Fallacy of Equivocation



What is it?

The Fallacy of Equivocation is committed when terms are used ambiguously — i.e. when words or phrases are used with multiple meanings.

Why is this fallacious?

The definition and perception of one concept cannot be transferred to another, merely due to a shared name. What holds true for one concept may not necessarily hold true for another concept simply because their names are identical. The nature of logic the making of logical connections between concepts. These connections are utterly useless if these concepts can simply be changed. In other words, Equivocation is committed when one term is used with different meanings within the argument.

Let’s see an example in the form of this syllogism:

P: Nothing is better than a nice nap.

P: A cheeseburger is better than nothing.

C: A cheeseburger is better than a nice nap.

While the premises are valid, the conclusion is invalid because the term “nothing” is used to mean different things throughout the two premises. “Nothing” in the first premise means that there is not anything that is better than a nice nap, whereas “nothing” in the second premise means that a cheeseburger is better than nothing at all.

Let’s look at this second example:

P: To be gay is to be homosexual.

P: Pastor John is gay on Christmas.

C: Pastor John is homosexual on Christmas.

Again, the two premises are valid, but since the term “gay” is used with two different meanings, the conclusion is invalid. The second premise means “gay” as in happy, rather than homosexual as stated in the first premise.

How to avoid committing Equivocation?

Define your terms clearly before using them. If the context in which someone is using a term is ambiguous, ask them.

Mudpies and Socially Necessary Labour Time

A common use of Equivocation by critics of Marxism goes something like:

“Marx said that the labour time spent in production determines the value of a commodity, but if I spend two hours making a mud pie, I will still not be able to sell it for anything!”



In this one criticism we find two examples of Equivocation.

1. Labour time is conflated with socially-necessary labour time. Marx never claimed that an individual labourer’s labour time spent making a commodity determines its value. Rather, it is the average labour time necessary by society — the socially-necessary labour time — that determines its value. In fact, Marx addresses this exact claim in the very first chapter of Capital I:

“Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskillful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. […] The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.” (Marx, Capital, 29)

2. Price is conflated with exchange-value. Price is the money value of a particular commodity after both the forces of supply & demand as well as competition (assumed as perfect in Marx’s model of capital) have produced the commodity’s market price. Exchange-value is the value of a commodity before these two forces have acted to produce its market price. Marx, therefore, is talking about exchange-value when he says that socially-necessary labour time determines value, not market price (as the criticism asserts).

“Marx often emphasizes that he begins with long-run supply equal to demand, and therefore with value equal to the amount of labor. This “value,” we shall find, is the same thing as “price,” provided among other things that there is long-run equilibrium and pure and perfect competition.” (Sherman, 260)

Private Property

Now we come to private property. A common equivocation which anti-Marxists make is one between private property as a social relation and private property as an institution. In Marxist literature, private property is referred to (typically) as a social relation, whereas anti-Marxists regard it as an institution. This is a crucial difference, as I shall now prove.

The institution of private property provides an all-encompassing definition of private property. It is a right of the individual to own property in general. This includes personal possessions, including cars, toothbrushes, toys, etc. The relation of private property, however, is the relation by which ownership of the means of production is determined. (Marx, Manifesto, 22-24)

This common equivocation between institution and relation is what allows the pseudo-intellectual anti-Marxists to make absurd claims about communism bringing about the “collective ownership of personal items”. This is not only prevalent with anti-Marxists, but it is prevalent with the common internet-user as well. One only needs to look at the vast number of internet memes involving the juxtaposition of “communism” with “our”.

Conclusion

Let us conclude with this: the fallacy of equivocation is a common one, and one easily committed. It is actually incredibly simple to avoid equivocation: rigorously define your terms. In the context of Marxism – or any other academic field that has been caricatured, for that matter – this fallacy is committed often by those who don’t bother to read before talking. In the words of the infamous state capitalist 毛泽东: “Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it.”

References

Mao, Zedong. Oppose Book Worship. 1930. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm.

Marx, Karl. Capital Volume I. 1867. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf.

Marx, Karl. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf.

Sherman, Howard J. The Marxist Theory of Value Revisited. 1970. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40401493.