• 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
Rainman05 said:
That's the only real difference, the economic policy between commies and nazis
Click to expand...

That is correct. And even this difference is rather a matter of phase, not of direction or intention. The Soviets had a decade of "New Economic Policy" in the 20s when Lenin had allowed plenty of private enterprise, as well as foreign investment and operations ("concessions"), under tight government control.From the beginning, it was intended as a temprorary compromise (Trotsky insisted on total State control being resumed ASAP, Stalin was more pragamtic)

If you take this timeframe, and compare with the Nazis or a milder case of radical socialism, like the Fascists or their cousins in Spain and Portugal, the difference disappears.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Many elements of fascism were adopted by developed countries.
We just don't call it fascism today.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the one thing in common with Nazism, fascism and communism was all wanted to control business and the people making them work for the good of the state and not necessary for the good of themselves. If one is honest, I am an old fart who grew up in the 50's, I have seen our government move closer and closer in controling business and trying to control our economy. But even so, unlike the big three, Nazism, facism, communism, this striving for more governmental control was done to protect the people and not necessarily to make them slaves of the state. But there is an old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." One has to wonder if we are not moving closer and closer to the controls these big three imposed on business but instead of the reason of it being good for the state, our reason is it is good for the people? But aren't we ending up with a top down government, where government decides what is good for the people instead of the people deciding what government is good for them?
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps the one thing in common with Nazism, fascism and communism was all wanted to control business and the people making them work for the good of the state and not necessary for the good of themselves. If one is honest, I am an old fart who grew up in the 50's, I have seen our government move closer and closer in controling business and trying to control our economy. But even so, unlike the big three, Nazism, facism, communism, this striving for more governmental control was done to protect the people and not necessarily to make them slaves of the state. But there is an old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." One has to wonder if we are not moving closer and closer to the controls these big three imposed on business but instead of the reason of it being good for the state, our reason is it is good for the people? But aren't we ending up with a top down government, where government decides what is good for the people instead of the people deciding what government is good for them?
Click to expand...

I just think governments and people go in cycles.
Eventually there may be some totalitarian states develop, then it will collapse and we may start over again.
 
Andalublue said:
communism which, like Christianity, has a myriad of interpretations, sects, forms and features to the point that saying 'communism is this' is meaningless
Click to expand...

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".
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I just think governments and people go in cycles.
Eventually there may be some totalitarian states develop, then it will collapse and we may start over again.
Click to expand...

Ah, the spinning wheel of history or time. You are probably right.
 
Manc Skipper said:
I see we wandered into American right-wing bizarroworld, where up is down, in is out, and Nazi's are leftwing. This viewoint is a relatively recent revision of history unique to the US right. Curiously it tends to be the far right who subscribe to this view, which if the Nazis were indeed left of centre, leaves themselves as the extremist right position.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fascists' were a bunch of free-marketeers. :roll: That's why they believed in seizing state control of industry, banning capital gains, and the redistribution of wealth.

If this works out like it typically does, then this is the part where you say:

"Oh but Hitler banned unions"

at which point I will say

"Yes, just like those famous right-wingers Stalin and Mao; interestingly enough, all three men doing it for the exact same reason : 'Because the unions were the government now, so you didn't need them'."

At which point (assuming a standard conversation on this topic here) you will say something akin to

"[Insert-ad-hominem-here-with-while-avoiding-answering-the-point!]" "[claim that fascism was violent and conservatives are all violent nuts so therefore they must have been conservative!]"

But perhaps you will surprise me and come up with something different.





You know, at least Viktyr Kormir is honest about his belief system. Fascism was an outgrowth in the early 20th Century of the left. :shrug: That doesn't make leftists good or bad today, any more than it makes conservatives good or bad today; it simply places them in their historical context of National Socialism v the Comintern model.
 
Cyrylek said:
That is correct. And even this difference is rather a matter of phase, not of direction or intention. The Soviets had a decade of "New Economic Policy" in the 20s when Lenin had allowed plenty of private enterprise, as well as foreign investment and operations ("concessions"), under tight government control.From the beginning, it was intended as a temprorary compromise (Trotsky insisted on total State control being resumed ASAP, Stalin was more pragamtic)

If you take this timeframe, and compare with the Nazis or a milder case of radical socialism, like the Fascists or their cousins in Spain and Portugal, the difference disappears.
Click to expand...

Yep, you are quite correct. Though what I read suggested that the only reason Lenin had to allow plenty of private enterprise was because he hadn't completely consolidated his power in the early 1920's(1922 or 1923, depending on how you see things). Remember, there were 2 communists revolutions, one in november (or october, depending on the calendar) and one in february which was also a counter-revolution because the fruits from the initial one were deemed... less than desirable according to communist ideology. And then you had the civil war which lasted until the early 1920s. So Lenin needed the money to fund his regime in order to get power. Money that only the private enterprise and capitalism could provide, and so, he courted them... only later, after he achieved his goal, to stab them in the back and nationalize all he could afford to do.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: The Nazi's were fascists. Fascism may not = Nazism, but Nazism = Fascism.
Click to expand...
I think what you mean to say is that nazism includes fascism, where as fascism is a branch of nazism. But that is not quite accurate since the national fascist party in Italy had existed before the NDSAP in Germany. And not just that, but Nazism imported several elements from fascism. So national socialism is, at best, like a mongrel dog. It combines both fascist notions with socialist ideals.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: The Nazi's were fascists. Fascism may not = Nazism, but Nazism = Fascism.
Click to expand...

Only if you use "fascists" as a general label for "totalitarian socialists". But the Soviets are not usually called "facsists", so this usage is kinda silly.

Actual Fascists - the followers of Gentile and Mussolini - in Italy, nowhere else - did share certain features with both Nazis and Communists, but were different in many ways, not to mention - much less oppressive.

It may be not too big a stretch to call the Iberian dictatorships of Franco and Salazar "fascist" - although they differed in being much more inward-looking and culturally conservative.
 
Last edited:
Rainman05 said:
I think what you mean to say is that nazism includes fascism, where as fascism is a branch of nazism.
Click to expand...

No. In fact that is the opposite of what I meant to say. :)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's hard for people to understand some things, that don't directly happen to them.
Makes them forget why we overturned monarchies and all that.
Click to expand...


Yes, people wanted a voice in government. How they were govern. But these over throws were basically driven by only a few people. Those few incited others and the incited others really had no idea of what type of government they would get once the monarchy was over thrown. In this way the U.S was extremely lucky. In over throwing the Czar, it could be argued that the Russian people might have been better off to continue the monarchy. There still are a lot of countries that have vestiages of the monarchy.
 
Perotista said:
Yes, people wanted a voice in government. How they were govern. But these over throws were basically driven by only a few people. Those few incited others and the incited others really had no idea of what type of government they would get once the monarchy was over thrown. In this way the U.S was extremely lucky. In over throwing the Czar, it could be argued that the Russian people might have been better off to continue the monarchy. There still are a lot of countries that have vestiages of the monarchy.
Click to expand...

Yea but now people want to hand their voice to a bureaucrat or politician.
In my opinion, people aren't yet evolved enough for democracy.
 
Juiposa said:
Which of the two listed above are worse for you?

Me? Nazis without a doubt.
Click to expand...

White female - they're both equally hazardous to my health seeing as how I'm reduced to being a housewife or a floor sweep in some hovel of a shop - my primary goal in life should be to birth as many offspring as I can manage to crank out of my ovaries and let them suckle my breasts until I commit suicide . . . neither affords me individuality, freedom, education and success in life.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea but now people want to hand their voice to a bureaucrat or politician.
In my opinion, people aren't yet evolved enough for democracy.
Click to expand...


In a representative republic, that is what we do, we vote these representatives in and by doing so, we are saying they are our voice in government. Prior to the the 17th amendment, Senators were elected or chosen by mostly state legislatures to represent the state. But now the senate by direct election as the same as representatives, they no long represent the state as envisoned. But have become more a representative of the people living in the state that elected them.

Most people equate a voice in government is voting, then only a little more than half do vote. It is my feeling that a very minority of the people actually care or pay attention to what government is doing. Elections have become a popularity contest, not so much based on the candidates views, their stand on issues, which would be better off for the country, state or the district we fall in, but popularity, looks, who has the most money to run negative ads, very few candidates actually let us know where they do stand out of fear by taking a stand will alienate some voters or voter blocks. So in a way, this is a long winded reply saying you are basically correct.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
White female - they're both equally hazardous to my health seeing as how I'm reduced to being a housewife or a floor sweep in some hovel of a shop - my primary goal in life should be to birth as many offspring as I can manage to crank out of my ovaries and let them suckle my breasts until I commit suicide . . . neither affords me individuality, freedom, education and success in life.
Click to expand...

if we consider women's status and roles in both regimes , nazism seems more despotic
 
Perotista said:
In a representative republic, that is what we do, we vote these representatives in and by doing so, we are saying they are our voice in government. Prior to the the 17th amendment, Senators were elected or chosen by mostly state legislatures to represent the state. But now the senate by direct election as the same as representatives, they no long represent the state as envisoned. But have become more a representative of the people living in the state that elected them.

Most people equate a voice in government is voting, then only a little more than half do vote. It is my feeling that a very minority of the people actually care or pay attention to what government is doing. Elections have become a popularity contest, not so much based on the candidates views, their stand on issues, which would be better off for the country, state or the district we fall in, but popularity, looks, who has the most money to run negative ads, very few candidates actually let us know where they do stand out of fear by taking a stand will alienate some voters or voter blocks. So in a way, this is a long winded reply saying you are basically correct.
Click to expand...

Well, science is saying that, we're really ****ty at choosing representatives.
For me, that says we aren't ready for this.

Maybe in 1000 years or more.
I dunno what the alternative should be.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, science is saying that, we're really ****ty at choosing representatives.
For me, that says we aren't ready for this.

Maybe in 1000 years or more.
I dunno what the alternative should be.
Click to expand...

I forget who said this, but it was one of the founding fathers, he said the most efficient government and one that is the best for the people is a benevolent monarchy. So the wheel has turned full cycles.
 
cpwill said:
Fascism > Communism

Both are simply competing versions of socialism, but I'll take the one that at least featured some ability of the individual to "own" property.

Mind you, both are evil and deserve rebellion and overthrow.
Click to expand...

Both are political ideologies that are competing versions of totalitarianism.

Capitalism and Socialism are competing versions of economic systems.

Both capitalism and socialism as economic systems can be combined with democratic political systems, neither fascism nor communism can be combined with democratic political systems. Do not misunderstand the reality that they can come to power by democratic means, but neither fascism nor communism can exist in a society where free democratic decisions can be made.

Fascism is a totalitarian system that cooperates with industry, communism is a totalitarian system that takes ownership of industry, beyond that, the main similarity is that dissention is often a terminal position.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, science is saying that, we're really ****ty at choosing representatives.
For me, that says we aren't ready for this.

Maybe in 1000 years or more.
I dunno what the alternative should be.
Click to expand...

Another thing Harry, most voters tend to vote for party these days instead of what is best for them or where the candidates stand on the issues. If you are a Democrat or lend that way, these people will wait until Obama or the Democrats take their stand on a particual issue and then all for it with out even studing the issue or even looking at the issue to see how it will effect them and then make their choice based on an informed observation. Of course the same is true for those of the Republican ilk, they are automaticly against anything that Obama does or what the Democrats are for and vice versa. Very few people make up their minds where they stand issue by issue by determing which side of that issue is best for them and perhaps for the country as a whole. So, once again, I agree.
 
Perotista said:
I forget who said this, but it was one of the founding fathers, he said the most efficient government and one that is the best for the people is a benevolent monarchy. So the wheel has turned full cycles.
Click to expand...

I'm cool with a benevolent monarch.
Just have to find one first.
 
Perotista said:
Another thing Harry, most voters tend to vote for party these days instead of what is best for them or where the candidates stand on the issues. If you are a Democrat or lend that way, these people will wait until Obama or the Democrats take their stand on a particual issue and then all for it with out even studing the issue or even looking at the issue to see how it will effect them and then make their choice based on an informed observation. Of course the same is true for those of the Republican ilk, they are automaticly against anything that Obama does or what the Democrats are for and vice versa. Very few people make up their minds where they stand issue by issue by determing which side of that issue is best for them and perhaps for the country as a whole. So, once again, I agree.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm cool with a benevolent monarch.
Just have to find one first.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom