• 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
Again; real Socialism is fundamentally democratic. This was the consensus among the Socialist thinkers, prior to the rise of the Soviet Union, who bitterly condemned the Bolsheviks on these grounds, and rightfully so. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc., are, at best, perversions of Socialism.
 
Again; real Socialism is fundamentally democratic. This was the consensus among the Socialist thinkers, prior to the rise of the Soviet Union, who bitterly condemned the Bolsheviks on these grounds, and rightfully so. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc., are, at best, perversions of Socialism.

I don't think it's fair to lump Leninism in with Stalinism and Maoism. Leninism still sucked, but you can't blame the fact that it sucked on its being a perversion of true communism. Lenin's brand of communism was basically pure Marxism, and not nearly as bloody as that of Stalin or Mao.
 
While both Communism and Nazism are horrible blights upon mankind, I actually do hold TRADITIONAL, ie "by the book" communism in a slightly higher regard since I think class warfare is actually more morally just than race warfare, although again they are both crap anyway I'm just talking about which turd smells slightly less like ****.

However, if I was forced to choose between being a German Soldier or a Soviet Soldier during WW2 for example, I'd go with Germany. The corrupted communism of the USSR, China before the forms, North Korea, Cambodia, etc is far worse than Nazism or traditional "as described in the book" communism.
 
I don't think it's fair to lump Leninism in with Stalinism and Maoism. Leninism still sucked, but you can't blame the fact that it sucked on its being a perversion of true communism. Lenin's brand of communism was basically pure Marxism, and not nearly as bloody as that of Stalin or Mao.

Not according to the leading Marxists; Pannekoek, Korsch, Luxemburg, even Trotsky, before he changed his position. There's this myth that it was all about the circumstances, that there was no other way, etc. This is just nonsense. Lenin was against workers' democracy from the very beginning. He revereses himself for State & Revolution, but that's just pandering, then, he goes right back to his default position.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the purity of his Marxism is irrelevent, as I am not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist.
 
Last edited:
And again, you are taking something from the economic section of socialism and pretending it has to do with how the society is organized on a social policy level. I have shown in that very same paragraph that when the form of government is autocratic, it moves the definition to communism and I have shown that to distinct from socialism and that the two terms are often confused.

Lastly, look at post 92, which you simply dismissed without giving a reason other than it didn't fit in your "view"

Which social goals? Socialism is an economic model, it has very little to do with how the society is organized on a social policy level. You will find that different types of socialism cares about this.

I already gave you the defnition of socialism, and it does not include anything about social policy.

You are wrong about autocratic goverments not beeing socialists, but they are communists instead. It's the other way, an autocratic government can't be communist because in communism there is no government and also the society is supposed to be classless. Socialism doesn't have those requirements. Just look at the definition on wikipedia.

I did give reasons in post 93 to your post 92. I skipped the parts that had no relevance, and went straight to your argument for why the system I am talking about, has workplace democracy. I responded to that in post 93. I stated that having voting power in national elections do not give you ultimate power over your workplace. This points is unanswered.
 
No, since Nazi Germany was fascist, not socialist or communist. :sun
 
No, since Nazi Germany was fascist, not socialist or communist. :sun

In Nazi Germany the means of production was owned by private organizations, not the government. The government benefited by having taxes and there was lots of regulations. Nazi Germany could be called market socialism, but that is borderline. It is probably much closer to social democracy without democracy.

With your thinking however, Sovet was facist not socialist. BTW, Soviet was certinally not communist, because communism is a stateless society. Democracy is not a requirement for Socialism, if you want it to be then I suggest you change wikipedia. If you are right, they will let it stay.
 
Last edited:
In Nazi Germany the means of production was owned by private organizations, not the government. The government benefited by having taxes and there was lots of regulations. Nazi Germany could be called market socialism, but that is borderline. It is probably much closer to social democracy without democracy.

With your thinking however, Sovet was facist not socialist. BTW, Soviet was certinally not communist, because communism is a stateless society. Democracy is not a requirement for Socialism, if you want it to be then I suggest you change wikipedia. If you are right, they will let it stay.

Someone already added it to wikipedia:

"Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics."
Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:sun
 
Last edited:
Someone already added it to wikipedia:

"Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics."
Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:sun
I didn't ask you to provide evidence that nazism is a form of facism, it is. I wrote above why it was not a form of socialism. I also described what kind of economic system it was similar to, which is social democracy. However in terms of social values, it is quite different.

I asked you to change the definition of socialism, because the definition of socialism does not require democracy or a non-oppressive government.
 
I didn't ask you to provide evidence that nazism is a form of facism, it is.

That was my only claim.

I asked you to change the definition of socialism, because the definition of socialism does not require democracy or a non-oppressive government.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I never defined socialism.
 
It is something wrong here, maybe should begin to condemn Socialism - Communism like Nazism, right?

Only when conservatism and religious conservatism is condemned even more.
 
Sounds like CENTRIST talk. :roll:

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.
 
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.

You could not be more wrong in your guesstimate.
 
Main Kampf?

The poll is based upon an ignorance held by the far-right.
 
I've had this debate before with a conservative pen pal.

It's like comparing Ted Bundy (communism) to Jeffrey Dahlmer (nazism) and trying to claim Bundy was more evil than Dahlmer simply because his kill ratio was higher.

Bundy may have killed more in numbers, but the methods he used were not as horrendous as Dahlmer, who mutilated and raped the corpses. But still, it's like beating a dead horse. They're both insanely despicable and inherently prone to incredibly horrible policy.

And for those of you who have forgotten, socialism is a mere transition period between capitalism and communsim. This is why the Soviet Union was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. In Marx's original view, communism was the end result of this evolutionary cycle. It was the utopian stateless society. Socialism, on the other hand, was the implemented state-level overhaul that forcibly transitioned a capitalistic society into the cycle which would (ideally) evolve into a stateless utopia known as communism. Take a look at Lenin's political policies. Lenin promoted a mixed economy with both private business and public interventionism.
 
I've had this debate before with a conservative pen pal.

It's like comparing Ted Bundy (communism) to Jeffrey Dahlmer (nazism) and trying to claim Bundy was more evil than Dahlmer simply because his kill ratio was higher.

Bundy may have killed more in numbers, but the methods he used were not as horrendous as Dahlmer, who mutilated and raped the corpses. But still, it's like beating a dead horse. They're both insanely despicable and inherently prone to incredibly horrible policy.

And for those of you who have forgotten, socialism is a mere transition period between capitalism and communsim. This is why the Soviet Union was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. In Marx's original view, communism was the end result of this evolutionary cycle. It was the utopian stateless society. Socialism, on the other hand, was the implemented state-level overhaul that forcibly transitioned a capitalistic society into the cycle which would (ideally) evolve into a stateless utopia known as communism. Take a look at Lenin's political policies. Lenin promoted a mixed economy with both private business and public interventionism.

If we were going to go with Marx's view, then it would happen naturally and Lenin/Stalin forcing the matter was the wrong thing to do.
 
I've had this debate before with a conservative pen pal.

It's like comparing Ted Bundy (communism) to Jeffrey Dahlmer (nazism) and trying to claim Bundy was more evil than Dahlmer simply because his kill ratio was higher.

Bundy may have killed more in numbers, but the methods he used were not as horrendous as Dahlmer, who mutilated and raped the corpses. But still, it's like beating a dead horse. They're both insanely despicable and inherently prone to incredibly horrible policy.

And for those of you who have forgotten, socialism is a mere transition period between capitalism and communsim. This is why the Soviet Union was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. In Marx's original view, communism was the end result of this evolutionary cycle. It was the utopian stateless society. Socialism, on the other hand, was the implemented state-level overhaul that forcibly transitioned a capitalistic society into the cycle which would (ideally) evolve into a stateless utopia known as communism. Take a look at Lenin's political policies. Lenin promoted a mixed economy with both private business and public interventionism.

That's true, that's the definition of "socialism" from a communist/orthodox Marxist point of view.

Problem is, other groups, even many which are not Marxist, use the label "socialism" too and don't share this definition. Most "socialist" parties and movements in Europe these days, for example, are not Marxist anymore, or at least they're not interested in communism. Think of the British Labor Party. Or German Social Democrats. Or the Skandinavian Social Democrats.

So technically, you are right, but only as far as orthodox communist Marxists are concerned (those that existed in the East Bloc pre-1990, or in Cuba).
 
To answer the original question, just for the record:

I believe Stalinist or Maoist brands of "socialism" deserve the same condemnation as Nazism. Leninists probably too.

"Socialism" in general does not. There are freedom-loving, democratic types of self-defined "socialists" too. Those socialists who embrace the constitutional order don't deserve condemnation, but respect as political competitors from conservatives, liberals or libertarians, and they deserve good counter-arguments instead of condemnation.
 
To answer the original question, just for the record:

I believe Stalinist or Maoist brands of "socialism" deserve the same condemnation as Nazism. Leninists probably too.

"Socialism" in general does not. There are freedom-loving, democratic types of self-defined "socialists" too. Those socialists who embrace the constitutional order don't deserve condemnation, but respect as political competitors from conservatives, liberals or libertarians, and they deserve good counter-arguments instead of condemnation.

Well said German guy.
 
i know this gets the left going but the national socialist were still socialist just you had to be an Aryan for them to count you. If you read the Nazi platform and look at a host of laws they passed there is no doubt they were socialist
 
i know this gets the left going but the national socialist were still socialist just you had to be an Aryan for them to count you. If you read the Nazi platform and look at a host of laws they passed there is no doubt they were socialist

Did not Hitler once state he regretted deeming himself and his concept as "socialist"?
 
Last edited:
NGNM85 said:
Not according to the leading Marxists; Pannekoek, Korsch, Luxemburg, even Trotsky, before he changed his position. There's this myth that it was all about the circumstances, that there was no other way, etc. This is just nonsense. Lenin was against workers' democracy from the very beginning. He revereses himself for State & Revolution, but that's just pandering, then, he goes right back to his default position.

I really love most of your posts but this is just trash. Lenin never held a single, unwavering position about party structure. Further, regarding proletarian dictatorship, he always upheld workers' democracy in general. And you're right, the situation in Russia, according to Lenin and every other major Bolshevik, required the party to step in and intervene as the situation was dire. You could argue that that wasn't the case, but I don't think you have a leg on which to stand when you claim that this was all some elaborate ruse by Lenin. That's an absolutely silly, conspiracist position disproven by many debates he had that we still have access to. Why don't you just accuse him of being a German agent now?

Look to the trade union debate, for example, when he fought against Trotsky's position on the militarization of labour; or his changing position on party structure whereby he upheld the idea at one point that the Bolsheviks should be a mass party and that anyone that considered themselves Bolshevik would be a member; or when he argued for power to the Soviets, etc...

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the purity of his Marxism is irrelevent, as I am not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist.

Well that explains your delusions. :)

ElijahGalt said:
Take a look at Lenin's political policies. Lenin promoted a mixed economy with both private business and public interventionism.

NEP was a temporary policy...

megaprogman said:
If we were going to go with Marx's view, then it would happen naturally and Lenin/Stalin forcing the matter was the wrong thing to do.

First off, Marx was very obviously a revolutionary, not an evolutionary, socialist:

Marx said:
— 16 —
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?


It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

Principles of Communism

Second, the Russian people made the revolution happen, not Lenin, not Stalin. Not even the RSDLP or any other political party. Which is another issue that the conservatives (and yourself, apparently) fundamentally miss.

German Guy said:
I believe Stalinist or Maoist brands of "socialism" deserve the same condemnation as Nazism. Leninists probably too.

What are the "Stalinist/Maoist" brands? What makes them different from the "Brezhnevite," "Khrushchevite," "Titoite," "Hoxhaite," "Il Sungite," and all other "brands" of "socialism"?
 
Back
Top Bottom