• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

Are Nazis or Communists worse?


  • Total voters
    58
I'd have to say Nazis.

While the Communists killed more, I'd say that by itself, the ideology of Communism does not call for mass murder like the Nazis did.

Still, lesser of two evils.
 
How about a constitutional democracy, i.e. England although the Queen is more or less powerless. Thailand, where the King doesn't meddle in the government, but when he says something, the people and the parliment listen and they take his advice.

The problem with most monarchies is there are so few benevolent Kings. Once again back to an old saying about power corupts and absolute power corupts absolutely. Most benevolent kings or monarchies are those of fables like King Author and King RIchard. Where is Merlin when you need him?

Just make me king, I promise I'll be good. :mrgreen:

Using some kind of poll test, would likely be better than swapping government.
A poll test like the citizenship exam.
 
Pretty much agree.
I decide my vote on the issues.
Unfortunately, that means I don't vote.

No candidate has a good handle on the issues and largely parrots back what their base wants to hear.

I too decide where I stand on the issues one by one. I do vote, but out of the last 6 presidential elections, 5 times I have voted third party, only once was my choice for one of the two major party candidates. The two major parties do not owe their allegiance to the people or those who elected them, the two major parties allegiance are to their special interest, lobbyist, the big money cash donors, super pacs, corporations and wall street firms etc. Their allegiance is to the people and firms that give them their millions and millions, in simple English, most of the candidates of both major parties are bought and paid for even before they begin their run for office.
 
Which of the two listed above are worse for you?

Me? Nazis without a doubt.

I would say that what ever group that killed more people is worse.
 
Just make me king, I promise I'll be good. :mrgreen:

Using some kind of poll test, would likely be better than swapping government.
A poll test like the citizenship exam.

I would wager you would be just as good if not better than most of the presidents we have had during my lifetime.
 
if we consider women's status and roles in both regimes , nazism seems more despotic


In rhetorics.

In reality, both under Hitler and under Stalin, the heavy emphasis was made on woman's role as child-bearer at the detriment of active roles outside of the family (in contrast with the early period of Lenin-Trotsky). The Stalinist and post-Stalinist Soviet society was extremely male-dominated, women often doing hard, menial work, while virtually all managment on all levels (outisde of schools) were men.

Hitler had Gertrud Schltz-Klink and Magda Goebbels in positions of power; Stalin had no women in his government (Alexandra Kollontai, appointed by Lenin, remained an ambassador of low rank).

Hitler did not ban abortion until 1943; Stalin did prohibit abortion (and made divorces more difficult) in 1936 - and the ban lasted until 1955.

I don't think many people realize how socially conservative the Soviet regime had become under Stalin. Homosexuality was a felony punishable by 10 years in prison, for example (10 years in the Siberian gulag is pretty close to death penalty, in practical terms)
 
Fascism is a totalitarian system that cooperates with industry

Not really. Mussolini had promoted "corporatism" (nothing to do with corporations): the State, the workers and the entrepreneurs were supposed to form some sort of fusion, uniting in one happy whole. In reality, of course, it meant simply domination of the State.
 
In rhetorics.

In reality, both under Hitler and under Stalin, the heavy emphasis was made on woman's role as child-bearer at the detriment of active roles outside of the family (in contrast with the early period of Lenin-Trotsky). The Stalinist and post-Stalinist Soviet society was extremely male-dominated, women often doing hard, menial work, while virtually all managment on all levels (outisde of schools) were men.

Hitler had Gertrud Schltz-Klink and Magda Goebbels in positions of power; Stalin had no women in his government (Alexandra Kollontai, appointed by Lenin, remained an ambassador of low rank).

Hitler did not ban abortion until 1943; Stalin did prohibit abortion (and made divorces more difficult) in 1936 - and the ban lasted until 1955.

I don't think many people realize how socially conservative the Soviet regime had become under Stalin. Homosexuality was a felony punishable by 10 years in prison, for example (10 years in the Siberian gulag is pretty close to death penalty, in practical terms)



l didnt claim the opposite .but when they are compared to each other ,nazism seems more atrocious and more sexist

it is interesting to see some people try to justify nazism

. Women's rights: While some islands had granted women the right to vote even in the 19th century, the first major wave came in early 20th century. By 1917, only four major countries – Australia, Finland, Norway and Denmark – had moved to women’s suffrage. The 1917 Russian Revolution, advocating equal rights for all, raised the fear that feminists would find a communist system more appealing, and may conspire with the Bolsheviks to import it into Western countries. The best way to nip such a threat in its bud was to grant women the right to vote. Britain and Germany allowed this in 1918, the United States followed in 1920, and others shortly took their lead. France was the only major power to not grant this right till 1944.



. Labor laws: This one is rather obvious - we have a 5-day work week, paid 2-4 week holidays, maternity leave, health coverage, safety standards for laborers, etc. because of the pressure communism built against capitalism. We never got to communism with a human face, but thanks to the USSR, we did achieve capitalism with a human face
http://indrus.in/articles/2011/12/22/five_things_we_never_thanked_the_soviet_union_for_14072.html
 
Last edited:
Well, at least we gained medical knowledge from Mengele and other Nazi experiments. So ... Communists are worse. to me.
 
by itself, the ideology of Communism does not call for mass murder.
Sure it does. People are separated in artificial "classes", some declared the "class enemy" and targeted for elimination.

It is just not bound to ethnicity, in the case of Communists. (Theoretically, that is. In practice, ethnic groups - Kalmyks, Kazakhs, Poles, Chechens and many others, including Jews, right beore Stalin died - were targeted as well. Naturally: no two ethnic groups are exactly the same, socio-economically; your goal may be exterminate kulaks, the "rich" peasants who do not want to join collective farms, you end up killing a whole lot of Kalmyks whose shepharding habits are incompatible with collective farms. (The Kalmyks repaid by generally supporting the Nazis in during the war, and then were summarily deported to Siberia - the whole nation)
 
From what I read on DP we are already a Communist nation and that's working out pretty good for me. I don't know how Nazi-ism would work out for me.

Move to New York City for a few months if you really want to know......
 
I would wager you would be just as good if not better than most of the presidents we have had during my lifetime.
''

Good morning, Pero.

After reading some of his posts, I agree. Soooo...he has my vote! :)
 
Not really. Mussolini had promoted "corporatism" (nothing to do with corporations): the State, the workers and the entrepreneurs were supposed to form some sort of fusion, uniting in one happy whole. In reality, of course, it meant simply domination of the State.

Of course the state dominates, that is pretty much the definition of totalitarian, however, in a Communist State, there is no private property nor free enterprise, in a fascist state, private property and free enterprise is encouraged, to the extent it benefits the state. You could call it a distinction without a difference, but that is my overall point, the degreee of totalitarianism is either system is so extreme, the difference to an individual living in either system might be indistinguishable, you behave as the state demands, or the state will kill you.
 
''

Good morning, Pero.

After reading some of his posts, I agree. Soooo...he has my vote! :)

Hey, are you the other person who voted for rootabega along with me?
 
Considering that NAZI referred to the National Socialist Party, and I view all those looters as flavors of the same crap (socialist, communist, collectivist)... I don't quite see much difference.

The NAZI's only lasted a dozen years and got their asses handed to them, looters have a much longer history of ruining countries/economies.
 
Hey, are you the other person who voted for rootabega along with me?

Good morning, Wayno! Glad to see you!

Yep, that was probably me. Now, if we could just have found that third person..... :lamo

Wait, I have an idea where to look.....too bad it's after the fact, though :(
 
Good morning, Wayno! Glad to see you!

Yep, that was probably me. Now, if we could just have found that third person..... :lamo

Wait, I have an idea where to look.....too bad it's after the fact, though :(

I thought it might be.....

Not that I've ever found you to be irreverent in the past or anything......

Off to work, have a good day.
 
I assume we are talking about the fairly monolithic and well-defined Soviet Communism: Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin and its international metastases - Mao, Enver Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, et al.

Some young morons calling their coffehouse handwaving group International Democratic Communist Solidarity Movement, or whatever, do not count as one of the "myriad of sects".

We are talking about communism. All of it, in all its various forms. Your assumption is presumptuous.
 
Most benevolent kings or monarchies are those of fables like King Author and King RIchard. Where is Merlin when you need him?

Huh? Which King Richard?

This thread seems to be descending into the realm of fairy stories.
 
l didnt claim the opposite .but when they are compared to each other ,nazism seems more atrocious and more sexist

it is interesting to see some people try to justify nazism


They are both "more atrocious". Who are those "some people"? Some skinheads?

As for the 1917 Revolution "advocating equal rights for all" (not specified which one - the liberal on in February, or the Catastrophe, but I assume the latter) - this is not even funny. What bleeping "right to vote"? Oh, sure, women got the right (and duty, as a matter of fact) to vote for whomever the Party chooses. Equality? Sort of: both men and women had lost all civil rights.
 
I thought it might be.....

Not that I've ever found you to be irreverent in the past or anything......

Off to work, have a good day.

LOL ! It's difficult not to be irreverent in these times, but I am trying to do better...honest :)
 
They are both "more atrocious". Who are those "some people"? Some skinheads?

As for the 1917 Revolution "advocating equal rights for all" (not specified which one - the liberal on in February, or the Catastrophe, but I assume the latter) - this is not even funny. What bleeping "right to vote"? Oh, sure, women got the right (and duty, as a matter of fact) to vote for whomever the Party chooses. Equality? Sort of: both men and women had lost all civil rights.

you seem to forget the other part of my post
 
Back
Top Bottom