• 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
ALFONS:

The Soviet model was more akin to state capitalists.

I agree with you on a lot of points, apart from this one.

This is bull****, and is just socialists trying to shift the blame of something they did on someone else.

The soviet model was a Marxism–Leninism socialist model.
 
The soviet model was a Marxism–Leninism socialist model.

What is "the Soviet model" and how is it "Marxist-Leninist"?

BTW another good point I always like to bring up in these threads yet forget is that the "communism has killed hundreds of millions of people and always does" argument doesn't really hold any water, as evidenced by many of the Eastern Bloc countries. I wonder how many here that make the claim (Wake and Alfons in this thread) know about former Jugoslavia under Tito and how he was quite a good friend of many western capitalist countries, the US included? China and the USSR are always mentioned, if they're really digging they'll mention Pol Pot, yet these states are never mentioned. I wonder why...

Of course, this argument is presuming that the non-definition used by these cold war dinosaurs is accurate, which it isn't.

Tito sought to improve life. Unlike others who rose to power on the communist wave after World War II, Tito did not long demand that his people suffer for a distant vision of a better life. After an initial Soviet-influenced bleak period, Tito moved toward radical improvement of life in the country. Yugoslavia gradually became a bright spot amid the general grayness of Eastern Europe.
—The New York Times, May 5, 1980
 
Last edited:
I've never been harmed by nazim or socizm or comizm. The correct political socio-economic system will always be determined by the will of the people. Often, however, that determination is too late for more than a few.
 
Last edited:
I'd forgot to add that I was in the military, which was very close to living under pure socialism and I didn't like it. The last 10 or so years living under raw capitalism has been no day at the beach either.
 
LOL wow that was like the biggest non-response in the world. Let me ask some more specific questions, see if you can pin down what you're actually saying for us to respond. Let's start with a really easy question for you: Is "the Soviet model" to which you are referring that of the NEP period or of collectivisation? Further, if you choose one or the other, then the other by definition is not "the Soviet model". How can you reconcile your assertion with the fact that you are being hypocritical and claiming that "the Soviet model" includes both the NEP period as well as collectivisation, which are mutually exclusive?

Finally, how does one claim such hypocrisy is advocated either by Marx or Lenin, the former never even setting out a concrete economic model for a post-revolutionary state and the latter being alive only in the early days of NEP and never lived to see collectivisation under Stalin?

BTW Camlon don't feel alone on this one it applies equally to hazlnut though I'm giving you more **** for it because you made the silly claim that Marx or Lenin advocated what happened to the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
LOL wow that was like the biggest non-response in the world. Let me ask some more specific questions, see if you can pin down what you're actually saying for us to respond. Let's start with a really easy question for you: Is "the Soviet model" to which you are referring that of the NEP period or of collectivisation? Further, if you choose one or the other, then the other by definition is not "the Soviet model". How can you reconcile your assertion with the fact that you are being hypocritical and claiming that "the Soviet model" includes both the NEP period as well as collectivisation, which are mutually exclusive?
Actually, there were not that much difference between Lenin and Stalin. To make "communism" sound better, Lenin is often presented as the good guy, while Stalin is the one who corrupted the system.

It was Lenin, not Stalin who made the first Gulags.

Lenin didn't believe in a fair justice system where you are innocent before proven guilty, but we should see instead how dangerous they are to society. This meant that he murder a lot of innocent people. Lenin was the one who started to fight against religion and Lenin wasn't very cooperative with other factions. There are differences betweem them, but Soviet didn't change substantially from Lenin to Stalin and therefore I put it under the same label. Stalin just expanded on what Lenin started.

BTW: Lenin may think that Stalin went too far, but the mass killings are not really part of the ideology. We are talking more about the economic system, which Lenin approved. It is called marxism-lenninism because Lenin based his theories on marx. Approval from Marx is not neccecary.
 
Last edited:
So in other words you can't answer the question and instead wanted to go off on some irrelevant rant about how Lenin and Stalin are the same.

Would you like to try to actually answer the question or would you just like us to accept that you don't know what you're talking about?

It was Lenin, not Stalin who made the first Gulags.

GULag wasn't formed until April 25, 1930, years after Lenin died.

If you are referring to work camps, those were around for decades, if not centuries, before the Russian Revolution. The work camps at the time Lenin was active resembled in absolutely no way the work camps under the GULag system from the 30's onward. Professional historians recognize that the conditions at the work camps were relatively well off until around the 30's.

For an example as to how these were transformed one can merely review the numbers: In 1928, there were 30,000 prisoners in work camps; by 1932, 200,000; and finally by 1935, 1.1 million.

Further, one can review primary sources validating the vast improvements in the conditions of the camps from the Imperial period to the early revolutionary period.

BTW if you are interested in the actual history of the GULag system, and not the propaganda spewed out by Applebaum et al, I would highly suggest Dr. Khlevniuk's work The History of the Gulag: From Collectivization to the Great Terror. In it he explains this transformation of the Russian/Soviet penal system and, basically, why you don't know what you're talking about.

There are differences betweem them, but Soviet didn't change substantially from Lenin to Stalin and therefore I put it under the same label.

HAHAHA yes, of course it did. You can't tell me that collectivisation under Stalin was "not a substantial change" from the NEP when Lenin was alive. BTW, in case you haven't understood this yet, NEP (tolerance of limited private entrepreneurship) and collectivisation (expropriation of private enterprise) are essentially polar opposites.
 
Last edited:
So in other words you can't answer the question and instead wanted to go off on some irrelevant rant about how Lenin and Stalin are the same.
No, I tell you that the system of governemnt didn't change that much. You are just idolizing Lening, because then you can make socialism look better. You want to blame all the faults of communism on Stalin, when in fact it was doomed to fail from the begining.

If you are referring to work camps, those were around for decades, if not centuries, before the Russian Revolution. The work camps at the time Lenin was active resembled in absolutely no way the work camps under the GULag system from the 30's onward. Professional historians recognize that the conditions at the work camps were relatively well off until around the 30's.
Not true, read this from wikipedoia

From 1918, camp-type detention facilities were set up, as a reformed analogy of the earlier system of penal labor (katorgas), operated in Siberia in Imperial Russia. The two main types were "Vechecka Special-purpose Camps" (особые лагеря ВЧК, osobiye lagerya VChK) and forced labor camps (лагеря принудительных работ, lagerya prinuditel'nikh rabot). They were installed for various categories of people deemed dangerous for the state: for common criminals, for prisoners of the Russian Civil War, for officials accused of corruption, sabotage and embezzlement, various political enemies and dissidents, as well as former aristocrats, businessmen and large land owners.

If Lenin was such a good guy then why did he do this?



Also read this

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING LENIN'S RULE

V.I. Lenin was the founding father of the Soviet Union and its dictator during the Russian Civil War that followed. A series of strokes after the Civil War, and his early death in 1924, gave him a mere five years to reign. The brevity of his tenure led many to assume that subsequent human rights abuses in the Soviet Union were not Lenin's fault. Oppression did intensify after Stalin replaced Lenin as the absolute ruler of the USSR. But Lenin did everything that Stalin would later do, except execute fellow Communists. As Richard Pipes notes, this "is not as significant as it may appear at first sight. Towards outsiders, people not belonging to his order of the elect - and that included 99.7 percent of his compatriots - Lenin showed no human feelings whatever..." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime)

Lenin repeatedly indicated that large-scale killing would be necessary to bring in his utopia, and did not shrink from this realization. His speeches and writings overflow with calls for blood: "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them." "We'll ask the man, where do you stand on the question of the revolution? Are you for it or against it? If he's against it, we'll stand him up against a wall." As Pipes sums up, "Lenin hated what he perceived to be the 'bourgeoisie' with a destructive passion that fully equaled Hitler's hatred of the Jews: nothing short of physical annihilation would satisfy him." Moreover, "The term 'bourgeoisie' the Bolsheviks applied loosely to two groups: those who by virtue of their background or position in the economy functioned as 'exploiters,' be they a millionaire industrialist or a peasant with an extra acre of land, and those who, regardless of their economic or social status, opposed Bolshevik policies." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime) Lenin used all three of the tools of mass murder that his successors and imitators would later perfect.

Deaths due to extreme hardship conditions in slave labor camps

Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, pioneered the development of the modern slave labor (or "concentration") camp. Inmates were generally frankly treated as government-owned slaves, and used for the most demanding work - such as digging arctic canals - while receiving pitifully small rations. As Pipes explains, "Soviet concentration camps, as instituted in 1919, were meant to be a place of confinement for all kinds of undesirables, whether sentenced by courts or by administrative organs. Liable to confinement in them were not only individuals but also 'categories of individuals' - that is, entire classes: Dzerzhinskii at one point proposed that special concentration camps be erected for the 'bourgeoisie.' Living in forced isolation, the inmates formed a pool of slave labor on which Soviet administrative and economic institutions could draw at no cost." (The Russian Revolution) The number of people in these camps according to Pipes was about 50,000 prisoners in 1920 and 70,000 in 1923; many of these did not survive the inhuman conditions. The inmates might be bourgeoisie, or peasants, or members of other socialist factors such as the Mensheviks or the Social Revolutionaries, or members of ethnicities thought to be hostile to the Bolsheviks, such as the Don Cossacks. The death rates in these camps appear to have been in the extreme hardship range of 10-30%. While the number thus killed was only a small percentage of the total exterminated under Lenin's regime, it laid the foundation for Stalin's slave labor empire.

Deaths due to man-made famine

By far the largest number of unnatural deaths for which Lenin and his cohorts were responsible resulted from famine. Lenin and his regime tried to depict the famine as simply bad luck, but the truth is rather different. To feed his troops and keep the cities producing munitions, Lenin needed food. He got it by "requisitioning" it from the peasantry - demanding delivery of large sums of food for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin often ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence, sometimes ordering the confiscation of their seed grain as a further sanction. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the recalcitrant peasantry.

The ultimate results of this war against the peasantry were devastating. Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame: as Pipes notes, the Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. Moreover, the areas under White control had actually built up a food surplus. The horrific famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the Ukraine and other White territories, the Reds shipped the Whites' grain reserves to Petrograd, Moscow, and other cities with less hunger but more political clout. Low estimates on the deaths from this famine are about 3 million; high estimates go up to 10 million - which would probably have been much higher if not for foreign relief efforts which Lenin had the good sense to permit. For perspective, the last severe famine in Russia hit in 1891-92, and cost about 400,000 lives.

The famine ended soon after Lenin relaxed his choke-hold on the peasantry, but he showed no sign of remorse for what his policies had done. Other Bolsheviks were shaken by the events, but Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, learned only to husband his strength until the peasantry could be utterly broken.

Executions

Under Lenin's rule - unlike that of his successors - executions played a far more important role than deaths in forced labor camps. The primary function of Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, was carrying out summary executions of "class enemies" in what came to be known as the Red Terror. The exact number murdered is usually estimated at between 100,000 and 500,000, but the chaotic wartime conditions make the accounting especially difficult. Large-scale executions of hostages began after a failed effort of the Social Revolutionaries to seize power in mid-1918. (The hundreds of hostages shot in "retaliation," however, not only did not participate in the failed coup, but almost invariably had no affiliation of any kind with the SRs). From then on the Red Terror turned in every conceivable direction: execution of the bourgeoisie and Czarist sympathizers; execution of White POWs and friendly civilian populations; and finally execution of Lenin's socialist opponents.

A lot of the numbers are given here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

For instance
by May 1919, there were some 16,000 enemies of the people imprisoned in the Tsarist katorga labour camps; by September 1921 the prisoner populace exceeded 70,000.[84][85][86][87][88][89]
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
No, I tell you that the system of governemnt didn't change that much. You are just idolizing Lening, because then you can make socialism look better.

Hah I don't idolize Lenin at all I just recognize that saying "Stalin = Lenin" is basically trolling.

From 1918, camp-type detention facilities were set up, as a reformed analogy of the earlier system of penal labor (katorgas), operated in Siberia in Imperial Russia. The two main types were "Vechecka Special-purpose Camps" (особые лагеря ВЧК, osobiye lagerya VChK) and forced labor camps (лагеря принудительных работ, lagerya prinuditel'nikh rabot). They were installed for various categories of people deemed dangerous for the state: for common criminals, for prisoners of the Russian Civil War, for officials accused of corruption, sabotage and embezzlement, various political enemies and dissidents, as well as former aristocrats, businessmen and large land owners.

If Lenin was such a good guy then why did he do this?

First, "he" did not do this. The state did.

Second, because every state has prisons?

Also read this

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING LENIN'S RULE

First, I'm not going to respond to every single thing you cut and paste from other websites.

Second, the original question was for you to describe "the Soviet model". You're avoiding the question.
 
Hah I don't idolize Lenin at all I just recognize that saying "Stalin = Lenin" is basically trolling.
Never said that. I just said that they didn't follow different economic models.

First, "he" did not do this. The state did.

Second, because every state has prisons?
He supported it.

I don't know which country you live in, but I can hardly see how imprisoning people for their position in society or their political beliefs are anything similar to prisons.

First, I'm not going to respond to every single thing you cut and paste from other websites.
I haven't posted very much from other websites, but I think it addresses well that Lenin wasn't completly different from Stalin. I willl post it again so it easier for you to read it.


Second, the original question was for you to describe "the Soviet model". You're avoiding the question.
I'm coming back to that when you admit that Lenin wasn't completly different from Stalin and hence they didn't change their model.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING LENIN'S RULE
V.I. Lenin was the founding father of the Soviet Union and its dictator during the Russian Civil War that followed. A series of strokes after the Civil War, and his early death in 1924, gave him a mere five years to reign. The brevity of his tenure led many to assume that subsequent human rights abuses in the Soviet Union were not Lenin's fault. Oppression did intensify after Stalin replaced Lenin as the absolute ruler of the USSR. But Lenin did everything that Stalin would later do, except execute fellow Communists. As Richard Pipes notes, this "is not as significant as it may appear at first sight. Towards outsiders, people not belonging to his order of the elect - and that included 99.7 percent of his compatriots - Lenin showed no human feelings whatever..." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime)

Lenin repeatedly indicated that large-scale killing would be necessary to bring in his utopia, and did not shrink from this realization. His speeches and writings overflow with calls for blood: "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them." "We'll ask the man, where do you stand on the question of the revolution? Are you for it or against it? If he's against it, we'll stand him up against a wall." As Pipes sums up, "Lenin hated what he perceived to be the 'bourgeoisie' with a destructive passion that fully equaled Hitler's hatred of the Jews: nothing short of physical annihilation would satisfy him." Moreover, "The term 'bourgeoisie' the Bolsheviks applied loosely to two groups: those who by virtue of their background or position in the economy functioned as 'exploiters,' be they a millionaire industrialist or a peasant with an extra acre of land, and those who, regardless of their economic or social status, opposed Bolshevik policies." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime) Lenin used all three of the tools of mass murder that his successors and imitators would later perfect.

Deaths due to extreme hardship conditions in slave labor camps

Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, pioneered the development of the modern slave labor (or "concentration") camp. Inmates were generally frankly treated as government-owned slaves, and used for the most demanding work - such as digging arctic canals - while receiving pitifully small rations. As Pipes explains, "Soviet concentration camps, as instituted in 1919, were meant to be a place of confinement for all kinds of undesirables, whether sentenced by courts or by administrative organs. Liable to confinement in them were not only individuals but also 'categories of individuals' - that is, entire classes: Dzerzhinskii at one point proposed that special concentration camps be erected for the 'bourgeoisie.' Living in forced isolation, the inmates formed a pool of slave labor on which Soviet administrative and economic institutions could draw at no cost." (The Russian Revolution) The number of people in these camps according to Pipes was about 50,000 prisoners in 1920 and 70,000 in 1923; many of these did not survive the inhuman conditions. The inmates might be bourgeoisie, or peasants, or members of other socialist factors such as the Mensheviks or the Social Revolutionaries, or members of ethnicities thought to be hostile to the Bolsheviks, such as the Don Cossacks. The death rates in these camps appear to have been in the extreme hardship range of 10-30%. While the number thus killed was only a small percentage of the total exterminated under Lenin's regime, it laid the foundation for Stalin's slave labor empire.

Deaths due to man-made famine

By far the largest number of unnatural deaths for which Lenin and his cohorts were responsible resulted from famine. Lenin and his regime tried to depict the famine as simply bad luck, but the truth is rather different. To feed his troops and keep the cities producing munitions, Lenin needed food. He got it by "requisitioning" it from the peasantry - demanding delivery of large sums of food for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin often ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence, sometimes ordering the confiscation of their seed grain as a further sanction. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the recalcitrant peasantry.

The ultimate results of this war against the peasantry were devastating. Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame: as Pipes notes, the Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. Moreover, the areas under White control had actually built up a food surplus. The horrific famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the Ukraine and other White territories, the Reds shipped the Whites' grain reserves to Petrograd, Moscow, and other cities with less hunger but more political clout. Low estimates on the deaths from this famine are about 3 million; high estimates go up to 10 million - which would probably have been much higher if not for foreign relief efforts which Lenin had the good sense to permit. For perspective, the last severe famine in Russia hit in 1891-92, and cost about 400,000 lives.

The famine ended soon after Lenin relaxed his choke-hold on the peasantry, but he showed no sign of remorse for what his policies had done. Other Bolsheviks were shaken by the events, but Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, learned only to husband his strength until the peasantry could be utterly broken.

Executions

Under Lenin's rule - unlike that of his successors - executions played a far more important role than deaths in forced labor camps. The primary function of Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, was carrying out summary executions of "class enemies" in what came to be known as the Red Terror. The exact number murdered is usually estimated at between 100,000 and 500,000, but the chaotic wartime conditions make the accounting especially difficult. Large-scale executions of hostages began after a failed effort of the Social Revolutionaries to seize power in mid-1918. (The hundreds of hostages shot in "retaliation," however, not only did not participate in the failed coup, but almost invariably had no affiliation of any kind with the SRs). From then on the Red Terror turned in every conceivable direction: execution of the bourgeoisie and Czarist sympathizers; execution of White POWs and friendly civilian populations; and finally execution of Lenin's socialist opponents.

A lot of the numbers are given here
Vladimir Lenin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For instance

by May 1919, there were some 16,000 enemies of the people imprisoned in the Tsarist katorga labour camps; by September 1921 the prisoner populace exceeded 70,000.[84][85][86][87][88][89]
 
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.

That's probably true, yet there is a fundamental difference: Racism or anti-Semitism on the right is the core of their ideology. In case of the left, it's not. Socialists are traditionally internationalist and believe "people are ultimatily more divided by class than by race or nationality". Socialists want equality, including racial equality. That doesn't mean, of course, that there are no socialists who happen to be racist and/or anti-Semite.

But when socialists are racists, they are so despite their ideology. When far-right people are racists, they are so because of their ideology.

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

How is this a sign of anti-Semitism? It may be a sign of a pro-Palestinian bias, but labeling an Israel-skeptic bias "anti-Semitic" is a stretch, don't you think?

I'd agree that there are many on the left who have a pro-Palestinian biases of different degrees. But genuine anti-Semites are a fringe phenomenon. Most of them don't hate Jews in general. Most of them just are skeptic of the Israeli government, as they are of powerful governments doing excessive realpolitik in general, and maybe take this a little too far. Those who actually hate Jews are not that numerous, according to my observations.

But you also got ardent pro-Israelis among the far-left, people who believe because of the Holocaust, the left has a special responsibility regarding solidarity with Israel. So it's really not a thing that should be generalized about socialists or the left. (Don't know about Norway, maybe that particular party you mention is an exception.)

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.

I've seen such a bias in favor of authoritarian regimes which happen to be socialist or traditionally socialist allies, among German socialists (members of the Left Party) too. This German Left Party also includes a "communist platform", a wing filled with East Bloc nostalgics and even Stalinists. But again, I'd say their influence on that party in general is limited.

And nothing of that kind exists among German Social Democrats, yet they are labelled "socialist" by Americans too. Although this party can hardly be described as "left" anymore, considering their business-friendly policies.

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.

Sure. The German neo-Nazi party NPD is economically rather statist too. But that doesn't make them a "socialist" party.
 
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.

Right, I agree. Social democracy, I suppose, could be more accurate described as welfare state capitalism if we want to get technical.

Man, we really need you in the "Obama is not a socialist threads" lol.
 
Racism or anti-Semitism on the right is the core of their ideology. In case of the left, it's not... when socialists are racists, they are so despite their ideology. When far-right people are racists, they are so because of their ideology.


Change your lean, please.
 
Last edited:
Never said that. I just said that they didn't follow different economic models.

Again, NEP and collectivisation are in contradistinction with one another. I've already addressed this.

I don't know which country you live in, but I can hardly see how imprisoning people for their position in society or their political beliefs are anything similar to prisons.

Erm, this happens in any postrevolutionary society because the state needs to assert authority and consolidate its power.

by May 1919, there were some 16,000 enemies of the people imprisoned in the Tsarist katorga labour camps; by September 1921 the prisoner populace exceeded 70,000.[84][85][86][87][88][89]

I'm not going to respond to you quoting wikipedia, as if that's an argument. Especially one that is as poorly sourced as this.
 
Last edited:
I feel I must ask this question:

If I creat a political concept that others follow, th does not inherently include notion like genocide like Naziism, and it is followed by mant others with different types of my notion... ...and every movement made by those people who tried to follow my concept resulted in mass bloodshed and death... is the concept blameless? Should it be allowed to continue? Why not? Blame the people not the concept, right?
 
I feel I must ask this question:

If I creat a political concept that others follow, th does not inherently include notion like genocide like Naziism, and it is followed by mant others with different types of my notion... ...and every movement made by those people who tried to follow my concept resulted in mass bloodshed and death... is the concept blameless? Should it be allowed to continue? Why not? Blame the people not the concept, right?

It depends on the situation, both may be culpable to some extent.
 
It depends on the situation, both may be culpable to some extent.

Is the concept blamesless, Stillballin75? What of communism? Is the theory not blameless? Why shouldn't it be?

You're not supposed to realize the dead collateral, Ballin.
 
Is the concept blamesless, Stillballin75? What of communism? Is the theory not blameless? Why shouldn't it be?

You're not supposed to realize the dead collateral, Ballin.

It shouldn't be blameless.
 
It shouldn't be blameless.

You think that. Does everyone, though? *Looks around*

If people seem to keep dying under a persistent concept, perhaps it is not such a good thing?
 
You think that. Does everyone, though? *Looks around*

If people seem to keep dying under a persistent concept, perhaps it is not such a good thing?

Well I said two posts back that I believe that both the ideology and the people who follow and attempt to implement it are guilty to some extent.
 
Concepts are blameless. Like all inanimate objects, holding them responsible is crazy.
 
So Nazism as an ideology is blameless, but Nazis themselves hold all the responsibility?

You beat me to it. Kudos.

I agree, as well, that concepts like communism and communists are not blameless and do have terrible and bloody flaws.
 
Back
Top Bottom