This new series of posts (Logical Fallacies) will be focused on explaining various common logical fallacies in reasoning, as well as manifestations of them in layman’s objections to Marxism.



Tu Quoque

What is it?

The logical fallacy tu quoque, Latin for “you also”, is committed when the arguer rejects the proponent’s central thesis because the proponent does not follow it.

* If tu quoque and ad hominem seem similar to you, it’s because tu quoque is a form of the latter.

Why is this fallacious?

The soundness of the argument does not depend on the integrity of its proponent(s). It depends on the validity of its premises and evidence. Let’s use a simple example:

(P for Proposition, O for Opposition)

P: “The city should allocate for funding towards public transportation. The trains are getting overcrowded and the buses are breaking down.”

O: “But when you were mayor, you diverted funds from public transport towards the construction of a waterfront casino!”

A damning claim of hypocrisy on the arguer’s behalf, but not a refutation of the argument itself. Just because P did the opposite when they served as mayor, does not mean that the argument itself is wrong. The trains are still overcrowded and the buses are still breaking down. Whether or not P is guilty of hypocrisy doesn’t change the validity and soundness of the argument itself.

How to avoid committing tu quoque?

Examine the argument itself instead of examining the arguer.

The “Starbucks Communist” Objection to Marxism

A pretty common layman’s objection (I don’t use the term “argument” because it doesn’t qualify as an argument) to Marxism goes something along the lines of:

“How can you be a Marxist when you buy Starbucks, use an iPhone, and wear Adidas?”

Ask yourself: Has this refuted any Marxist theories or analyses? Does this make the Marxist critique of capital any less accurate? The obvious answer is no. Whether or not I buy Starbucks, use an iPhone, or wear Adidas (or all three) does not disqualify the validity of Marxist theory. This non-argument proves nothing.