• 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
Stalin was a monster (also State Capitalist, but that's another story). All the travesties that has taken the place under the banner of communism where done by people who were evil regardless of what they said their political ideology were.

Hitler was a monster. All the travesties that has taken the place under the banner of fascism where done by people who were evil regardless of what they said their political ideology were.
6 of one half a dozen of the other
 
Stalin was a monster (also State Capitalist, but that's another story). All the travesties that has taken the place under the banner of communism where done by people who were evil regardless of what they said their political ideology were.

Hitler was a monster. All the travesties that has taken the place under the banner of fascism where done by people who were evil regardless of what they said their political ideology were.
6 of one half a dozen of the other

I wasn't aware there was an objective basis for "evil." Also wasn't aware that there was a reason for it to be avoided, either.
 
Communism is not dead, I wish it were. We are sending our dollars to a Communist country every day and moving towards a situation where we are are surpassed by a Communist country as the largest economy in the world.
I said "it is pretty much dead". Communist China will fall too because people don't like oppressive regimes. They tried back at Tiananmen Square... the sequel is going to happen somewhere in China.

Socialism doesn't work, but then again, capitalism doesn't work either.
Capitalism works and a reason why it works is because of philanthropy. Strong families. A sense of community. This dies when socialism rears its perverted head. Socialism is the road to barbarianism. It is anti-social. It requires coercion and force. People resent it.
A sustainable balance can work, but that's not easy. Social Security is a very good example. It was thought to be a good idea at the time, and logically, it did not seem impossible to fund it in perpetuity, but you're right, they missed the demographic equation.
It more than missed the demographic equation.

I am sure you would agree that this is a great reason why people's retirement savings should be paid for with their own money. That way it doesn't matter how large the population, or the altering ratios of retirees to workers.
100% on the money. Personal responsibility. What government intrusion into this has done has not only killed personal responsibility, but has people looking to government to not only manage their lives but to act as a machine to thieve wealth from others... for their benefit. That's sick... and that sickness is rampant. And Obama... he is the epitome of that perverted culture.
 
Call them what you would like. I think evil fits quite well.
 
I said "it is pretty much dead". China will fall too.


Capitalism works and a reason why it works is because of philanthropy. Strong families. A sense of community. This dies when socialism rears its perverted head. Socialism is the road to barbarianism. It is anti-social. It requires coercion and force. People resent it.

It more than missed the demographic equation.


100% on the money. Personal responsibility. What government intrusion into this has done has not only killed personal responsibility, but has people looking to government to not only manage their lives but to act as a machine to thieve wealth from others... for their benefit. That's sick... and that sickness is rampant. And Obama... he is the epitome of that perverted culture.

Capitalism works because of philanthropy, families, and a sense of community? You know we have the second highest rate of child poverty compared to other industrialized powers? Horrid healthcare system? One in seven children living in a food insecure homes? Millions of people homeless while there are roughly 5 million empty and vacant homes? Millions of people out of work with roughly 1/5th of our productive capacities idle because it is deemed unprofitable? Two major economic downturns within the last 25 years with 11 recessions between them? Huge inequality between the rich and the poor (CEO to worker pay is up to around 403 percent last I checked)? Corporate profits the highest percent of GDP in its history while worker wages is the lowest in its history (3q last year). I could go on and on.

We are an increasingly atomized and selfish people. How one can say otherwise is beyond me. Also, your view of socialism is quite wrong. It is the opposite of how you characterize it. Socialism isn't the USSR, China, or the like. That is heavily controlled state capitalist.
 
100% on the money. Personal responsibility. What government intrusion into this has done has not only killed personal responsibility, but has people looking to government to not only manage their lives but to act as a machine to thieve wealth from others... for their benefit. That's sick... and that sickness is rampant. And Obama... he is the epitome of that perverted culture.

I don't think government intrusion is the problem, I just think it is methodology. There was a serious problem with poverty among the elderly, the nation wanted to do something about it. They needed to pay out current seniors who had not paid in. They should have done this in a phased approach, paying out the contemporaneous poor seniors on a needs basis, and set up a system for people to fund their accounts over time.

I would also argue that there is nothing perverted or even new in our people, but that the problem is the shift in our economy from a balance between labor and capital that has heavily favored capital. Capitalism is the engine of our economy, but an engine can be debilitated by too much fuel. We complain about current tax rates and ignore the past when they were much more progressive and much higher. Our economy is based on consumer spending (about 70%), when the policies change in such a way that new money goes into fewer and fewer hands, the results expected are exactly what we are seeing now. We missed a lot of what was going on during the first part of this decade because consumption was fueled by debt backed up by home values. When that house of cards fell it exposed the reality of our economy, consumers had far less disposable income than previously. We have since seen capital try to make up for this by selling products for less by producing them for less. But to do this, they hve outsourced production, killing more American jobs and putting greater downward pressure on incomes.

A sustainable economy should function by one simple edict, take a little, leave a little, but don't break up the game.

Our policies over the last 30 years put us on a path to break up the game. Through most of the last century wealth was concentrated at a level of about 22% of all private assets in the hands of 1% of capitalists. And it remained in that vicinity for most of the century. With the policies beginning in the 80's, this changed, pushing a greater and greater share of the wealth into fewer and fewer hands to the point where over 40% of all wealth is in the hands of 1%.

Where do you think this train goes?

We're not Czarist Russia, but if we are heading in that direction, what do you suppose will happen? Do you believe that continuing this path of wealth concentration is sustainable?

I don't come at this from a perspective of a desire to see wealth equality or to stick it to the rich. I come at this as a patriot who would like to see America work for Americans they way it had in the past in a sustainable way. Capitalism is not a form of goverment, it is an economic system, and it cannot function in the absence of a political system. But that political system will create the construct, the playing field, if you will, for the capitalist system. The system cannot be fair, it is built by the haves for the benefit of the haves, BUT, and this is key, the haves need to have a long term view of how they put policies in place. if they are consumed by the short term view, they will take as much as they can as soon as they can, and they will break the system. Rich people don't make policies thaat are good for workers because they love workers, they make policies that are good for workers because ultimately, the workers have the power to take everything they have. When FDR began instituting labor favoring policies, it wasn't out of a desire to be socialist, it was out of a necessity to avoid revolution.

We need balance.

Obama is FAR from being socialist, in fact, the policies he favors could save capitalism from itself.
 
Straight white male, so... Commies. Commies always kill the intellectuals. I'm not saying the learned had it easy under the Nazis, but at least we had a chance.

If "worse for me" includes my suffering resulting from the persecution of others, then Nazis.

Completely silly and lfalse.
Communism's problem was repression, that would result in death..
Interesting in that, by and large, that communism had to be forced, while Nazism was embraced...even in our nation, by far too many..
For me, anyway, better red than dead...
 
Completely silly and lfalse.
Communism's problem was repression, that would result in death..
Interesting in that, by and large, that communism had to be forced, while Nazism was embraced...even in our nation, by far too many..
For me, anyway, better red than dead...


I too am surprised at how most have picked Nazism as the worst. Granted they killed 6 million during the Holocaust and Hitler wasn’t a very nice guy to go along with all his cronies. But you are right, most of the German people embraced Nazism as it lead them out of the mess Weimar and reparations had caused. Communism as you correctly stated was forced on others. Stalin had approximately 20 million of his own people killed. Linen before him killed a bunch and who knows about Khruchev and the others who followed. Pol Pot, the commie Khmer Rouge killed 3 million of his own people out of a country at that time of 7 million people. The East Germans were repressive and who knows how many they killed. North Korea, Cuba, China, and more had communism forced on them at the point of a gun. This isn’t counting all those Eastern Block European Countries.

Yes, indeed I find the choice of Nazism surprising. But for the most the atrocities of Communism have been hid fairly well by those doing the butchering. Nazism was out there for all to see and no one after the war in Vietnam cared one iota about 3 million Cambodians.
 
Completely silly and lfalse.
Communism's problem was repression, that would result in death..
Interesting in that, by and large, that communism had to be forced, while Nazism was embraced...even in our nation, by far too many..
For me, anyway, better red than dead...


First, Hitler never had more than ~32%, then he seized power. Second, commies always kill the intellectuals. I don't care if you believe that, history says so very clearly.

Better fail than dead? That's a nice philo, but not for me.
 
But you are right, most of the German people embraced Nazism as it lead them out of the mess Weimar and reparations had caused.

No, he's wrong. And even with the paltry 30% that Hitler managed to muscle, steal and buy, the vast majority of those did not know what they were getting into.
 
Nazism was out there for all to see and no one after the war in Vietnam cared one iota about 3 million Cambodians.

What are you referring to, Pol Pot?
 
No, he's wrong. And even with the paltry 30% that Hitler managed to muscle, steal and buy, the vast majority of those did not know what they were getting into.

When you have 15 or more political parties running in an election, 34% is actually quite good. In fact Hitlers party captured 230 out of 538 Reichstags seats. Most people look upon these results like it is a two party system, it wasn't.
 
When you have 15 or more political parties running in an election, 34% is actually quite good. In fact Hitlers party captured 230 out of 538 Reichstags seats. Most people look upon these results like it is a two party system, it wasn't.

I'm sorry, but that does not support the statement that "most Germans supported Nazism".

1. 30% is not most
2. Of those 30%, most had no idea what they were getting into.
 
I'm sorry, but that does not support the statement that "most Germans supported Nazism".

1. 30% is not most
2. Of those 30%, most had no idea what they were getting into.

Have it your way, I think we are getting into semantics. But from the time Hitler became Chancellor through the middle part of WWII, most Germans backed him. They, most Germans were far better off under him than during Weimar. Granted Hiter had a huge propaganda machine and probably brain washed most of those who didn't directly back him from the beginning. In a way it is like us, when the economy is booming, which the German economy took off under Hitler, he became and who ever is our president becomes very popular. Approval ratings shoot up through the roof.

C-Span showed a very good panel discussion a couple of years ago, titled: Could a Hitler arise in the United States. Most on the panel thought it was very possible. After all, most Republicans and Democrats will wait and see where their party stands on an issue before the average Joe makes up their mind about it. When we elect a president, we really have no idea where he will lead us or what pitfalls lie ahead or how he will handle them. If a Hitler ran as the nominee of one of our two major parties, this would be the 1932 Hitler or before where no German outside of his closely knit circle knew what he was all about. I would wage 90% of which ever party's faithful he ran on would vote for him.
 
Have it your way, I think we are getting into semantics.

I think the statement "most Germans supported the Nazis" is dishonest and apologetic. Hitler seized power with ~1/3, most of whom had no idea what was going on. Perhaps, and this is being generous, 5% of the population supported Nazism as it would become. Additionally, I think it's slander of German people. You're turning ~5% into "most Germans".

In summary, I find the statement intellectually dishonest, mathematically wrong, apologetic of Nazism (by inflating its support wildly) and slanderous to Germans (who get painted as monsters).

Bad sauce.
 
I think the statement "most Germans supported the Nazis" is dishonest and apologetic. Hitler seized power with ~1/3, most of whom had no idea what was going on. Perhaps, and this is being generous, 5% of the population supported Nazism as it would become.

Additionally, I think it's slander of German people. You're turning ~5% into "most Germans".

Okay, I'm sorry it bothers you so much. But history is history. If you do not think Hitler had the support of 2/3rd of the German people by 1938 or the beginning of 1939 as a leader who has made their lives that much better. IMO I think you would be mistaken. There is no way to prove what his approval rating was in 38 or 39, but I would consider it quite high.

On the other hand, do I think most of the German People knew what he was doing to the Jews and the rest? That is more problematic. Most surely knew they were being rounded up, but here again is that term most. Most at one time or another either seen them rounded up or heard about it from others. Do I blame the Germans for following Hitler, no. It is like us following and approving of one of our political leaders and to most, that term again, he was nothing more than a political leader.
 
You're mangling history with intellectual dishonesty to glorify the Nazis. Hitler seized power with ~5% (probably less than 1%) of the population actually agreeing with Nazism as it would become.
 
Nazis. Hell bent on world domination, a genetic code, supremacy, hatred of organized anything, and always up for corportocracy.

Communists in my opinion are not all bad people. Stalinists are without a doubt. There are many well respected communists and communist regimes from the past. I do not see the Stalinist regimes of the old eastern bloc as respected or even communist. Im talking about Tito, Paris Commune, many intellectual communists from Western Europe, many "communist" struggles in Latin America such as the Sandanistas, in Africa such as the MPLA, or with the South African Communist Party fighting segregation and apartheid. I dont view communism with a lower "c" as a bad movement. I do hold "C"ommunism such as the old communist states of the Easetern bloc as a problem and not even communism, i hold them as using the popular movements that brought them to power then using the party as a tool for purley power and all things Marx spoke out against.
 
Communists, because they believe socialism can only be achieved by globalism. The ultimate goal of communism is to destroy nations. I'm a socialist, but I'm a NATIONAL socialist, not an international one. I actually would have supported the pre-1930 National Socialist German Workers Party, which was not just socialist in name, had I lived in Germany at that time.
 
Communists, because they believe socialism can only be achieved by globalism. The ultimate goal of communism is to destroy nations. I'm a socialist, but I'm a NATIONAL socialist, not an international one. I actually would have supported the pre-1930 National Socialist German Workers Party, which was not just socialist in name, had I lived in Germany at that time.

say something new
 
I have new stuff, site specific (dissertation).
 
How is either one worse than the other?

Hundreds of millions of corpses fertilize the earth between Berlin and Cambodia because both kinds of social engineering tried to impliment the "perfect" system with imperfect people. Flirting between which is less evil than the other is foolish. As Ralph Peters say's, "we shouldn't kill the dreamers, but we should damn well kill their dreams." The lesson of the twentieth century was that imperfect people deserve and need an imperfect system, which is democracy and a controlled capitalism.

People who voted for either as being worse are ignorant. When questioning what's wrong with the world these days....look in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom