%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2024-01-03%%

On Whataboutism

Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one’s own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The tu quoque fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as “you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime.”

When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising valid concerns, but usually for invalid reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of “whataboutism” and arguing in bad faith.

However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation:

  1. Contextualization: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards.
  2. Comparative analysis: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences.
  3. Moral equivalence: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity.

An Abstract Case Study

For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B.

Object A Object B
Very Good Property 2 3
Good Property 2 1
Bad Property 2 3
Very Bad Property 2 1

The table tracks different properties. Some properties are “Good” (the bigger the better) and others are “Bad” (the smaller the better, ideally none).

Using this extremely abstract table, let’s explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments.

Contextualization

Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts:

  1. Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently. Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along.
  2. Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object. We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one.

If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out.

It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with “the West” (or “Global North”), and especially the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we are in the second context and we are not evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism.

Comparative Analysis

Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects:

B Enthusiast: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2.

A Enthusiast: But Object B has Very Bad Property = 1 which is a bad thing! It’s not 0! Therefore Object B is bad!

B Enthusiast: Well Object A also has Very Bad Property, and 2 > 1, so it’s even worse!

A Enthusiast: That’s whataboutism! That’s a tu quoque! You’ve committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy!

The “A Enthusiast” is not wrong, it is Whataboutism, but the “A Enthusiast” has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The “B Enthusiast” did not make the claim “Object B is perfect and without flaw”, only that it was better than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a “Bad” property does not undermine this point.

Our main proposition as Communists is this: “Socialism is better than Capitalism.” Our argument is not “Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once” and we are not trying to say that “every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future”. Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says “Socialism is bad because bad thing happened in a socialist country once” and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis.

Moral Equivalence

It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if “Bad Property” is worse in Object B but “Very Bad Property” is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. “Two big steps forward, one small step back” is still progressive compared to taking no steps at all.

Example 1: Famine

Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [[r.TheDeprogram The Holodomor|the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933]] or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occurred, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the last[1] famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases.

Example 2: Repression

Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as authoritarian regimes that restrict individual freedoms. They point to purges and gulags as evidence. While it’s true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of “political terror” in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it’s interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people today than the USSR ever did.

Conclusion

While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn’t address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics.

Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. (“Critical support” for Socialist countries is exactly that: critical.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below.

Additional Resources

  1. The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR. ↩︎