Fallacies and Types of Critiques Against Socialism

1. Confirmation Bias
2. Ad Hominem
3. Appeals to Authority
4. Begs the Question
5. Argument from Incredulity
6. Argument for Repetition
7. Association Write-offs
8. Argument from Motive
9. Shifting the Burden of Truth
10. Argument from Consequences

Confirmation Bias

Defined as “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values”, confirmation bias rears its head often in discussions of economic systems. Due to decades of propagation of falsehoods by the capitalist owned media, workers often feel the need to defend the system that they are living in, both as a way to cope with its oppressive features and a way to justify the excesses they are sometimes allowed to take partake in. In particular, some workers that have been ‘bought off’ by the capitalist class tend to lean on this: small business owners, consultants for big business, financial market supporters or beneficiaries (stock owners), etc. Marxist refer to these folks as ‘petit bourgeoise’, pointing out that their interests are often in line with the owning class, or somewhere in between. A lot of times, workers in America have the impression that they will someday benefit from capitalism, due to the atomized, individualized culture that American capitalism has engendered…just ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires’, not exploited workers that make those millionaires possible in the first place!

Ad Hominem

This one is fairly simple to cover.

“You’re a communist”.

“You’re a Stalinist” (a word made up during the Cold War).

“You’re just entitled, lazy and want everything given to you”.

All of these represent an attack on the person, not the idea. It’s rarely coming from a place of honest engagement, and can and should be disregarded. Do better!

Appeals to Authority

Also known as the ‘bandwagon effect’, this one goes like “all these governments, researchers, and public figures denounce communism, it must be really bad!”

This is fallacious and exposes the fact that many anti-communists simply haven’t bothered to investigate. The interests of the people they are referencing are rarely questioned or critiqued, and a passive exception of the ruling class narrative goes against the interest of the speaker more often than not.

“No investigation, no right to speak” — Mao Zedong

It’s interesting that American citizens have put up with so many lies and falsehoods, even ones that have entered the mainstream, without questioning the more fundamental mode of production that capitalism represents. WMDs in Iraq, CIA coups abroad and suppression and spying on citizens (Patriot Act, Operation Gladio, Cointelpro), rehabilitation and protection of Nazis after WWII in Operation Paperclip…all should do more than simply raise an eyebrow, they should shake the foundation of a person’s world outlook. Alas, it is very comforting to believe in our ‘superiors’, to believe that they have your interests in mind, than to abandon that and feel both alone and in conflict with major elements of our reality.

Begs the Question

Definition: when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.

Shorthand definition: Arguing in a circle.

Defenders of capitalism/slanderers of socialism tend to passively accept the work and words of previous anti-communists in order to launch arguments are current defenders of 20th century socialism.

“Well Stalin/Mao/[insert leader who was actually just a figurehead for an entire people and party] killed [insert number between 1 million and 1 gazillion], therefore the system doesn’t work and is evil”.

The question is… why do you think this? Whose benefit does it serve for the masses to believe this? If we apply the same methodology to the current system of capitalism, what count would we be at? (Hint: more than socialism every decade). So many questions, so little answers, typically.

Argument from Incredulity

This one is remarkably simple and doesn’t really serve a purpose outside of oversimplifying history and refusing to engage with alternative points of view.

“Wow I can’t believe that everything I’ve been told about actually existing socialism might be lies that serve to maintain the status quo in the favor of corporations and the owners of my workplace, government and land… it must be wrong!”

This almost always relies on an appeal to authority as well.

Argument for Repetition

“Well, all the academics and institutions over the decades have said the same thing: socialism is bad, capitalism is flawed but the best we have.”

This sort of claim is also an appeal to authority, but it fails to investigate the material interests and influences of the groups in question. Academic studies are funded by grants, private corporations, or self-funded (rare). We can see how this process limits the range and scope of academic work, and parametrizes its language and conclusions within a narrow frame of ‘capitalism realism’ (the idea that no other system can exist).

NGOs, Human Rights Organizations, even International Bodies like the IMF and World Bank are all examples of authority figures that reinforce anti-communism on a global scale. They restructure history and entire economies to serve neoliberal capitalism’s goals: funneling money to the 1% via socialized production and private accumulation of profit. They slander alternatives with an academic, ‘neutral’ façade, allowing consumers of their reports and media to feel like they are above the fray, impartial…all while being deeply partisan against worker’s interests.

Association Write-offs

Similar to ‘Ad Hominem’, this argument is generally pretty one dimensional.

“Well you’re a Stalinist in a communist party, of course you’d say that!”.

It doesn’t really address the matter at hand, and instead generalizes and distracts. One should engage with arguments and history with a critical eye. Not to mention that not all on the left think alike. In fact, we love to infight and one of the core principles of the dialectical method is ‘criticism and self-criticism’. If you want to engage in honest critiques of past or existing socialism, I promise socialists will have plenty to say.

Argument from Motive

“Well you want to make capitalism look bad and socialism look good, hence you must be exaggerating!”

While rhetorical exaggerations are indeed common, there’s really no need to exaggerate the harms to the world and people that capitalism has done and supports, and no need to look at anything but the historical record to see the successes of socialism (as well as plenty of critiques).

“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” — Karl Marx

Marxists do not claim ‘objectivity’ and never have. That is a liberal notion. We are deeply partisan in favor of the 99% of society, the working class of our countries and the world that struggle against capitalist oppression.

Shifting the Burden of Truth

When no evidence or insubstantial evidence is found for an anti-communist claim, some will spin this around and say that the defender of socialism must find a way to explain why there’s no evidence. The demand to know both the origins of the lie and nature of the truth tend to be pushed onto those trying to change reality in material ways. This burden could be shared between the parties in order to arrive at the truth.

Argument from Consequences

This is probably the most popular one I’ve seen. It usually happens *right* before the person takes the dive and becomes anti-capitalist, if not outright communist (usually this development process takes stages, just like history, it doesn’t happen all at once).

“Well if the capitalists lied about this…wouldn’t that imply that they lied about this? And this? And the entire worldview I ascribe to?”

Yes. Yes it does. This can be a bitter and painful realization, and take time to soak in. But it is not really an argument. In fact, it is a string that should be pulled on. One should apply relentless criticism to all things. That is how we arrive at truth.

I hope you enjoyed this article, and found something both useful and illuminating within it.