarchism to its core and well has never been tested
    anarcho-capitalism: a extreemly bad joke /pol/ made that got too far
    anarcho-fashism: just bad commedy

    anyone's got more systems il try my best
    also lets have an agument

  2. Mild criticism: I've honestly found meeting an anecdote with statistics is actually very ineffective in debate, at least on it's own. It makes you come across as a robot who doesn't care for interpersonal human suffering. A better strat is to first cite a counter anecdote, find a story of someone with the opposite experience, THEN present data to back it up. Makes you seem like you're capable of empathy, while also having facts on your side.

  3. Some ideologies make people starve, others take us to the moon.

    I know, I know… I’ll walk myself to the gulag…

  4. His OR her? Did you just assume that they werent a tri-tittied gender-neutral-fluid pansexual asexual womyn you racist scummmmmm?????

  5. The world keeps spinning around and so things change and people can also change. The anti-communist today can be pro communist tomorrow (and vice-versa). In quiet periods we just have to be patient and plant seeds and PREPARE for the inevitable major upheavals.

  6. I guess the people (the half that arent deviants) who like this video, actually believe that what is known as right wing in normie circles is really that, and not “right wing communism”. Since one will never see an ideological commie actually defend the true base tenets of their system, which are largely shared with what they (in their entire ignorance) would call “capitalism”.

  7. The problem with the video is that the whole thing is predicated off of the assumption that an anti-communist will not have evidence behind them.

  8. Funny about the anecdotes, so fucking many of them are easily proven fake. I once came across a guy in a comment section in a Maoist song who said he lived under the Soviet Union (yeah) and was glad communism is dead. I called him a shill and posted a link to the Soviet Union referendum results. I called him a shill out of anger, but when I actually clicked on his profile, he had a video of him in snow somewhere and not only did he have an American accent, he looked about 12 years old. I got even more pissed and called him out in the comments of his video, and he promptly took it down. Yeah I probably should’ve kept silent so the video would stay up so I can call him out further, but I’ve saved it and if anyone is interested, I can point to the original comment he made, show which video he made it under, and reupload the video he took down showing his face and voice.

  9. They(anticommies) will never answer questions. They always refuse that and makes counter questions to try and avoid answering. So if you ask them questions, and they refuse to answer, you have won because it is proofs they have no idea what they are anti against.

  10. I'm inspired from all your leftist ecosystem which you were part I want to start the same thing plz tell me how u produce this types of videos

  11. I just believe communist beliefs should be enforced by people who want it,The government to make people accept it won't work because communism only works as long as the people work in it's character.

  12. The argument about the wages is true.
    Communism wants to abolish wages and money, so everyone will receive the same money, 0.

  13. 4:01 Let's analyze all the posters on this anon's wall. I'll start:
    On the right, we have Chandra Nalaar from MTG.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *