• 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
Why blame the theory itself, when you can blame those who act on their belief in that theory? This way no matter how many millions die one can never blame communism. As for the consecutive massacres... well, they "just happen".
 
You're like American 2.0 you just pop in for irrelevant one-liners and think you've got this in the bag, only problem is nobody really understands what on earth you're going on about.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
You're like American 2.0 you just pop in for irrelevant one-liners and think you've got this in the bag, only problem is nobody really understands what on earth you're going on about.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps you are not a deep-thinker. You are, unfortunately, shallow enough to deem the notions I entertain as"irrelevant". You then state blindly that you think I "have got this in the bag". What do you know of what I may believe? Furthermore, you insinuate that no one really understands me. Perhaps people are so anchored in their beliefs that they cannot possibly be incorrect? What do you know, and who are you to say what people think?
 
How many people has democracy killed? How about capitalism? Hell, what about feudalism? Adjusted for population booms, of course. I don't think "how many people died as a result of actions taken by regimes claiming the banner of X" is a good standard to determine the efficacy of a particular methodology. A better question would be "how many people would be saved by X?"

And to directly address the OP, the reason that communism isn't universally reviled the way that nazism is has to do with the fact that one of the core tenants of communism isn't the complete extermination of entire groups of people. It's just about how you shuffle the money around.
 
isthatajoke said:
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
Click to expand...

Only if you use a right-wing newspeak definition of "socialism" according to which absolutely everybody except libertarians are "socialist".

Really, the differences between Nazis and socialists are so numerous it should be obvious that socialists and Nazis don't have more in common than, say, conservatives and socialists.
 
German guy said:
Only if you use a right-wing newspeak definition of "socialism" according to which absolutely everybody except libertarians are "socialist".

Really, the differences between Nazis and socialists are so numerous it should be obvious that socialists and Nazis don't have more in common than, say, conservatives and socialists.
Click to expand...

German Guy, did the word "Socialist" in "NAZI" bear anything even remotely common to, say, socialism?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
What are the "Stalinist/Maoist" brands? What makes them different from the "Brezhnevite," "Khrushchevite," "Titoite," "Hoxhaite," "Il Sungite," and all other "brands" of "socialism"?
Click to expand...

My condemnation goes to those brands of socialists who support dictatorship in order to get their ideas through. This has always resulted in mass murder to far, with Stalin and Mao leading this list. It also results in silencing down opposition and a police state. Socialists who support this, or at least don't condemn it entirely but tolerate it, or consider it a necessary evil, are those I believe deserve the same condemnation as Nazis.

Those socialists who respect pluralist democracy and constitutional state, are running in elections and don't violate the constitution once in power, don't deserve condemnation, IMO. Those non-revolutionary socialists with respect for human right and legal standards.
 
Wake said:
German Guy, did the word "Socialist" in "NAZI" bear anything even remotely common to, say, socialism?
Click to expand...

The Nazis did not nationalize the economy. On the contrary. They continued class warfare on the side of the capital, against labor, by making the company or factory boss "fuhrer of the company" all workers have to obey.

On basically all other fields, Nazis continued conservative traditions in Germany and their voters were former right-wingers, not socialists. It's true they adopted certain methods from the far-left of that time, but that were just the means. Their ideas and platform were a reactionary continuation of right-wing ideas socialists were bitterly opposed to.

Race purity ideology? Opposed by socialists, supported by the right.
Militarism? Opposed by the mostly pacifist socialists, supported by the right.
Nationalism? Opposed by the mostly internationalist socialists, supported by the right.
Anti-communism and anti-Marxism? Opposed by the socialists as they were the target of this hatred, supported by the right.
Pro-colonialist ideas? Opposed by socialists, supported by the right.
Strict rejection of centrally planned economy? Opposed by socialists, supported by the right.

This goes on and on. The core ideas of Nazism were based on prevalent right-wing ideas, then taken to the extreme and pimped up with certain far-left means to implement them. Hell, the Nazis even skipped the national flag the left was in favor of (black-red-yellow), but replaced it with the monarchist-conservative colors black-white-red once again. The "intellectual" basis of Nazism was that of the so-called "conservative revolution" in Weimar (look it up).

The Nazis persecuted and murdered Marxists and socialists, just for your information.
 
Why was "socialist" contained in NAZI? Are you saying they did not mean it? Like an "oopsie"?

Do you believe that they had no socialistic elements at all...?
 
Wake said:
Why was "socialist" contained in NAZI? Are you saying they did not mean it? Like an "oopsie"?

Do you believe that they had no socialistic elements at all...?
Click to expand...

Again, it depends on the definition of "socialism". The Nazi idea of "socialism" was completely different from that of people who call themselves "socialist" today, and anti-Marxism and anti-Bolshevism was even an inherent part of the Nazi definition of "socialism". Nazi socialism meant a militarized society organized by Führer-principle and a racially homogenous society. Other people called "socialists" don't share this definition of "socialism".

Also, "socialism" had a modern sound to it at that time. The Nazis adopted it for PR reasons too.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
Why was "socialist" contained in NAZI? Are you saying they did not mean it? Like an "oopsie"?

Do you believe that they had no socialistic elements at all...?
Click to expand...

I suppose China is a republic for the people, and North Korea is actually democratic?
 
StillBallin75 said:
I suppose China is a republic for the people, and North Korea is actually democratic?
Click to expand...

Interesting, this. Same with you, German Guy.

Those are worthy points to wonder.
 
Wake said:
Interesting, this. Same with you, German Guy.

Those are worthy points to wonder.
Click to expand...

Never discount the power of PR, Wake.

I don't think either country would like to label themselves as "The Republic of oppressing our own people" lol.
 
German guy said:
Only if you use a right-wing newspeak definition of "socialism" according to which absolutely everybody except libertarians are "socialist".

Really, the differences between Nazis and socialists are so numerous it should be obvious that socialists and Nazis don't have more in common than, say, conservatives and socialists.
Click to expand...

They have more in common that you think, for instance similar mindset about economic issues. Even the jew issue is not too far away from many European socialists. Most people didn't support exterminiation of Jews, but they blamed jews on many of the problems in society. Socialists in Europe still do that, often in form of anti-zionism. http://www.yourish.com/2008/11/18/5634

Roughly 1,000 pupils and left-wing activists who unlawfully occupied Humboldt University (HU) and some of whom destroyed an anti-Nazi exhibition on Wednesday were reacting to the university’s close ties to Israel, the university president has said.
Click to expand...

However, if you look at actual policies, then you will see that Nazi Germany didn't have socialism, because they had big private organizations. Actually their economic system is much closer to social democracy.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
They have more in common that you think, for instance similar mindset about economic issues. Even the jew issue is not too far away from many European socialists. Most people didn't support exterminiation of Jews, but they blamed jews on many of the problems in society. Socialists in Europe still do that, often in form of anti-zionism. European anti-Semitism: Alive and kicking Jews | Yourish.com



However, if you look at actual policies, then you will see that Nazi Germany didn't have socialism, because they had big private organizations. Actually their economic system is much closer to social democracy.
Click to expand...

You're right about one thing: Anti-Semitism does still exist and it's still a problem. I.e., a recent study in several European countries found that ca. 20% to 30% of the Germans agree to more or less anti-semitic statements in polls. You are also right that there are anti-Semites on the left too.

But this anti-Semitism is in no way representative for "the left" or "socialists" in general. In fact, it's a no-go in Germany -- advancing anti-semitic statements is a total carreer killer for politicians. You can be sure that there is a consensus among the established parties and mainstream journalism to condemn such a thing.

Also, not every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. Yet people critical of Israel are easily attacked with this anti-Semitism sledgehammer. That doesn't mean, of course, that there are no Israel critics who happen to be anti-Semites, those exist too, of course. There are more extreme Israel critics who are indeed influenced by traditional anti-Semite memes, without even consciously noticing that. But that's a mere fringe phenomenon.

If I had to give a rough estimate, I'd say anti-Semitism among German leftists is not more prevalent than outright racism among American conservatives. And it's similarly coded and veiled. Obvious hardcore anti-Semitism without code and veils exists only on the far-right, as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Child labor isn't a very solid argument. Children, elderly, and infirm citizens are working for pennies a day in sweat shops in communist countries all over the world. Most often, they're working in dangerous, unhealthy conditions with few rights.
Click to expand...

.... which communist countries? There are 4-6 countries which could be considered to be 'communist'. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China and....Seychelles? Chances are that if you work in a sweat shop, you're making Wal-Mart's clothing.
 
tessaesque said:
Child labor isn't a very solid argument. Children, elderly, and infirm citizens are working for pennies a day in sweat shops in communist countries all over the world. Most often, they're working in dangerous, unhealthy conditions with few rights.
Click to expand...

The same goes for many nonsocialist countries though.
 
German guy said:
But this anti-Semitism is in no way representative for "the left" or "socialists" in general. In fact, it's a no-go in Germany -- advancing anti-semitic statements is a total carreer killer for politicians. You can be sure that there is a consensus among the established parties and mainstream journalism to condemn such a thing.
Click to expand...
Didn't say it was representative among socialist, but a substantial amount of socialists are anti-semetic. If Israel was a muslim country, it would get a lot less criticism from the socialists in Europe and a lot more from the far right in Europe.

Also, not every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. Yet people critical of Israel are easily attacked with this anti-Semitism sledgehammer. That doesn't mean, of course, that there are no Israel critics who happen to be anti-Semites, those exist too, of course. There are more extreme Israel critics who are indeed influenced by traditional anti-Semite memes, without even consciously noticing that. But that's a mere fringe phenomenon.
Click to expand...
This is not a fringe element. The socialist party of Norway (Norway is normally considered a tolerant country) had the occupation as a theme in their summer camp. I was there, many years ago. They showed this picture. http://www.friendsofsabeel.org.uk/images/Israel-Palestine_maps.jpg

Which is completly historical inaccurate, and they always focus on Israel. I have never seen them write anything about Zimbabwe or North Korea. People in those countries are living under much worse conditions. That's why I said we see tendencies, but we also see openly racists among socialists.

If I had to give a rough estimate, I'd say anti-Semitism among German leftists is not more prevalent than outright racism among American conservatives. And it's similarly coded and veiled. Obvious hardcore anti-Semitism without code and veils exists only on the far-right, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
That depends on where you put them. For instance Vigrid in Norway is not economical conservative, but is normally put on extreme right for historical reasons.

American conservatives are not less racists, but they go after a different group. Far right goes after muslims, while far left go after the jews. Far right is probably somewhat worse, but that's because muslims affect Europe and the US to a greater extent. If Jews were coming instead, and creating their own communities and influencing politics you would probably see more racism from the left.
 
Camlon said:
Canada, socialist?!
:lamo
Click to expand...

Sweden, some of the other Scandinavian social democracies might be better examples.

But yes, some Americans have characterized Canada as being socialist because of their healthcare system.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Sweden, some of the other Scandinavian social democracies might be better examples.

But yes, some Americans have characterized Canada as being socialist because of their healthcare system.
Click to expand...
If Canada is socialist, then US is a socialist country as well.

Here is the GDP spending as a percentage of GDP in the US and Canada in 2008.
Canada: 39.82
US: 38.94

Canada is beating the US in heritage economic freedom index. And even labour freedom is nearly as high as the US. Canada information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more Even Singapore has public health care, and you are allowed to get private insurance if you want more. Is Singapore socialist?


Sweden is not a socialist country either. Yes, it's more left wing than the US, but France got more regulation than Sweden and just as high governmental spending. If you are going to use an example of socialism, then France would be the best fit, but they are not socialists either. Socialism is not beeing to the left of the US. Socialism is a system where the means of production are owned publically or commenly owned. Normally, this means that the state owns the means of production. Also Socialism should have the goal to spread the wealth. In Sweden the means of production are privatly owned, but regulated, often with help of unions. This is what we call the social democratic model. Also, Sweden is overrated by liberals. Their crime rate is higher than the US and increasing, their wages are lower and they lack proper freedom of speech.

Canada, US, Switzerland, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand are leaning towards the Anglo-saxon model. In this model we want to keep the economy as free as possible, but still provide welfare for the poor. Hence, in these places unions are weaker, there is less regulation over the work place. For instance, in the US you can fire people at will or in Australia they provide incentives for people to get private insurance.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
If Canada is socialist, then so is the US. Here is the GDP spending as a percentage of GDP in the US and Canada in 2008.
Canada: 39.82
US: 38.94

Canada is beating the US in heritage economic freedom index. And even labour freedom is nearly as high as the US. Canada information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more Even Singapore has public health care, and you are allowed to get private insurance if you want more. Is Singapore socialist?


Sweden is not a socialist country either. Yes, it's more left wing than the US, but France got more regulation as Sweden and just as high governmental spending. Socialism is not beeing to the left of the US. Socialism is a system where the means of production are owned publically or commenly owned. Normally, this means that the state owns the means of production. Also socialism should have the goal to spread the wealth. In Sweden the means of production are privatly owned, but regulated. This is what we call the social democratic model.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything here. However, social democracy is often included under the "socialist" label, and certainly given it's welfare system I'd say that many, if not most Americans would label it socialist.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I agree with everything here. However, social democracy is often included under the "socialist" label, and certainly given it's welfare system I'd say that many, if not most Americans would label it socialist.
Click to expand...

But it's not socialism, socialism is defined quite clearly in wikipedia, and it doesn't fulfill the requirements. Also in the article below, they state quite clearly that it is not socialism.

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some Americans will label it socialist, but the American public don't really know what socialism is.
 
Alfons said:
Can you imagine yourselves that everybody may wear swastika, laugh about Auschwitz, say "Hail Hitler" and broadcast "Main Kampf" as a positive teaching?
It is impossible and difficult to believe.

Can you imagine Hitler as avatar here?

Socialism - Communism has killed at least five times more as Nazism, but no one communist is punished, the devil's red star continue to be on the Kremlin top, the mummy of Lenin is open to show, socialists are allow to spread their lies without any prohibition in all western countries, moreover some medias air the programs about Lenin, Marx, Mao as a very nice guys, who were only "misunderstand".

It is something wrong here, maybe should begin to condemn Socialism - Communism like Nazism, right?
Click to expand...

ALFONS:

Let me try to put some things in perspective for you, because you obviously don't understand the words that you are attempting to use.

Words have meanings, connotations, and denotations. Without a good understanding of a particular word's meaning, you end misusing a word and not accurately communicating your ideas.

In your OP, you attempt to relate socialism to communism as if they are one in the same. That is just pure ignorance.

Take a look at this:

European-political-spectrum.png


As you can see, although both exist on the left side of the Political Spectrum, they are vastly different on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis.

I understand what your are doing by attempting to group socialism in with communism.

Many on the far-right incorrectly associate President Obama with socialism, and you may be trying to further misinform people by attempting to associate socialism with communism.

It is apparent that you not have really studied the either type of government, as communism only really existed in theory, never really in practice. The evils you speak of, though called communism, were really not according to Marxist theory.

The Soviet model was more akin to state capitalists.

Anyway, I hope this all set you straight on some things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom