Conservative: Support Socialists begin their arguments with an analysis of history, from which they claim to derive certain trends leading inevitably to a socialist future. ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███████ █████████ ████████████ ███ ██████████ █████████
██████████ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ █████████
The conservative's argument leads to the unstated conclusion that socialist historical analysis doesn't support socialists' conclusions. The conservative claims that socialists think their analysis of trends indicates an inevitable socialist future. But such trends can't be analyzed during the current moment—only in retrospect. This is because history isn't really inevitable, but rather results from accident, contingency, and individual struggle.
In other words, the conservative's argument aims to deny a key assumption of what the conservative thinks socialist analysis aims to accomplish.
The socialist concludes that historical analysis is important to socialist argument, but for different reasons than the conservative thinks. The socialist supports this by explaining that socialists would only work to transform capitalist institutions if they thought history was not inevitable. And transforming institutions requires understanding them, which requires historical analysis.
Aside from supporting the socialist's conclusion, the socialist's premises have an important implication: that socialists indeed work to transform institutions, meaning the conservative is mistaken about what they assume.
The socialist’s statements imply a ████████ ████ ███ ████████████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████ █████ ████
it would have ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ █ ███████████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ████
The socialist believes that
the apparent inevitability ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ █████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███
This is compatible with the socialist's argument. The socialist's argument indicates that
in the past, ███████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ █ █████████████ ██ ██████ ██████████
The socialist doesn't make any claims about the past impact of radical changes to social structures, so there's no conflict with (C). There's no indication that the socialist would disagree with this claim.
since socialism cannot █████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████
It's the conservative, not the socialist, who talks about accident, contingency, and individual struggle. The socialist doesn't weigh in on any of these approaches to changing history. Since the socialist doesn't make any claims about this, there's no conflict with (D).
because historical changes ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████████
The socialist's argument
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic