• 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
I don't think Stalin killed anyone, actually.



Why, of course not. It was all just a big misunderstanding.


source
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, literal translation Death by hunger) was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR, part of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933.[dubious – discuss] During the famine, which is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" and "famine-genocide in Ukraine",[1][2][3] millions of Ukrainians died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.[4]

Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.5[5] to 12 million [6][broken citation] ethnic Ukrainians were said to have been killed as a result of the famine. Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4[7] and 4 million[8][9] deaths inside Ukraine, and up to 5 million if about 1 million deaths in heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban are included.[10] The demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is said to be as high as 6 million.[8] The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary.[11]

source
The Great Purge was a series of campaigns of political repression and persecution in the Soviet Union orchestrated by Joseph Stalin in 1936–1938.[1][2] It involved a large-scale purge of the Communist Party and Government officials, repression of peasants, Red Army leadership, and the persecution of unaffiliated persons, characterized by widespread police surveillance, widespread suspicion of "saboteurs", imprisonment, and executions.[1] In Russian historiography the period of the most intense purge, 1937–1938, is called Yezhovshchina (Russian: Ежовщина; literally, the Yezhov regime), after Nikolai Yezhov, the head of the Soviet secret police, NKVD.......

.....According to Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 speech, "On the Personality Cult and its Consequences", and more recent findings, a great number of accusations, notably those presented at the Moscow show trials, were based on forced confessions, often obtained by torture,[4] and on loose interpretations of Article 58 of the RSFSR Penal Code, which dealt with counter-revolutionary crimes. Due legal process, as defined by Soviet law in force at the time, was often largely replaced with summary proceedings by NKVD troikas.[5]

Hundreds of thousands of victims were accused of various political crimes (espionage, wrecking, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, conspiracies to prepare uprisings and coups) and then executed by shooting, or sent to the Gulag labor camps. Many died at the penal labor camps due to starvation, disease, exposure, and overwork. Other methods of dispatching victims were used on an experimental basis. One secret policeman, for example, gassed people to death in batches in the back of a specially adapted airtight van.[6][7]

The Great Purge was started under the NKVD chief Genrikh Yagoda, but the height of the campaigns occurred while the NKVD was headed by Nikolai Yezhov, from September 1936 to August 1938, hence the name "Yezhovshchina". The campaigns were carried out according to the general line, and often by direct orders, of the Party Politburo headed by Stalin.......

source
.......In November 2010, the Russian State Duma approved a declaration blaming Stalin, amongst other officials, for having personally ordered the Katyn massacre.......[11]
 
It depends on what you qualify as "work." I agree that it's not the best for economic growth. However, for those who value income equality it does work. This being said, I do not support either ideology.

Well, by work I meant the absence of failure. For instance the collapse of the soviet union in spite of the fact they were awash in natual resources. The communist regime in china has adopted, capitalism, as an economic system. The north korean regime has probably come as close to income equality as any nation on earth, almost all of it's inhabitants are starving, equally, together, in a communist monarchy. I'd have to stand on the side of those who feel communism, as an economic model, is pretty much a non sequiter.
 
Well, by work I meant the absence of failure. For instance the collapse of the soviet union in spite of the fact they were awash in natual resources. The communist regime in china has adopted, capitalism, as an economic system. The north korean regime has probably come as close to income equality as any nation on earth, almost all of it's inhabitants are starving, equally, together, in a communist monarchy. I'd have to stand on the side of those who feel communism, as an economic model, is pretty much a non sequiter.

The Soviet Union collapsed due to the Cold War as well. North Korea is a dictatorship, they don't hold to the true principals of communism as they set their leader up to be a god where it's not about equal prosperity for all, but starvation for everyone while the government absorbs all the wealth. I'm not defending communism, I'm just saying that North Korea is not a good example.
 
The Soviet Union collapsed due to the Cold War as well.

What war? They couldn't produce and distribute goods and services despite having tons of natural resources. That's pretty much all marx had mind.

North Korea is a dictatorship, they don't hold to the true principals of communism as they set their leader up to be a god where it's not about equal prosperity for all, but starvation for everyone while the government absorbs all the wealth. I'm not defending communism, I'm just saying that North Korea is not a good example.

Au contraire, North korea is a communist monarchy. Here's how you can tell;
monarchy [ˈmɒnəkɪ]
n pl -chies
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a form of government in which supreme authority is vested in a single and usually hereditary figure, such as a king, and whose powers can vary from those of an absolute despot to those of a figurehead


Add to this the simple fact everyone has the same status, ie.... starving. and you have the only functioning example of marxism in the known universe.
 
Last edited:
What war? They couldn't produce and distribute goods and services despite having tons of natural resources. That's pretty much all marx had mind.
The Cold War...
Au contraire, North korea is a communist monarchy. Here's how you can tell;
The official government classification is a Jeuche Republic with a single party system. The country has a leader worship state religion and his policies are more dictatorial than they are communistic. If it was true communism you would see the government handing money out to the citizens, not taking it all while they starve. North Korea is not a proper depiction of communism. However, it is a good depiction of how there is still massive evils in this world.
Add to this the simple fact everyone has the same status, ie.... starving. and you have the only functioning example of marxism in the known universe.
China is also a single party communist nation. Right now it has a growing economy (which will burst as it is a bubble). Communism is not good for economic growth and economic freedom. However, communism in it's purest form uncorrupted by human nature is somewhat of a utopia where everyone has equal income and there is no poverty and hunger. This is unrealistic, but that's what pure communism is and desires to achieve.
 
What war? They couldn't produce and distribute goods and services despite having tons of natural resources. That's pretty much all marx had mind.



Au contraire, North korea is a communist monarchy. Here's how you can tell;


Add to this the simple fact everyone has the same status, ie.... starving. and you have the only functioning example of marxism in the known universe.

Communist dictatorship, not communist monarchy.
 
The Cold War...

The official government classification is a Jeuche Republic with a single party system. The country has a leader worship state religion and his policies are more dictatorial than they are communistic. If it was true communism you would see the government handing money out to the citizens, not taking it all while they starve. North Korea is not a proper depiction of communism. However, it is a good depiction of how there is still massive evils in this world.

A pattern repeated throughout the communist world.



China is also a single party communist nation. Right now it has a growing economy (which will burst as it is a bubble). Communism is not good for economic growth and economic freedom. However, communism in it's purest form uncorrupted by human nature is somewhat of a utopia where everyone has equal income and there is no poverty and hunger. This is unrealistic, but that's what pure communism is and desires to achieve.


I get it, communism is fine, it's people that are the problem. That kinda' limits is applicability on a planet peopled by, well people, doesn't it.
 
It's been about 20 years since I read it, but I recall Russell Kirk's definition of the term, ideology. I always think of it when I hear the word used, and I try to use it accordingly.

'"Ideology does not mean political theory or principle, even though many journalists and some professors commonly employ the term in that sense. Ideology really means political fanaticism- and more precisely, the belief that this world of ours may be converted into the Terrestrial Paradise through the operation of positive law and positive planning. The ideologue- Communist or Nazi or of whatever affiliation- maintains that human nature and society may be perfected by mundane, secular means, though these means ordinarily involve violent social revolution. The ideologue immanentizes religious symbols and inverts religious doctrines."
- Russell Kirk Enemies of the Permanent Things

If we accept that definiton, which to my mind describes communism and modern liberalism beautifully, then yes. Ideology = badness.

Maybe the term political values might be a better descriptor of what most people mean when they say ideology.
 
Last edited:
It's been about 20 years since I read it, but I recall Russell Kirk's definition of the term, ideology. I always think of it when I hear the word used, and I try to use it accordingly.



If we accept that definiton, which to my mind describes communism and modern liberalism beautifully, then yes. Ideology = badness.

Maybe the term political values might be a better descriptor of what most people mean when they say ideology.

I prefer the term political values.
 
It's been about 20 years since I read it, but I recall Russell Kirk's definition of the term, ideology. I always think of it when I hear the word used, and I try to use it accordingly.

That's a terrible definition. Everyone is ideological, an idealogue. An ideology is simply a world view constructed from experience and action as an agent of history.
 
That's a terrible definition. Everyone is ideological, an idealogue. An ideology is simply a world view constructed from experience and action as an agent of history.

That's what it has come to mean, yes, but I think it is important to consider what the term denoted when it was coined in the 19th century, considering the political movements that adhered to it and the bloody dictators that arose from them.

Reading up on it again, I just came across a quote from John Adams, who defined ideology as "the science of idiocy."
 
I prefer the term political values.

I do too, for our purposes here especially. I don't consider myself a political theorist, as Kirk was, but like anyone else who is paying attention, I do have political values.
 
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.

This coming from a guy who asked if genocide would be acceptable under certain conditions.
 
I am assuming this post is a joke.

Apparently you are unaware of; national socialists, communists, monarchies, and starbucks franchise owners.

Your attempted insult has no relevence to what it is in reply to.

Nope, that would be mesopotamia.

Well good on you to have discovered that the earliest democracies came from the Iran/Iraq regions. Showing off your knowledge on this does not change the reality that the US is the first dominant power which is global and which speaks the language of democracy.


Ummmm, they don't like it. They like tanks.


256-tiananmen-square.jpg

Tienanmen Square is some time ago now. I am sorry you have no more recent idea of how things are in China which has changed enormously since this time. For many years they have been quieting the masses with talks that they are thinking over the best form of democracy. I understand they have come up with a concept called 'people's democracy' which I have not read but which has raised a few eyebrows.

It looks more likely that instead of democracy they will continue as they did at Tienanmen Square and as they still do now. Ending protests with the police or army. The point was that it might do well to consider how a dominant world power with this frame of reference would influence the world.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you that National Socialism and Communism have been tabooed, and that if run by a moral person, they wouldn't as bad as we stereotype them to be. But the question that, "Can a ideology be bad?" Absolutely it can. Nazism is a terrible ideology, so Stalinism and Moaism. Imperialism and other things are terrible things.

But Stalinism and Moaism are the logical conclusion of a communist system. History has shown us that when a government of society have absolute power over there people sooner or later they commit crimes against humanity. These system of rule will never work because of one thing... Human nature.

Were the people of Russia better off after the Czars were overthrown or were they better off after the U.S.S.R collapse? Was Germany better off with the Nazis in power? Was Italy better off with Fascism? Were the citizens of South Vietnam better off after the North conquered them? Were the Chinese better off after they become communist ( ask the students at Tiananmen Square)? Any system of rule that gives the Rulers absoulete power will eventual turn into some form Nazism, Stalinism, Moaism and etc.

So in conclusion National Socialism and Communism are inherently bad. They deprive there citizens there rights and freedom. Make the people dependent on the government when it should be the other way around.


Absolute power corrupts Absolutely my Communist Canadian friend.
 
I am assuming this post is a joke.

If you don't understand it, I cannot explain it.



Your attempted insult has no relevence to what it is in reply to.

What insult?

Well good on you to have discovered that the earliest democracies came from the Iran/Iraq regions. Showing off your knowledge on this does not change the reality that the US is the first dominant power which is global and which speaks the language of democracy.
You haven't heard of the british empire? I find that....odd.

map27.gif




Tienanmen Square is some time ago now. I am sorry you have no more recent idea of how things are in China which has changed enormously since this time. For many years they have been quieting the masses with talks that they are thinking over the best form of democracy. I understand they have come up with a concept called 'people's democracy' which I have not read but which has raised a few eyebrows.

Why is it whenever people say things like this I get the feeling I have boots older than they are?

At any rate they are not, in point of fact, "quieting the masses."
source
Social unrest is on the rise in China, according to an analysis by a Chinese think-tank.

The country is grappling with more acute social problems than ever before, according to a report from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Crime is also up, despite a nationwide campaign to shore up social stability.

Although continued economic growth has provided a greater number of jobs, China has seen more social conflict in 2009 than before.

The report on China's social trends sounds a stark warning to policy makers.

The authors believe deep resentment has been accumulating over the past few decades against unfairness and power abuses by government officials at various levels.

They quote six large-scale popular protests - from taxi strikes to unrest in central China in June - involving tens of thousands of people.

This does not include the rioting in the north-western region of Xinjiang, where nearly 200 people were killed in early July........




It looks more likely that instead of democracy they will continue as they did at Tienanmen Square and as they still do now. Ending protests with the police or army. The point was that it might do well to consider how a dominant world power with this frame of reference would influence the world.

If the 20th century is anything to go by, they will affect it..........badly.
 
Last edited:
But Stalinism and Moaism are the logical conclusion of a communist system.

Lol, the logical conclusion. :lol:

Were the people of Russia better off after the Czars were overthrown or were they better off after the U.S.S.R collapse?

Actually, for some time they were better off after the Tsar was overthrown. And they were better off before the collapse of the USSR, just look at any standard of living index for that time period.
 
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? What happens when you run out of each others money? :roll:
 
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? What happens when you run out of each others money? :roll:
The more the individual contributes to the group, the more the group has to distribute among it's members. If someone is partaking of what the group has without offering anything or too little, they need to be asked to leave that group.
 
The more the individual contributes to the group, the more the group has to distribute among it's members. If someone is partaking of what the group has without offering anything or too little, they need to be asked to leave that group.

It doesn't work that way. Shortages and overall standards of living drop so dramatically that communal living arrangements (even large-scale national ones like the USSR and China) end up enacting laws that prohibit the emigration of individuals out of the commune. Individuals generally wish to flee communal-type arrangements because the benefits are extremely meager in contrast to the opportunity that lies elsewhere. If everyone is suppose to work hard for the benefit of the colony, very few actually work to their potential. So, to demand that all "lazy" individuals leave the commune would likely see the majority of individuals leave voluntarily. Hence, the trend among many socialist countries to prohibit emigration. The first individuals to leave such a situation, in most cases, are the wealthy and the educated. The result is a massive brain drain and the disappearance of many wealthy patrons who otherwise could afford to pay taxes that others simply could not.
 
The more the individual contributes to the group, the more the group has to distribute among it's members. If someone is partaking of what the group has without offering anything or too little, they need to be asked to leave that group.
Relying on other to help acquire your basic necessitation of life, sounds like a really good plan.....apparently you trust the majority of people you know...I know ill stick to relying on my hard work ethic. And if you keep booting people from the group eventually you'll have nothing left, or a few members left with all the resources, then you're back to the capitalist like principles, and you obviously don't want that now do ya?
 
It doesn't work that way. Shortages and overall standards of living drop so dramatically that communal living arrangements (even large-scale national ones like the USSR and China) end up enacting laws that prohibit the emigration of individuals out of the commune. Individuals generally wish to flee communal-type arrangements because the benefits are extremely meager in contrast to the opportunity that lies elsewhere. If everyone is suppose to work hard for the benefit of the colony, very few actually work to their potential. So, to demand that all "lazy" individuals leave the commune would likely see the majority of individuals leave voluntarily. Hence, the trend among many socialist countries to prohibit emigration. The first individuals to leave such a situation, in most cases, are the wealthy and the educated. The result is a massive brain drain and the disappearance of many wealthy patrons who otherwise could afford to pay taxes that others simply could not.
If a commune cannot adequately provide for itself, then it dies. Is this such a radical notion?

Relying on other to help acquire your basic necessitation of life, sounds like a really good plan.....apparently you trust the majority of people you know...I know ill stick to relying on my hard work ethic.
If you work together, you can have more. Working for yourself means you'll work harder for less.

And if you keep booting people from the group eventually you'll have nothing left, or a few members left with all the resources, then you're back to the capitalist like principles, and you obviously don't want that now do ya?
Not true. Not everyone in the world is a lazy slob.
 
It is bad. It can be created with all the best intents in the world. But in the end, the people are not free and never were.
 
If you work together, you can have more. Working for yourself means you'll work harder for less.
Not true. Not everyone in the world is a lazy slob.
Working for yourself means you'll work harder for less? What society do you live in...tell that to Bill Gates.

And it is true, comparing it to what he said....and I never said that, don't put words in my mouth.
 
Working for yourself means you'll work harder for less? What society do you live in...tell that to Bill Gates.
There are FAR more people killing themselves for pennies every day in the world than there are Bill Gates'
 
Back
Top Bottom