• 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
Yes. Nazism is just a stupid idea. Stupid ideas don't hurt people, people hurt people.

Do you seriously want to go down the road of banning stupid ideas, because they are supposedly "dangerous" and "responsible"? Next you'll burn books.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Yes. Nazism is just a stupid idea. Stupid ideas don't hurt people, people hurt people.

Do you seriously want to go down the road of banning stupid ideas, because they are supposedly "dangerous" and "responsible"? Next you'll burn books, because they hurt people.
Click to expand...

So the idea of "kill certain people" is not dangerous?
 
ecofarm said:
Yes. Nazism is just a stupid idea. Stupid ideas don't hurt people, people hurt people.

Do you seriously want to go down the road of banning stupid ideas, because they are supposedly "dangerous" and "responsible"? Next you'll burn books, because they hurt people.
Click to expand...

People kill people, but stupid ideas help.
 
Alright, then we should suppose the concept of Naziism is not dangerous. Or terrorism.
 
If someone says:

All <such> people should be killed!

Is the idea that all such people should be killed dangerous? Why is the idea dangerous? Morons are dangerous. Ideas don't hurt anyone. If you are going to blame ideas, you'd might as well blame a table. The person saying such a thing is engaging in hate speech, and that is dangerous. But the idea, no matter how many morons blame it for their actions, remains harmless and blameless - just like a table.



Don't blame inanimate objects; that's nonsense; people will indict your table. No blaming religion, beer or any other mystical objects.

Take responsiblilty for one's actions and expect the same from others. Blaming tables is one step away from blaming voices in one's head.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
If someone says:

All <such> people should be killed!

Is the idea that all such people should be killed dangerous? Why is the idea dangerous? Morons are dangerous. Ideas don't hurt anyone. If you are going to blame ideas, you'd might as well blame a table. The person saying such a thing is engaging in hate speech, and that is dangerous. But the idea, no matter how many morons blame it for their actions, remains harmless and blameless - just like a table.



Don't blame inanimate objects; that's nonsense; people will indict your table. No blaming religion, beer or any other mystical objects.

Take responsiblilty for one's actions and expect the same from others. No blaming tables.
Click to expand...

Ideas are not inanimate objects. They are ideas that people take interest in and follow. Would you have no problem with such ideas being advertised in libraries? School? Come now, ideas are not dangerous.
 
Ideas are inanimate objects. I have no more problem with any idea being in a library than I would any table.

They are no more threatening than the voices in someone's head, and no more responsible for actions.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Ideas are inanimate objects.

They are no more threatening than the voices in someone's head, and no more responsible for actions.
Click to expand...


When they promote genocide what are they?
 
When they promote genocide what are they?
Click to expand...
A look into the worst ignorance-driven garbage to be vomited out of man's fear. That doesn't make them dangerous, or responsible for anything.
 
OK...

Then there must be no problem having such ideas in the library or teaching them to kids...?

I will grant you ecofarm that your point is interesting.
 
ecofarm said:
A look into the worst ignorance-driven garbage to be vomited out of man's fear. That doesn't make them dangerous, or responsible for anything.
Click to expand...


I don't know. I think the idea of enacting genocide is dangerous as a part of a political platform eg Nazism esp. to the genocidee. Just like the idea of consuming large amounts of arsenic is fairly dangerous.
 
We'll just have to agree that you are scared of inanimate objects.



Keep passing the open windows.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Ideas don't hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

True, stimulated thoughts (ideas) in and of themselves are harmless, but they could turn dangerous and cause destructive behavior.

IMO stimulated thoughts have five intensity levels.

1. Not important enough to dwell on

2. Should do something but don't know what

3. Do whatever needs to be done

4. Respond with angry words or threats

5. Strike back physically

ricksfolly
 
ecofarm said:
Ideas don't hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

True, stimulated thoughts (ideas) in and of themselves are harmless, but they could turn dangerous and cause destructive behavior.

IMO stimulated thoughts (as opposed to idle thoughts) have five intensity levels.

1. Not important enough to dwell on

2. Should do something but don't know what

3. Do whatever needs to be done

4. Respond with angry words or threats

5. Strike back physically

ricksfolly
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I really love most of your posts...
Click to expand...

I'm glad somebody does...

Khayembii Communique said:
but this is just trash. Lenin never held a single, unwavering position about party structure. Further, regarding proletarian dictatorship, he always upheld workers' democracy in general. And you're right, the situation in Russia, according to Lenin and every other major Bolshevik, required the party to step in and intervene as the situation was dire. You could argue that that wasn't the case, but I don't think you have a leg on which to stand when you claim that this was all some elaborate ruse by Lenin. That's an absolutely silly, conspiracist position disproven by many debates he had that we still have access to. Why don't you just accuse him of being a German agent now?
Look to the trade union debate, for example, when he fought against Trotsky's position on the militarization of labour; or his changing position on party structure whereby he upheld the idea at one point that the Bolsheviks should be a mass party and that anyone that considered themselves Bolshevik would be a member; or when he argued for power to the Soviets, etc...
Click to expand...

I don't want to derail this thread any further, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, I reiterate, that my criticisms of Lenin and Bolshevism were shared by the leading contemporaneous Marxist intellectuals. (As well as the Anarchists,)

Khayembii Communique said:
Well that explains your delusions. :)
Click to expand...

Are all non-Marxists delusional, in your estimation, or just Anarchists?
 
I don't want to derail this thread any further, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, I reiterate, that my criticisms of Lenin and Bolshevism were shared by the leading contemporaneous Marxist intellectuals. (As well as the Anarchists,)
Click to expand...

Of course, but there is a valid way to go about analyzing the situation, and to claim that Lenin was some evil dude plotting on taking away workers' rights is not it. I think that Lenin's views changed as he transformed from "Lenin the revolutionary" to "Lenin the bureaucrat" as his perspective had shifted considerably (which is not surprising). I think that as a bureaucrat of the state he made a lot of decisions that from the position he was in seemed right at the time, but that based on hindsight we now know laid the foundation for the bureaucratization of the USSR and "Stalinism". Of course, this cannot be laid solely at his feet, as revolutions are huge social events that depend on the actions of millions of people, which is also why Camlon's posts in this thread are simply ridiculous.

Ideologically I'm closest aligned with the Trotskyists, but I am definitely not fond of the name as most Trotskyists uphold Lenin as some kind of god, which he was not.

Are all non-Marxists delusional, in your estimation, or just Anarchists?
Click to expand...

I was trolling, relax. :) Oh and BTW I also think most self-proclaimed communists are more delusional than anyone, as most of them are insanely dogmatic.
 
Last edited:
Hundreds of millions of corpses between Germany and Cambodia is proof that the family of isms are dangerous to humanity. Naziism and communism both tried to organize imperfect people perfectly. And people will always dissapoint the "perfect" people. This is why Democracy works. It is the most appropriate way to organize imperfect people. And look at that...it's not an "ism." Perhaps this is why democracy is the victor and why 189 democracies have been created since 1900. Before this, no country's society boasted a population where all adults voted. The Age of Ideology (roughly between the French revolution and the Berlin Wall coming down) was probably the most deadliest and damaging period of human existence. Not because of democracy, but because of communism, socialism, and naziism. By all means, let's give an "ism" another chance.

And for any of you who wish to gamble with more civilizations by stating that communism was mess only because of Stalin and Mao....Hitler was just one man too. Behind these individuals are politicial parties that relish the idea of perfect organization in accordance to their view. Thought process and institutions are built around the idea that eventually all will be the same. But when they are not the same, people get forced into a mold they don't fit creating misery, oppression, and death. This translates in civilizational failure. Or perhaps Naziism could work if only a nice man took the helm.

Islam is another organizational tool that has proven to fail in modern times. As progress in the world persists, citizens of this school of thought will fight harder and harder, always insisting that they turn back the clock as they condemn those who look forward. Maybe this is why even Muslim populations in the MENA are screaming for "democracy" ...not communism. There's no such thing as the Chinese way or the Japanese way or the Russian way or even the European way. But how many seek to achieve the American way? - 189 countries and counting. Success comes fomr the freedom to exercise creativity and the ability to create a commercialized market for your invention. Humanity is served by those nations who teach their children to question authority and to seek improvements in the system. There is no improvment in communist or religious doctrinal thought, thus failure is the only result.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
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... when socialists are racists, they are so despite their ideology. When far-right people are racists, they are so because of their ideology.
Click to expand...

If you believe that and you don't lean left, you're a bad person.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Ideas are inanimate objects. I have no more problem with any idea being in a library than I would any table.

They are no more threatening than the voices in someone's head, and no more responsible for actions.
Click to expand...

Do you have special knowledge about "voices in one's head"? :p Just joking.

Seriously, ideas can be dangerous, because they have a direct relation to actions. Of course we can't and shouldn't "hold them responsible" as we do hold people responsible, that's trivial, a no-brainer: You can't put an idea on court or throw an idea in prison. That's obvious and not a big revelation.

But ideas matter. Why do you think companies invest millions, if not billions into advertizing? If ideas didn't lead to action, they wouldn't do that. And I doubt the Nazis would have had any chance, not even the slightest to get to power, if the same hate speech laws had existed in Weimar already as exist in today's Germany.

I agree that freedom of speech is a basic right and I am not comfortable with censorship or banning certain ideas. Both for ethical and pragmatic reasons (this will often backfire). So of course if there is censorship, extreme caution is warranted and it's better to err on the side of free speech, than on the side of censorship of dangerous ideas.

But I also believe that under certain conditions, certain speech and/or ideas are not just that. Depending on the context and situation, it may be incitement. When there is an angry mob and a gifted speaker rallies them up with calls for murder, the speech of that speaker is more than just harmless speech. It's fuel into a fire which will almost inevitably lead to action, much like good advertizing will inevitably cause enough people to buy a product.

Also, while freedom, such as freedom of speech, should only be limited by the freedom of others, certain speech may indeed violate the freedom of others. Think of libel, slander or call for murder against an individual or a group of people. These kinds of speech are illegal in most countries, as far as I know. A call for genocide, i.e., falls into the same category, IMO.
 
ecofarm said:
If you believe that and you don't lean left, you're a bad person.
Click to expand...

And why is that?

It's just my experience that when far-right people advance anti-Semitic statements, it's because they are genuine racists. They believe Jews are an inferior race, or at least they believe they are a distinct race that shouldn't mix with white Europeans.

But when socialists advance anti-Semitic statements, such as Israel criticism taken too far, they don't do that because they believe Jews are a race, or that this race is even inferior. They do so because of a (maybe warped) idea of pacifism, anti-imperialism or something of that kind. I don't agree with those kinds of reasoning, but I don't think it's racist and/or necessarily anti-Semitic. And you will always find other socialists who disagree with them, because they emphasize solidarity with the Israeli people.
 
Dangerous ideas?

You are more intellectually developed than that.



But ideas matter. Why do you think companies invest millions, if not billions into advertizing? If ideas didn't lead to action, they wouldn't do that.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. They were not spreading ideas, they were spreading propaganda. Referring to Nazi propaganda as "ideas" is a bit repulsive.


And why is that?
Click to expand...
If you believe that the left must be twisted to have bigots, but the right is built for them then you must lean left or be a moderate tolerating bigotry. If I believed that the left was against bigotry and the right bred it, I would be a radical leftist.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Dangerous ideas?

You are more intellectually developed than that.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, I believe my posting above displayed a more "developed" reasoning than one that doesn't deserve more than a knee-jerk reaction such as this. But you decided not to address it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom