The Political Physicist

Us socialists are often accused of preaching a failed ideology; one which has been shown to inevitably result in totalitarianism and impoverishment. To this most socialists will respond in one of two ways. Some (mostly those from the Third International, but also a few radical elements of the Second International) act as apologists for the old Eastern European regimes (and possibly those in Asia as well, although the Sino-Soviet split complicates matters there). Others, such as myself, respond by saying that we don’t see how socialism can have failed when the world has yet to see a socialist society. This tends to be the view of Trotskyist (such as those in one the various iterations of the Fourth International), libertarian socialists, and the more ideologically self-consistent democratic socialists. An example of such an argument is provided in the video below:

The inevitable objection that is given, not only by the right but also by the centre-left, is that this is an example of the “No True Scotsman Fallacy.” Wikipedia describes this like so:

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”).

Thus, supposedly, it is logically invalid to explain away any unpleasantness by dismissing the regime responsible as not really socialist. Doing so is to dismiss counterarguments without actually addressing it. However, here I feel that there is a misunderstanding of my point. These people misunderstand my argument to be “socialist societies will inevitably be democratic ones.” However, for me, such a statement would be a tautology: what I mean when I speak of socialism is “collective ownership of and democratic control over the economy.” For me (and others), democracy is part of the definition of socialism. Any regime that claims to be socialistic but is a dictatorship (I’m looking at you, Cuba) is lying, at least by my definition of socialism. True, such a regime might claim to be socialism, but that doesn’t make it so; just because East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic didn’t make it a democracy, after all.

Now, some will claim that socialism will never be implemented democratically because people won’t want it. Thus, socialism will inevitably have to be imposed using violence and oppression. The first part of this argument is a perfectly valid position to take, although not one that I think is true (actually, there is some historical evidence to the contrary, so anyone making this argument will have to be very careful not to end up using the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” themselves). However, in my view, the second part of this argument is meaninglessness. If it is being imposed by a dictatorship then it can not be socialism. Effectively what is being said, then, is that socialism is impossible. This is also a perfectly valid position, but I don’t think that there is clear evidence one way or the other with regards to this question.

To be sure, horrible things have been done in the name of socialism, and even quite recently the likes of Hugo Chavez have done some rather slimy things in the name of socialism. This potential is something which socialists must constantly be vigilant of. We must accept the ugly parts of our movement’s history (and, for that matter, its present). Failure to do so is not only dishonest, but dangerous. However, these dangers do not discredit socialism itself, but rather some (and, thankfully, an ever decreasing number) of the socialists. What’s more, I honestly believe that any risk of totalitarianism posed by campaigning for democratic socialism is far smaller than the risks that humanity face under capitalism.

As for claims that socialism results in poverty: we have no data, seeing as there have been no socialist economies (at least, not that have lasted for any significant amount of time before being crushed by external forces). I don’t think that this will necessarily be the case, but that’s only a guess. There’s no doubt that there were serious problems with the Warsaw Pact economies. We have to seriously consider whether centralized planning can ever be made to work (personally, I think that it would be undesirable even if it could be done). Certainly, the planning techniques used by the Soviet Union have been discredited. But I hope, and honestly believe, that in a technological, democratic society some form of decentralized economic planning will be possible. Even if not, there are ideas such as cooperative ownership in a market socialist economy, which seem to me to be eminently feasible, if unambitious.

So, no, I am not committing the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” when I say that the so-called communist countries were not, in fact, socialist. It is not a contradiction for me to be a socialist and yet to oppose Soviet-style communism. It just so happens that there are multiple definitions of socialism and the definition which applies to me (and many others) is directly opposed to that used by the Soviet Union and its supporters.