• 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!

National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

Can an idealogy be bad?

  • no

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • yes

    Votes: 22 71.0%
  • depends (let me explain)

    Votes: 6 19.4%

  • Total voters
    31
The day people fall away from meritocracy is going to be ugly. Hopefully I'm dead.
A meritocracy is like sex with someone fatter than you; it's only fun when you're on top.
 
The thought of living is a completely socialistic country is a very frightening thing to me. I'm not sure why you would want to live at an eqaul level with everyone else, and let the government have a parent role in your life. I mean, if things were truly like that, there is no incentive at all, and it would go downhill from that simple as that, especially in the long run. Your countrys innovation in technology would be so far behind. You don't see any of the greatest inventions and ideas coming from government bureaucracies do you?

This statement is incredibly ignorant. The U.S space program wouldn't have existed without government initiative (and the brilliance of a few German scientists.) Another example of government spurring innovation is aviation:

United States government role in civil aviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

history of flight (aviation) : From airmail to airlines in the United States -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

I suppose now the FAA isn't needed, and NASA is just another massive government expenditure that needs to end so we can let private enterprise fill the space exploration gap and plunder the universe.

Capitalism is based on a theory that I simply cannot accept, which is this: people are only motivated to work for pursuit of money. Believe it or not, some people actually choose certain professions because it's their calling and they feel they are making a difference by being a doctor, engineer, architect, etc.

And socialists don't want to see everyone at an equal level. That's communism, bolshevism, or whatever you want to call it. Some of us just want to see the humongous gap between the middle-class and the leisure-class disappear. The wastrels at the upper stratum of the wealth pyramid need to learn what it means to actually work for a living instead of profiting off the work of others.
 
Interesting bump.
 
A political ideology cannot be bad or good. Albeit, we have never seen a good communist or National Socialist country, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the ideologies are bad. National Socialism is an extreme love for ones country, and putting one's nation before oneself, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not a communist, Nazi, socialist, fascist, or anything like that though. It all depends on how said ideology is applied. There can be a tyrannical democracy and there can also be a fair authoritarian.

"National Socialism" was Adolf Hitler's own brand of fascist doctrine, which inherently includes a phenogenetic policy. The extermination of inferior races in order to build one master race is inseparable from that, which makes it inherently bad. Not sure why you're including communism, the two had nothing to do with each other.
 
In regards to the OP:
National socialism and communism are just the same politically and from a social liberties standpoint.They both are totalitarian regimes.

Economically, national socialism allows for the private sector to exist to some important degree where as in communism, it doesn't exist on any significant level. Which is something it shares, sort of, with the fascist ideology.

That being said, fascism has less in common, but still very much, with national socialism than national socialism has with communism. But they are all totalitarian regimes. While it is true that Hitler himself, and Mussolini, applies the notions of meritocracy in their own governments and elected the people who were best suited for the job and didn't allow themselves to be swayed by nepotism or favors, it doesn't mean that the ideologies are similar. Just the people who were in charge.

That being said, communism is the worst of the 2 because its total repression on all fronts and it doesn't allow for people to rise to the top except politically or through political influence.

"National Socialism" was Adolf Hitler's own brand of fascist doctrine, which inherently includes a phenogenetic policy. The extermination of inferior races in order to build one master race is inseparable from that, which makes it inherently bad. Not sure why you're including communism, the two had nothing to do with each other.

meh, sort of right but not quite but also very, very wrong.
 
In regards to the OP:
National socialism and communism are just the same politically and from a social liberties standpoint.They both are totalitarian regimes.

Economically, national socialism allows for the private sector to exist to some important degree where as in communism, it doesn't exist on any significant level. Which is something it shares, sort of, with the fascist ideology.

That being said, fascism has less in common, but still very much, with national socialism than national socialism has with communism. But they are all totalitarian regimes. While it is true that Hitler himself, and Mussolini, applies the notions of meritocracy in their own governments and elected the people who were best suited for the job and didn't allow themselves to be swayed by nepotism or favors, it doesn't mean that the ideologies are similar. Just the people who were in charge.

That being said, communism is the worst of the 2 because its total repression on all fronts and it doesn't allow for people to rise to the top except politically or through political influence.



meh, sort of right but not quite but also very, very wrong.

Communism and Nazism were enemies and the opposites of each other, other than that, no.
 
Communism and Nazism were enemies and the opposites of each other, other than that, no.

I don't understand what you are saying. So what if they were enemies? it doesn't make them different. Were they not both totalitarian regimes which restricted civil rights of their people? The only real difference between nazism and communism is that nazism had allowed for the private sector to exist to some degree and permitted foreign investment.

When the world was full of monarchs, and the entire world had monarchies... did monarchs not fight each other? I don't understand your position and it seems rather childish. Are you sure you are up to this discussion?
 
I don't understand what you are saying. So what if they were enemies? it doesn't make them different. Were they not both totalitarian regimes which restricted civil rights of their people? The only real difference between nazism and communism is that nazism had allowed for the private sector to exist to some degree and permitted foreign investment.

When the world was full of monarchs, and the entire world had monarchies... did monarchs not fight each other? I don't understand your position and it seems rather childish. Are you sure you are up to this discussion?

If they were so ideologically similar, why would have Hitler and the NSDAP built their careers on bashing communists? The Moltov-Ribbentrop pact was broken for ideological reasons also. Yes, they were totalitarian, but their entire structures were different. For the National Socialists, they were centered on race, ethnicity, and the only aspect in which they were socialist were their names. For the Communists, everything was centered on class warfare and therefore, race and nationality need no matter.
Only the major points. Also, I didn't like your last line. Not only does it sound pompous, it also sounds childish, as you accused me of.
 
I'm not a communist, Nazi, socialist, fascist, or anything like that though.

I got news for you dude - you are. I'll let you figure it for yourself what exactly you are.
 
If they were so ideologically similar, why would have Hitler and the NSDAP built their careers on bashing communists? The Moltov-Ribbentrop pact was broken for ideological reasons also. Yes, they were totalitarian, but their entire structures were different. For the National Socialists, they were centered on race, ethnicity, and the only aspect in which they were socialist were their names. For the Communists, everything was centered on class warfare and therefore, race and nationality need no matter.
Only the major points. Also, I didn't like your last line. Not only does it sound pompous, it also sounds childish, as you accused me of.

This will require a bit of history but I will keep it light.

1) after WW1, the economy of Germany was in ruin. Add to that the fact that it had to pay off a lot of war reparations and it was in ever greater ruin. There is an educated joke that tells you how bad things were back then: A german man goes into a coffee house and orders a cup of coffee that costs 1 Deutschemark. When he finished his coffee, and he had to pay for the coffee he ordered, the price was 2 Deutschemarks. This should tell you how bad it was.

2) In time, because of some clever administration and economics, Germany recovered to some degree. Things started looking up... but then the financial collapse came in 1929 and things went downhill. Anyway. What happened here was interesting. The political class, in head with the Kaiser and his favorite parties, were losing group, other fringe groups started gaining ground. The most predominant group which gained influence, votes and political power were... the communists. The communists, with their promises and their propaganda had constantly gained power over 10-12 years after WW1. Who were the most targetted group? The workers who lost their jobs in industries and factories and agriculture and what naught. The communists appealed to them... after all, if you promise power to a people who never had power... they will support you.

3) Hitler comes in and him, and his supporters, promote their own agenda. Who were they targetting? Everybody really... but most importantly they were targetting the same group that the communists were. The workers. The disenfranchized. This is why the translation in English of NDSAP is National Socialist German Workers Party. A=Arbeiter which means worker.
So... in order to gain grounds they had to run a campaign against the communists who also appealed to the same demographic -> the workers. Because the national socialist program and platform was not just better but also more realistic than the communist party's platform which was, as communists always are, full of ****, Hitler and his party gained more popularity and more and people joined his party.
He won eventually by a small majority by forming a coalition with the brown shirts and the rest is history.

So. They were vying for the same class. This war to get the workers didn't end in 1933. It continued through underground propaganda and such. They were the greatest ideological enemy because they were so similar rather than so different. They both argued for nationalization... only the communists were much more extreme. The Nazis realized the importance and the benefit of having private business. It also gave the people a sense of freedom... because they could keep and open businesses. It also allowed for foreigners to come in and invest in Germany. This is why under the Nazi programs, from 1933 to 1935, the aproximately 6-7mil germans who were unemployed became employed and the economy boomed.

I still stick by the last line of my former comment. Prove me wrong.
 
meh, sort of right but not quite but also very, very wrong.

Fascism and communism are completely different doctrines. Adolf Hitler had nothing but hatred and contempt for the communists, which is why he had them killed. He despised all forms of Marxism, and sought to destroy it. NSDAP was "socialist" in name only.
 
Fascism and communism are completely different doctrines. Adolf Hitler had nothing but hatred and contempt for the communists, which is why he had them killed. He despised all forms of Marxism, and sought to destroy it. NSDAP was "socialist" in name only.

You should read the above comment I made.

Your comment just goes to show what a simplistic attitude you have towards world history.
 
Following that logic, Islam is a evil religion then?

Does the Koran teach intolerance and killing of non Islamics as has been reported in the press many,many times and proclaimed by their religious leaders? If the source document, the Koran, of the religion calls for the murder of people because of religious choice, then absolutely it is evil at it's core.

Christianity, namely the Catholic Church has persecuted and killed many in the name of religion throughout history, but the Bible does not call for it. Hence, those actions by the Catholic Church can be said to be evil, however Christianity is not evil in nature because the Bible does not call for the killing of anyone.
 
This quote pretty much incorporates my view.

"Any political ambition that is inherently impossible to achieve is ultimately corrupting...You cannot engender, or force to be engendered, a state of perfection...That line of action leads only to disaster, because perfection is an absolute that cannot be attained by an imperfect species...Utopia is a dangerous myth and only a fool would chase it...It is better to manage and maintain the flaws of man on an ongoing basis."---Dan Abnett, Legion

National Socialism (fascism) and communism are Utopian ideals, even socialism and it's offshoots of Liberalism in the US pursue a Utopian ideal and their goals are ultimately counter intuitive to species survival. Because they all depend upon the idealistic behavior of all people, they ultimately fail because mankind as a whole cannot be made to be idealistic nor is mankind naturally idealistic. Even those who are naturally inclined to idealism are not all inclined to the same ideal, thus the ideals of these ideologues must conflict.

This is why such idealogical political leans are inherently evil, only through martial means can they begin to force their ideologies upon mankind and achieve their goals. Even if they are not directly violent at the beginning, the must become militaristic and violent to attempt to achieve their goals. At least some of mankind that are not accepting of the ideal will fight against it.
 
Last edited:
You should read the above comment I made.

Your comment just goes to show what a simplistic attitude you have towards world history.

Because Marx was the only guy to ever consider the economy, and the workers place in his socioeconomic philosophy. Take your accusation of "simplistic attitude" elsewhere. All you did was see "socialist" and worker, and decided that the Nazi Party had to be Marxists. Socialism is a state where industry and economy is owned by the people, with minimalist government presence. In Hitler's Germany the state owned the industry, the people, and the economy. You know why Hitler appealed to the working class? Because that's the social class that gives the most votes. That's the class that powers cities. That's the class that builds bombers, rifles, and tanks, and that's the class who fills those uniforms. Fascism is nothing without a strong military foundation, and that's what Hitler built.
 
Because Marx was the only guy to ever consider the economy, and the workers place in his socioeconomic philosophy. Take your accusation of "simplistic attitude" elsewhere. All you did was see "socialist" and worker, and decided that the Nazi Party had to be Marxists. Socialism is a state where industry and economy is owned by the people, with minimalist government presence. In Hitler's Germany the state owned the industry, the people, and the economy. You know why Hitler appealed to the working class? Because that's the social class that gives the most votes. That's the class that powers cities. That's the class that builds bombers, rifles, and tanks, and that's the class who fills those uniforms. Fascism is nothing without a strong military foundation, and that's what Hitler built.

Heh. I like you.

Ok, lets get to it. Maybe we can come to a consensus after some confusion is rid of.

I never said that the nazi party was marxist. They weren't. But as you said yourself, Marx wasn't the only one to include the working class in his socioeconomic philosophy.

"Socialism is a state where industry and economy is owned by the people, with minimalist government presence."
Ok... you are a very confused individual. When you say that something is owned by the people you are talking about the government. Because the government represents the people whether they want it or not. So when you talk about the industry and the economy owned by the people you are talking about nationalization of what was private property. That is, the government takes a piece of property from private individuals and considers it as part of the people's property. So to say that socialism is a state where the industry and economy is owned by the people with minimalist government presence is outright a logical fallacy. Either that, or you mean free market CAPITALISM... where indeed, the government lets the people, not collectively, but individuals within the population, to own the means of production, like the industry and the economy. Did I clarify this or not?

" In Hitler's Germany the state owned the industry, the people, and the economy. "
Yes. The nazi party nationalized part of the private sector but not all. A lot of it was still left untouched and in the hands of private individuals. And they also were open to foreign investment and they did have foreign investment. They didn't own the people but they did oppress them by denying them certain rights. The first right to fall victim to nazism was the right to vote since Hitler named himself dictator.
It was the communists that nationalized ALL of the major private sector. This means that yes, there were windmills or pubs that could still be operated by private individuals. But everything that was somewhat important to the communists, they took it.

"You know why Hitler appealed to the working class? Because that's the social class that gives the most votes. That's the class that powers cities. That's the class that builds bombers, rifles, and tanks, and that's the class who fills those uniforms.".
This doesn't invalidate what I said in the slightest. it is true ofc and it is one way to look at it. I just informed you that 6-7mil germans were out of work and they were targetted by the communists. It was Hitler whom, because he and his partners were better than the communists, won the vote of the downtrotten and the disenfranchized.

"Fascism is nothing without a strong military foundation, and that's what Hitler built."
History proves you correct to some degree. We can argue on this but it is small fry.
 
Lumping together communism and national socialism = epic fail.
 
Because Marx was the only guy to ever consider the economy, and the workers place in his socioeconomic philosophy. Take your accusation of "simplistic attitude" elsewhere. All you did was see "socialist" and worker, and decided that the Nazi Party had to be Marxists.

No kidding, since the term Socialism was first coined by Marx. Anyone claiming to be Socialist are either something else or they are related directly to Marx. All use and understanding of the Terms Socialism and Communism are related to and have to be related to Marx. Socialist today, even those who don't want to claim Marx as a source, are called socialist because they incorporate elements into their philosophy that were defined by Marx. Marx called for, in socialism, the government seizing all industry, that is why when the government becomes involved or takes over elements of a previously capitalist market, it is called Socialism, although it is not full and complete socialism.

Socialism is a state where industry and economy is owned by the people, with minimalist government presence.

No, that is Communism. Socialism, according to Marx was the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Some adherents to Marx chose to accept his ideas but stop short of Communism and have labeled themselves Socialist.

In Hitler's Germany the state owned the industry, the people, and the economy.

And thus, he was practicing elements of Socialism as defined by Marx and acting in accordance with some of Marx's teachings. Fascism, as defined and taught by Hitler and others is Authoritarian Socialism while Communism is Libertarian Socialism. The conflict between Hitler and Communist was not socialism, they both were going after similar ideals, they just didn't agree on the approach to take to achieve it and who should control the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom