• 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
Obviously, I side with the person who can understand a simple definition. So in this case, it would be TheDemSocialist.

I lost all respect for you know.

Instead of coming with "I am right, because I said so statement". Tell me where it says that democratic controlled workplaces are a requirement in that definiton?
 
You do realize that decentralization is not a requirement for socialism?

You do realize that such a system would probably end up in anarchy? Because why should you be able to work without a state when there hasn't been any functioning country without a state.

No duh its not.
How would it end up in anarchy? We have decentralization with capitalism is that anarchy?
How would this be bad? Have the workers have a say in the workplace? How would this end up in "anarchy"?
Uhhh there would be a state.... Where did you even get the idea there would be no state?
 
I lost all respect for you know.

Instead of coming with "I am right, because I said so statement". Tell me where it says that democratic controlled workplaces are a requirement in that definiton?


It does not... Because socialism is a broad ideology...
There are many forms of socialism...
 
I lost all respect for you know.

Often a hallmark is a good argument :mrgreen:

Instead of coming with "I am right, because I said so statement". Tell me where it says that democratic controlled workplaces are a requirement in that definiton?

Well, all I can say at this point is, if you can't understand the words you posted, you probably should not have posted them. Disagreeing with my logic is one thing, but failure to understand it at all, is another.
 
Ah yes...
Love it when i hear that talking point "communism killed people, and socialism is just like communism...

Communism didn't kill anyone, people killed people...

If we use stalin as an example (a mass murdering, paranoid physchopath) who wasn't a true communist and neither was his country... Then communism really wasn't the problem. Communism doesn't direct people to be killed nessecarily unless one counts that violent overthrow of those pesky rich people.

But i don't remember any direction in the communist manifesto to create a cult of personality around yourself, purposefully starve a country (Ukraine) and execute or transport to the gulags a sizable chunk of your population....
 
No duh its not.
So decentralization is a requirement or not?

How would it end up in anarchy? We have decentralization with capitalism is that anarchy?
No, we don't. Federal and state government has most of the governmental power in the US. Even local government cover a lot of people and they got limited power.

How would this be bad? Have the workers have a say in the workplace? How would this end up in "anarchy"?
Uhhh there would be a state.... Where did you even get the idea there would be no state?
You said that it is wrong that in socialism the means of production is mostly owned by the state. But if there is a state, and means of production is controlled by the local government. Then it is controlled by the state.

You know that local governments are part of the state?
 
Last edited:
It does not... Because socialism is a broad ideology...
There are many forms of socialism...
So how come you wrote that only one type os socialism is the correct one? One that has never existed in practice?
 
Last edited:
Often a hallmark is a good argument :mrgreen:

Well, all I can say at this point is, if you can't understand the words you posted, you probably should not have posted them. Disagreeing with my logic is one thing, but failure to understand it at all, is another.
You are the one who are wrong in this case. It is easy to see, because you are the one who stopped explaining your opinion and decided to flame me instead. That's why I lost all respect for you.

Tell me where it says that democratic controlled workplaces are a requirement in that definiton?
 
You are the one who are wrong in this case. It is easy to see, because you are the one who stopped explaining your opinion and decided to flame me instead. That's why I lost all respect for you.

Tell me where it says that democratic controlled workplaces are a requirement in that definiton?

At some point, you expect a grown up person to be able to do basic tasks and do not feel the need to teach them basic concepts. I have shown you where you logic breaks down, if you disagree, so be it, if you lose respect for me because you can't understand your own proof, then it says more about you than about me. :shrug:

However, you ask the wrong question, please show me where I said it was a requirement. I was merely stating that government does not have to be involved.

I have shown that your flaw is that you seem to want to bring the state into it. My point was not that the inverse of your point was true, only that you were wrong.
 
Last edited:
At some point, you expect a grown up person to be able to do basic tasks and do not feel the need to teach them basic concepts.
I am going to report you if you keep acting like a jerk. Understand?

However, you ask the wrong question, please show me where I said it was a requirement. I was merely stating that government does not have to be involved.
You said it here http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...sm-condemned-like-nazim-8.html#post1059493174

And from this post that I wrote, it should be pretty clear that government doesn't have to be involved. But in practice it is.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...sm-condemned-like-nazim-7.html#post1059493152

I have shown that your flaw is that you seem to want to bring the state into it. My statement was one of "thats not the only definition" while you wanted to say it was.
Liar.

Please read your own posts, and read mine as well.
 
I am going to report you if you keep acting like a jerk. Understand?

Feel free, I am sorry that you do not understand this basic definition. If stating a fact is being a jerk, then so be it. I disagree, but :shrug:


And this was DemSocialist's point ...

It does not... Because socialism is a broad ideology...
There are many forms of socialism...

Which was my point, however, he is also not arguing for the inverse here.

And from this post that I wrote, it should be pretty clear that government doesn't have to be involved. But in practice it is.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...sm-condemned-like-nazim-7.html#post1059493152

Would this be one of those "because I said so posts", you are complaining about? Looks like it to me.

Liar.

Please read your own posts, and read mine as well.

Again, I have shown you your logical error. Especially given what you have quoted does not support your conclusions.
 
Last edited:
BTW who is Nazim and why should we condemn him?

Its a mayor from Pakistan.

Nazim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Those mayors are bad people ...

They have creepy stares

nazim_med.jpg
 
Last edited:
Feel free, I am sorry that you cannot argue in an effective manner.
You are a jerk! And no, I'm not reporting you because I can't argue against your lies and your weak points. I'm reporting you because you flame me, which is against the forum rules.

"And this was DemSocialist's point ...
"It does not... Because socialism is a broad ideology...
There are many forms of socialism..."
Another lie. This post was created long time after you said you agreed with his point. Lets look at what he really wrote.
"Wrong. Socialism is where the workplace is democratically owned and controlled by the workers. Where the workplace is owned in a co-op fashion."

I came with the definition of socialism from Wikipedia.

I asked you, No, but the definition doesn't have workplace in it either. Who did you side with?

And you answered
Obviously, I side with the person who can understand a simple definition. So in this case, it would be TheDemSocialist.


Would this be one of those "because I said so posts", you are complaining about? Looks like it to me.
No in this post I show who you really are, a liar.

I said clearly in that post, We don't necessarily need a government in socialism, but in practice socialism tend to have a big government. Still, here you are pretending like you argued for my point and I argued for something else.


Again, I have shown you your logical error.
The only thing you have shown is that you are a jerk and a liar.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so now I am a liar because I don't agree with you and have supported my arguments while you have not? Of course me showing support for my argument falsifies any claim you have that I lied.

This is not a good debate technique.

In the end, my argument is logically supported and yours is not, even what you linked to proves my case.

So in the end, my point still stands.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so now I am a liar because I don't agree with you and have supported my arguments while you have not? Of course me showing support for my argument falsifies any claim you have that I lied.

This is not a good debate technique.

In the end, my argument is logically supported and yours is not, even what you linked to proves my case.

So in the end, my point still stands.
No, you are a liar because you said that I think there is only one type of socialism.

You are a liar because you quoted TheDemSocialist last posts instead of posting the post you stated that you agree with. '

You are a liar because you pretend like your point was "I was merely stating that government does not have to be involved." When in fact you said you agreed with this point. "Wrong. Socialism is where the workplace is democratically owned and controlled by the workers. Where the workplace is owned in a co-op fashion."
 
No, you are a liar because you said that I think there is only one type of socialism.

You are a liar because you quoted TheDemSocialist last posts instead of posting the post you stated that you agree with. '

You are a liar because you pretend like your point was "I was merely stating that government does not have to be involved." When in fact you said you agreed with this point. "Wrong. Socialism is where the workplace is democratically owned and controlled by the workers. Where the workplace is owned in a co-op fashion."

Lets review DemSocialist's post shall we?

Wrong. Socialism is where the workplace is democratically owned and controlled by the workers. Where the workplace is owned in a co-op fashion.
It has nothing to do with the "government regulating your life"

The phrase "democratically owned and controlled by the workers" can have multiple definitions.

We could have traditionally understood socialism, which is the point view that you are arguing from. (so yes, in that sense, you are saying there is only one form of socialism), however because the people own the government (by it being an extension of our will in a just society), if the government owns a business, we own that business as if it were a subsidiary.

There is syndicalism, which is not government based

There is industrial democracy

Here you go, three definitions of socialism (there are more types too you can read about it here). Two of those three forms do not require government mediate ownership, however, it still falls within the definition that you posted and still supports Dem's post.

So yes, you did not understand your own definition because you put attributes into it that it did not contain on its own, by making assumptions into what form of socialism we were talking about.

Now we can continue to post logically like this, or we can throw our hands up and call people a liar.
 
Last edited:
The phrase "democratically owned and controlled by the workers" can have multiple definitions.

We could have traditionally understood socialism, which is the point view that you are arguing from. (so yes, in that sense, you are saying there is only one form of socialism)
No, we can't. In the view I'm talking about there are two types. One democratic and one that is not.

In the democratic one it is still possible that they don't own their own workplaces, but that the state owns it. In a state, every single worker owns a little part of the state and can influence the state. However, the workers at the workplace have no ownership over their own workplaces, they just own a little piece of the state. And the workplaces they work at are certainly not democratic because the government can force the workplace to something they wouldn't do democratically.

In the undemocratic one, the workers can't say anything. This is also the most common one.
 
Last edited:
No, we can't. In the view I'm talking about there are two types. One democratic and one that is not.

In the democratic one it is still possible that they don't own their own workplaces, but that the state owns it. In a state, every single worker owns a little part of the state and can influence the state. However, the workers at the workplace have no ownership over their own workplaces, they just own a little piece of the state. And the workplaces they work at are certainly not democratic because the government can force the workplace to something they wouldn't do democratically.

In the undemocratic one, the workers can't say anything. This is also the most common one.

Then you should use a more accurate view, I have given you a link to the different types of socialism
 
Then you should use a more accurate view, I have given you a link to the different types of socialism

In fact your own link disagrees with you here.
"This form of socialism combines public ownership and management of the means of production with centralized state planning, and can refer to a broad range of economic systems from the centralized Soviet-style command economy to participatory planning via workplace democracy."
Hence, yes I can divide the type of socialism I talked about into subdivisions. Also, read this again

from the centralized Soviet-style command economy to participatory planning via workplace democracy

TheDemSocialist and you said that all types of socialism have workplace democracy.
 
In fact your own link disagrees with you here.

Hence, yes I can divide the type of socialism I talked about into subdivisions. Also, read this again

from the centralized Soviet-style command economy to participatory planning via workplace democracy

TheDemSocialist and you said that all types of socialism have workplace democracy.

The section you are drawing that from is from the economic aspect of it, which I have already covered, it can be through local control or through the state or somewhere in between. (as your quote states)

If you continue on with that paragraph, you get this quote

This type of economic system was often combined with a single-party political system, and is thus associated with the Communist states of the 20th century.

communism != socialism.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism;
 
The section you are drawing that from is from the economic aspect of it, which I have already covered, it can be through local control or through the state or somewhere in between. (as your quote states)
You did "cover" it, but I imediatly refuted your point. To be able to vote in natilnal elections (which in many cases you are not) is not enough to have workplace democracy. Workplace democracy is when workers of the company can decide the company's future.


If you continue on with that paragraph, you get this quote

This type of economic system was often combined with a single-party political system, and is thus associated with the Communist states of the 20th century.

communism != socialism.
All "communist" states have been socialist states if you follow the proper definition. In fact a communist state has never existed because you can not have a government and a communist state. Communism is a stateless society.

And I think your argument is pretty weak as they clearly say this is a form of socialism.
"This form of socialism combines public ownership and management of the means of production with centralized state planning, and can refer to a broad range of economic systems from the centralized Soviet-style command economy to participatory planning via workplace democracy."
 
Is not a concept good in theory, yet consecutively failed in application... not a good theory? Millions of deaths could be considered a failure.
 
Last edited:
You did "cover" it, but I imediatly refuted your point. To be able to vote in natilnal elections (which in many cases you are not) is not enough to have workplace democracy. Workplace democracy is when workers of the company can decide the company's future.

All "communist" states have been socialist states if you follow the proper definition. In fact a communist state has never existed because you can not have a government and a communist state. Communism is a stateless society.

And I think your argument is pretty weak as they clearly say this is a form of socialism.
"This form of socialism combines public ownership and management of the means of production with centralized state planning, and can refer to a broad range of economic systems from the centralized Soviet-style command economy to participatory planning via workplace democracy."

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"
 
Is not a concept good in theory, yet consecutively failed in application... not a good theory? Millions of deaths could be considered a failure.

This is correct, communism is not a desirable government and it has been shown not to work, however words do have meaning. We should not simply redefine willy nilly.

In terms of socialism, we have examples where it worked well (canada) and examples where it did not work well (venezuela)
 
Back
Top Bottom