• 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!

Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 36.8%

  • No

    Votes: 22 57.9%

  • No opinion

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Total voters
    38
German guy said:
At least enough not to conflate pro-constitutional, pro-freedom people on the left with communism or authoritarian Marxism.
Click to expand...

HaHaHa,

both Marxism and Communism are foundations of leftism!
 
samsmart said:
No.

Capitalism has killed just as many, if not more. Take for example children who have been killed from occupational hazards as a result of lack of regulations in work spaces or requirements for safe working conditions because it would raise the prices of goods and services.

So no, socialism and communism should not be condemned like nazism is.
Click to expand...

Wonderful argument.

Too bad is has nothing to do with the truth. The socialist government of Gorbachev (Nobel Peice Prize Winner) LIED about Chernobyl. Not to mention it's wonderful invention of C4 Toys For Tots in Afghanistan. The socialist government of China LIED about SARS, and it lied to it's own people about the hazards of HIV. The ban of the socialist dominated UN against DDT usage has caused the deaths of roughly three million poeple every year by malaria, that's a hundred million over the time the ban's been implemented, in itself.

When one discusses the MURDERS caused by socialism - all occuring in the 20th century, do you really believe the proper counter argument is alleged neglectful abuses from an earlier century? Do you honestly beleive the death toll among children chasing bobbins in a 19th century textile factory came anywhere close to the 150 million or so deliberately exterminated by the socialists this last 100 years?
 
German guy said:
At least enough not to conflate pro-constitutional, pro-freedom people on the left with communism or authoritarian Marxism.
Click to expand...

Hello?

If the people on the left were "pro-constituitonal", they'd oppose:

Federally funded social welfare programs, social security, medicaid, medicare, public education, public broadcasting funding, and rouhly a trillion dollars in annual spending by the federal government.

Welcome to the Constitution of the United States...it LIMITS government.

The Germa government puts irrational restrictions on political speech, as to the other quasi-totalitarian pretend "democracies" around the world.

Let us know when you can speak freely about the Holocaust, even to the point of being silly enough to deny it, if that's your wish, and then we can discuss the role of a constitution in protecting freedom, not limting the people.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Wonderful argument.

Too bad is has nothing to do with the truth. The socialist government of Gorbachev (Nobel Peice Prize Winner) LIED about Chernobyl. Not to mention it's wonderful invention of C4 Toys For Tots in Afghanistan. The socialist government of China LIED about SARS, and it lied to it's own people about the hazards of HIV. The ban of the socialist dominated UN against DDT usage has caused the deaths of roughly three million poeple every year by malaria, that's a hundred million over the time the ban's been implemented, in itself.

When one discusses the MURDERS caused by socialism - all occuring in the 20th century, do you really believe the proper counter argument is alleged neglectful abuses from an earlier century? Do you honestly beleive the death toll among children chasing bobbins in a 19th century textile factory came anywhere close to the 150 million or so deliberately exterminated by the socialists this last 100 years?
Click to expand...

I think you are attacking a strawman here. I believe nobody in this thread (with maybe one or two exceptions) disagrees with you that extreme leftism is responsible for these murders and deserves to be condemned. What people, including myself, take offense by, is your broad-brush attempt at lumping all kinds of very different ideologies together under the "socialist" label, many of which are not actually socialist.

Social democracy has nothing to do with communism. Liberalism has nothing to do with communism. Even most brands of democratic socialism have nothing to do with communism.

Using the "socialist" label as you and Alfons do (and your idols à la Beck) is blurring important distinctions with the purpose of smearing legitimate political competitors. It's just as dishonest and disrespectful as labelling Republicans "Nazis" or "fascists" in a broad-brush attempt.
 
German guy said:
So all people on the left are Marxists and/or communists?
Click to expand...

If not that, there's something else wrong with them. They see a thing they believe needs doing and their inevitable answer is to take money from someone else to finance their dream. Hardly indicative of adult behavior.

It's certainly not an American viewpoint.
 
German guy said:
I think you are attacking a strawman here. I believe nobody in this thread (with maybe one or two exceptions) disagrees with you that extreme leftism is responsible for these murders and deserves to be condemned. What people, including myself, take offense by, is your broad-brush attempt at lumping all kinds of very different ideologies together under the "socialist" label, many of which are not actually socialist.

Social democracy has nothing to do with communism. Liberalism has nothing to do with communism. Even most brands of democratic socialism have nothing to do with communism.

Using the "socialist" label as you and Alfons do (and your idols à la Beck) is blurring important distinctions with the purpose of smearing legitimate political competitors. It's just as dishonest and disrespectful as labelling Republicans "Nazis" or "fascists" in a broad-brush attempt.
Click to expand...

yes, what the people on the Left love avoiding is the consequences of their religion. They refuse to accept that it's PEOPLE who control the power of government and that PEOPLE seek profit, even when they don't use the evil "P" word.

Too bad for you people. The truth stands out. Socialism is immoral, evil, and anti-freedom, and as such it must be opposed by all who value their own freedom.

There's nothing legitimate about socialism. It makes the minority the slave of the majority. Ask anyone who doesn't desire to pay taxes for the unconstitutional programs the socialists have imposed on the United States.
 
Last edited:
Mayor Snorkum said:
Hello?

If the people on the left were "pro-constituitonal", they'd oppose:

Federally funded social welfare programs, social security, medicaid, medicare, public education, public broadcasting funding, and rouhly a trillion dollars in annual spending by the federal government.
Click to expand...

If these things were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have ruled them illegal. Since this has not happened, they are not unconstitutional, apparently. But since you seem to be an expert in constitutional law, please enlighten us. Are you a professor?

Also, there are other constitutions based on the values of freedom and liberty, besides the American Constitution.

Welcome to the Constitution of the United States...it LIMITS government.
Click to expand...

Yes, *limits*. Not *abolishes*.

You are fine to disagree with certain government actions, because you believe they go too far. That's democracy! But please don't smear people who disagree with you by calling them mass murderers and genociders, ok? Maybe then they'll return this respect.

The Germa government puts irrational restrictions on political speech, as to the other quasi-totalitarian pretend "democracies" around the world.
Click to expand...

You mean like the American government, that detains and tortures innocent people, denying them fair trials and kidnapping them from all over the world, thanks to the Patriot Act? You have nerves lecturing others about freedom and democracy ...

Let us know when you can speak freely about the Holocaust, even to the point of being silly enough to deny it, if that's your wish, and then we can discuss the role of a constitution in protecting freedom, not limting the people.
Click to expand...

I feel no inclination to deny the Holocaust happened, do you?

Banning hate speech is not a violation of freedom. It is a constitutionally necessary protection of the freedom of minorities.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
If not that, there's something else wrong with them. They see a thing they believe needs doing and their inevitable answer is to take money from someone else to finance their dream. Hardly indicative of adult behavior.

It's certainly not an American viewpoint.
Click to expand...

You are thinking a little too much in black/white terms here, don't you think? Everybody who is not a right-winger does not just disagree with you, but is evil, in your eyes. And they deserve condemnation, not respectful counter-arguments. Seems you don't quite understand what freedom is, especially the freedom to respectfully disagree.
 
German guy said:
See my explanation above about racism. I don't think "the right" in general breeds racism.

But I do believe that ideologies which actively affirm racist impulses are usually right-wing, as for example Nazism. But that's not true the other way, I do not believe that the right wing in general is racist.
Click to expand...

What about the racist impulse in America that says black people can't cut it on their own so the government has to implement a preferential hiring policy called "Affirmative Action"? That's left-wing racism, there.

How about the racist impulses that make white American english speaking males the only class of people in the nation which can be discriminated against. Again, this establishment of racial preferences is driven by leftists.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
yes, what the people on the Left love avoiding is the consequences of their religion. They refuse to accept that it's PEOPLE who control the power of government and that PEOPLE seek profit, even when they don't use the evil "P" word.

Too bad for you people. The truth stands out. Socialism is immoral, evil, and anti-freedom, and as such it must be opposed by all who value their own freedom.
Click to expand...

I said that before, but in Germany, it were the at that time even Marxist Social Democrats who were the strongest supporter of freedom, liberty and constitutional order: They established the free Weimar Republic in 1919, crushed the communist revolutionaries, battled the monarchist authoritarians and were the only party to vote against Hitler's Enabling Act in 1933. And after 1945, the Social Democrats defended constitutional democracy in the West against the Soviets and commies in East Germany.

You really need to read a little history and get your facts straight. Then you wouldn't spout such absurd generalizations.

The problem are not people on the left in general. The problem are people who hate freedom and constitutional order. And those exist both on left and right.

There's nothing legitimate about socialism. It makes the minority the slave of the majority. Ask anyone who doesn't desire to pay taxes for the unconstitutional programs the socialists have imposed on the United States.
Click to expand...

Taxes are necessary in any state. To determine how large they should be, and who has to pay how much, is the job of a free, constitutional system. You can vote for those politicians and parties which reflect your ideas about taxes. But when others disagree, you have no right to condemn them, as long as they too respect the constitutional order, but you have to present good counter-arguments.
 
German guy said:
You are thinking a little too much in black/white terms here, don't you think?
Click to expand...

No.

The man with the itty-bitty cancerous speck of a mole wants it removed for good reason.

Carcinoma socialism isn't anything to play around with.

Just in case you missed it, it's the socialist agenda in the United States that caused the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Without that government interference in the marketplace, the word "Great" could never have been appended to what would otherwise have been starndard market corrections.

Everybody who is not a right-winger does not just disagree with you, but is evil, in your eyes.
Click to expand...

No. Everyone who isn't a libertarian, who asks the government to do something outside the scope of what a government is suposed to do, protect the nation from rude strangers and protect the people from physical assualt and theft, is demonstrating a kernal of evil which, if allowed to grow, becomes destructive.

It's not the government's job to control what the people say to each other, not even when it's as embarassing as a total fool denying the Holocaust or pretending Neil Armstrong didn't land on the moon.

It's not the government's job to provide everyone with jobs, nor is it the government's job to control who is hired by private companies. It's what the word "private" means. (Naturally, and desperate leftists always throw this one up, so it's necessary to put a condom on them by stating that this discussion is limited to people who have obtained their majority.)

It's not the government's job to know who owns a gun, even. People who use guns in a criminal fashion must, of course, be prosecuted, but owning them should never be a crime or regulated, not even to the point of registering gun ownership or licensing gun ownership.

Seems you don't quite understand what freedom is, especially the freedom to respectfully disagree.
Click to expand...

Yes, the real libertarians don't know the meaning of the word "freedom", right?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
What about the racist impulse in America that says black people can't cut it on their own so the government has to implement a preferential hiring policy called "Affirmative Action"? That's left-wing racism, there.

How about the racist impulses that make white American english speaking males the only class of people in the nation which can be discriminated against. Again, this establishment of racial preferences is driven by leftists.
Click to expand...

That's probably going off-topic, but let's do that:

There are very good reasons to support or oppose AA which have nothing to do with racism. Probably you can bring up certain good arguments against which are not racist.

I can try to give a good argument in favor: Due to existing racism among the white population, blacks statistically are facing a disadvantage which lowers their prospects and opportunities. For example, white employers will less likely hire black employees, white teachers will give blacks worse grades, statistically. Affirmative Action is just a means to pose a counter-weight against these disadvantages for blacks.

You may believe this means is flawed, you may also believe this brings more bad than good. But unless we make empirical studies on that field, we won't know how well it works or how unefficient it is. We cannot know on the spot who is right. So you are free to disagree, but please pay people who believe AA is a good thing to do the deserved respect, instead of calling them "racists".
 
German guy said:
I said that before, but in Germany, it were the at that time even Marxist Social Democrats who were the strongest supporter of freedom, liberty and constitutional order: They established the free Weimar Republic in 1919, crushed the communist revolutionaries, battled the monarchist authoritarians and were the only party to vote against Hitler's Enabling Act in 1933. And after 1945, the Social Democrats defended constitutional democracy in the West against the Soviets and commies in East Germany.
Click to expand...

No socialist or communist is a supporter of liberty, unless they're voluntarily moving to a commune with other volunteers and not using or demanding that the power of government be employed to coerce others to support their schemes. The socialists of the Weimar Republic didn't fall into that category.

You really need to read a little history and get your facts straight. Then you wouldn't spout such absurd generalizations.
Click to expand...

You need to understand that socialism on any national level involves the threat or use of brutal men with guns to enforce compliance with the program.

The problem are not people on the left in general. The problem are people who hate freedom and constitutional order. And those exist both on left and right.
Click to expand...

One can't be on the left is one supports true freedom. It's that simply. Using government to compel compliance is anti-freedom.

Taxes are necessary in any state.
Click to expand...

Taxes TO SUPPORT THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS of government are necessary.

And government isn't supposed to be perfoming functions outside of that core. Ergo, taxes to support socialism are not "necessary", as socialism isn't necessary.

To determine how large they should be, and who has to pay how much, is the job of a free, constitutional system.
Click to expand...

Under the Constitution THE MAYOR lives under, the government isn't allowed to be socialist, for the most part. It does have one or two flaws, of course.

And, under the Fourteenth Amendment it's pretty clear that either everyone pays an equal share to support the lawful (ie, Constitutional) functions of government, or everyone pays an equal percentage.

You can vote for those politicians and parties which reflect your ideas about taxes. But when others disagree, you have no right to condemn them, as long as they too respect the constitutional order, but you have to present good counter-arguments.
Click to expand...

Actually, The Mayor does have that right. Ah, the advantages of not living in Europe:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
 
German guy said:
That's probably going off-topic, but let's do that:

There are very good reasons to support or oppose AA which have nothing to do with racism. Probably you can bring up certain good arguments against which are not racist.

I can try to give a good argument in favor: Due to existing racism among the white population, blacks statistically are facing a disadvantage which lowers their prospects and opportunities. For example, white employers will less likely hire black employees, white teachers will give blacks worse grades, statistically. Affirmative Action is just a means to pose a counter-weight against these disadvantages for blacks.

You may believe this means is flawed, you may also believe this brings more bad than good. But unless we make empirical studies on that field, we won't know how well it works or how unefficient it is. We cannot know on the spot who is right. So you are free to disagree, but please pay people who believe AA is a good thing to do the deserved respect, instead of calling them "racists".
Click to expand...

No. Two arguments not based on race exist against Affirmative Action.

1) The Constittuion does not grant the federal government the authority to place such impositions on private employers, though certainly it could be made part of any contract obligation for any vendors to the government itself.

2) The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause strictly prohibits any discriminatory hiring schemes whatsoever.

Then there's the fact that it isn't the government's job to control the emotions of the people, including the emotions of racial bigotry. Again, the Constitution in no place allows any such power to the governent, and you should read the Ninth Amendment.

What you've just argued, in more words, is that you believe that black people couldn't cut it on their own, which was always the dominating argument from the Party of Jefferson Davis.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
No socialist or communist is a supporter of liberty, unless they're voluntarily moving to a commune with other volunteers and not using or demanding that the power of government be employed to coerce others to support their schemes. The socialists of the Weimar Republic didn't fall into that category.
Click to expand...

What's your point now? That socialists in the Weimar Republic were not really socialists, as you define them?

Fact is, the Social Democrats were still Marxists at that time. But they were anti-revolutionary, anti-dictatorship and pro-constitutional, pro-freedom. They were much more "left" than Democrats and Obama, yet they bitterly defended freedom against commies and Nazis.

See why your logic doesn't compute? Your broad-brush label of "socialism" is flawed, because it blurs important distinctions.

You need to understand that socialism on any national level involves the threat or use of brutal men with guns to enforce compliance with the program.
Click to expand...

I agree this is the case when it comes to authoritarian, revolutionary brands of "socialism", aka "communism". But I disagree that liberals, social democrats or even most democratic, non-revolutionary socialists have anything to do with that. Just like Republicans have nothing to do with Nazis, despite certain similarities on some fields.

One can't be on the left is one supports true freedom. It's that simply. Using government to compel compliance is anti-freedom.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. Read a little history and political theory.

Taxes TO SUPPORT THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS of government are necessary.

And government isn't supposed to be perfoming functions outside of that core. Ergo, taxes to support socialism are not "necessary", as socialism isn't necessary.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there has to be a debate what is ESSENTIAL, because there hardly is a consensus. That's why you respectfully debate this within the constitutional frame with your political competitors.

Under the Constitution THE MAYOR lives under, the government isn't allowed to be socialist, for the most part. It does have one or two flaws, of course.
Click to expand...

"Socialism" would mean a nationalization of all the economy, maybe abolishing private property entirely -- and nobody in America is advocating that, as far as I can see.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
No. Two arguments not based on race exist against Affirmative Action.

1) The Constittuion does not grant the federal government the authority to place such impositions on private employers, though certainly it could be made part of any contract obligation for any vendors to the government itself.
Click to expand...

If this was true, why has the Supreme Court not ruled it unconstitutional?

2) The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause strictly prohibits any discriminatory hiring schemes whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why there *must* be AA: In order to balance the existing racism against blacks.

Then there's the fact that it isn't the government's job to control the emotions of the people, including the emotions of racial bigotry. Again, the Constitution in no place allows any such power to the governent, and you should read the Ninth Amendment.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But you have no right to smear those who disagree -- with good arguments -- as "racists" or authoritarians.

What you've just argued, in more words, is that you believe that black people couldn't cut it on their own, which was always the dominating argument from the Party of Jefferson Davis.
Click to expand...

The difference is that this party assumed blacks can't do that, because they're racially inferior. I argue they can't, because they are disadvantaged by white racism against blacks. The former is racism, the latter is the opposite.
 
The Nazi ideology revolves around a racially prejudice thought system and it's very intent is to destroy and purify society based on how an individual was born. Communism is an ideology that is not inherintly evil or destructive and it's belief system does not require violence to achieve its stated goal. That is the silver divide between the two.

I mean sure, all communist countries that have existed thus far have done little to improve the image of communism or create a communism based on Democratic values, and the best candidate to facilitate this change in image is currently one of the worst violators of human rights (China).

But their should be a clear distinction between a man who believes a society should have a particular ethnic makeup and a man who believes money should flow differently in a market and the two should not be treated the same.

We have to be careful when it comes to condemning non-violent ideologies because we set an intolerant precident which cannot work in a modern society.
 
Last edited:
Although i stress we should only ever actively promote the most just system and that in my mind will always be free market Democracy.
 
kaya'08 said:
The Nazi ideology revolves around a racially prejudice thought system and it's very intent is to destroy and purify society based on how an individual was born. Communism is an ideology that is not inherintly evil or destructive and it's belief system does not require violence to achieve its stated goal. That is the silver divide between the two.

I mean sure, all communist countries that have existed thus far have done little to improve the image of communism or create a communism based on Democratic values, and the best candidate to facilitate this change in image is currently one of the worst violators of human rights (China).

But their should be a clear distinction between a man who believes a society should have a certain genetic pattern and a man who believes money should flow differently in a market and the two should not be treated the same.

We have to be careful when it comes to condemning non-violent ideologies because we set an intolerant precident which cannot work in a modern society.
Click to expand...

I fully agree, just that I tend to believe communist ideology (the revolutionary brand) will inevitably lead to oppression and mass murder, no matter how good the intentions (when you are ready to establish a dictatorship to get through your ideas, that's what happens). Supporting dictatorship as a means is the worst problem here, not the goal of different distribution of wealth.

But apart from that, I agree: There should be a clear distinction between a man who believes a society should have a certain genetic pattern and a man who believes money should flow differently in a market and the two should not be treated the same.

I give the left at least that: They are asking the right questions, although I disagree with their answers. A fair society without poverty is not a bad goal. But as it often happens, the way to hell is paved with good intentions. There is some truth in the saying "who isn't a communist with 20 has no heart, but who still is a communist with 30 has no brain".

The far-right doesn't even have that. They're not even asking the right question. A racially, religiously or nationally "pure" society? Making a difference between the value of different human beings? Even the questions they begin with are for the trash bin.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
That depends on how the leaders decide to go about initiating the communism. You can do it fidel style and bury anybody who questions the system or you can transition the country over to communism in a Democratic manner. For example i know of an Indian state that has historically voted communism in democratic elections even though non-communist parties could be elected.

Leaders make the decision to initiate communism with a mandate or by force, but that's their choice and not a prerequisite to their ideology. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest it is comparable with the Nazi's.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm just using a slightly different terminology.

I'm no expert on the history of Marxism or socialism, but as far as I know, the question about the means to be used to establish communism caused the "great schizm" among socialists in the late 1910s, early 1920s: The violent people splitted off from the socialist parties and called themselves "communists", because they supported violent revolution (also against liberal democracies) and "dictatorship of the proletariat", following the communist revolution in Russia. The remaining social democrats and democratic socialists were strictly reformist, anti-revolutionary and supported liberal, constitutional democracies, rejecting the Soviet way.

That's why I use the labels "socialist" or "social democrats" for the reformist "good guys" and "communists" for the authoritarian "bad guys". Usually, people then understand what I mean, when I call the StalinMaoPot-bad guys "commies", to distinguish them from the harmless, peaceful "socialists". Just this new American trend to shift the meaning and definitions in order to gain partisan advantage stand in the way of agreement with some in this thread, such as Alfons.

This distinction of socialists and communists doesn't always match the names of parties, though. IIRC, the French "communists" are no longer revolutionary, but accept the constitution and liberal political system, yet they keep calling themselves "communists" for traditional reasons. So they rather are "democratic socialists". Probably that's the case with that Indian party too. And the communists started calling themselves "socialist" in most East Bloc countries, although they actually were "communists".
 
PeteEU said:
Fair is fair.. when you lot condemn 5000 years of conservative and religious conservative mass murder then I expect the "left" to do the same about their own people.
Click to expand...

Start explaining the mass murder boy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom