CreateDebate


Debate Info

27
26
One of them ISN'T a commie I dunno
Debate Score:53
Arguments:45
Total Votes:55
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 One of them ISN'T a commie (17)
 
 I dunno (18)

Debate Creator

excon(8946) pic



If Hitler was a commie, and the Russians were commies, why did they war on each other?

One of them ISN'T a commie

Side Score: 27
VS.

I dunno

Side Score: 26
4 points

Obviously Hitler was a National Socialist and not a Communist. However I have to point out the fallacious reasoning that two states of the same political ideology cannot have wars because they share a political ideology. Monarchies have warred against monarchies and democracies have warred against democracies, or is it only communist states that cannot war between themselves?

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
2 points

Obviously Hitler was a National Socialist and not a Communist.

He was a fascist, Winston. National socialism is a form of far right fascism. Hitler called it national socialism to con people. Let's not do his work for him, hey?

Side: I dunno
1 point

He called himself a Catholic to con people. He was an atheist con-man. So that's how that works...

And...Islamists fight Islamists. Dogs fight dogs. Men fight men. Ass clowns fight nomenclatures. And...Communists fight Communists. Admit you're IQ can be counted on one hand. Do it now.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
WinstonC(1117) Disputed
1 point

"National socialism is a form of far right fascism."

How are you defining "Fascism?" Hitler's political system was called "National Socialism" whereas Mussolini's political system was called "Fascism". Do you have any evidence for Hitler being inspired by Mussolini? Their leadership styles certainly were similar and I imagine their friendship did mean they both influenced each other but why do you assume the influence was unilateral? After all, Mussolini's early iterations of Fascism had no antisemitic element.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
1 point

or is it only communist states that cannot war between themselves?

There was also a time that people insisted that no nation with a McDonald's ever invaded another nation with a McDonald's.

That worked well as a theory until there were McDonald's EVERYWHERE.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
2 points

Let's get to the root of it: The economic system isn't the reason people go to war. That's actually pretty idiotic. People go to war because of any number of reasons, most of which are actually pretty petty at their base - ancient grudges, religious nonsense, etc; or it's a landgrab. The only truly legitimate reasons to go to war are that you or an ally have been attacked (likely over some petty crap).

At any rate, neither was actually communist. Russia was theoretically Marxist, though they didn't truly embody that, either. Realistically, political systems matter much more, and they were both, on some level, dictatorships.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
Nomenclature(1296) Clarified
1 point

Let's get to the root of it: The economic system isn't the reason people go to war. That's actually pretty idiotic. People go to war because of any number of reasons, most of which are actually pretty petty at their base - ancient grudges, religious nonsense, etc; or it's a landgrab. The only truly legitimate reasons to go to war are that you or an ally have been attacked (likely over some petty crap).

It is certainly true that economics isn't solely responsible for human conflict, but at the same time winning a war is economically profitable. The inevitable result of that is precisely what we see going on in the world today: the poor go to war on behalf of the rich.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
EldonG(550) Clarified
1 point

Sure. Of course, that's just like a landgrab, economically.

...and yes, the poor get manipulated by those in power, pretty much always.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
marcusmoon(540) Clarified
1 point

Hi Eldon.

At any rate, neither was actually communist. Russia was theoretically Marxist, though they didn't truly embody that, either.

I disagree. The quibbling will follow.

Realistically, political systems matter much more, and they were both, on some level, dictatorships.

Of course they were dictatorships. How else do you think the systems could be implemented.

Human beings have an overwhelming tendency toward competitive tribal organizations and hierarchies. This is why communism develops and looks the way it does, and why Nazi Germany looked the way it did.

Regarding the USSR:

It turns out that hierarchical territorial herd animals cannot actually live any other way than hierarchically.

It also turns out that there is no functional difference in the real world between the following three statements.

--Everybody owns everything.

--Nobody owns anything.

--They head administrator owns everything.

Likewise, it seems territorial animals cannot actually be induced to give away ownership without the encouragement of secret police and gulags?

The Soviet Union was as communist as is possible with human beings. Many leftists like to insist that it was not 'real' communism, because they like to think that the Marxist-Leninist ideal is possible. The USSR was the most real version of nation-level communism possible.

The problem is that in terms of what people actually are, and how people actually behave in groups, the USSR is what communism actually is once it is implemented in the real world.

This is what happens when a guy who never had a job writes a manifesto about the interplay of labor and economics. He fails to understand what the relationships are because he has no direct experience of any of these relationships.

The real alienation of labor was the great divide between Karl Marx and a job or any other productive activity.

Karl was always a child, supported first by his parents, and later by Engels. The Communist Manifesto was just a child's daydream.

Regarding National Socialist Germany:

Hitler never wanted communism. He may not even have particularly cared about socialism as an end.

However, Adolf sure used the hell out of it as a means.

Hitler used socialism as the bait to induce the Germans to give up their independence. Once people are dependent on the state, they tend to get complacent, and then are willing to abandon baggage like books and guns and freedom and justice, just so they can stay on the gravy train.

Jews and Gypsies and handicapped people are not nearly so important to most people as jobs and food and Volkswagens and vacations. Again, it has to do with what people really are.

Once some Germans got on board, it was easy to pull most of the rest in. We're herd animals.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
Nomenclature(1296) Clarified
1 point

I disagree. The quibbling will follow.

What he said was factual and will remain factual whether you agree with it or not. By "quibbling" all you really do is illustrate your ignorance of the theory of Communism. It was Lenin who led the Bolshevik Revolution, not Marx.

Of course they were dictatorships. How else do you think the systems could be implemented.

While that is true it applies equally to capitalism and every other system which has ever been tried.

Human beings have an overwhelming tendency toward competitive tribal organizations and hierarchies.

This is egregious bullshit. It's the same as saying humans have an "overwhelming tendency" toward wanting to serve other humans. Nobody wants to be inferior to anybody else. The very suggestion that this is the case is retarded. It's the same sort of logic that propped up African American slavery for hundreds of years.

It turns out that hierarchical territorial herd animals cannot actually live any other way than hierarchically.

You have leaped from your erroneous conclusion that humans want to serve other humans to the further conclusion that this desire is genetic.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie

The entire existence of the German Nazi Party was predicated on the ambition of wiping out Communism from Europe. Hitler believed Communism was a Jewish ideology, so you can imagine what he thought about that. When idiots like bronto turn Hitler's politics upside down and claim he was on the left, you should exile them from America. Why? Because they are Nazis.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
1 point

Hitler believed Communism was a Jewish ideology, so you can imagine what he thought about that

Uh huh. It's amazing how "Hitler was a liar" until you need to tell us what he was to fit your narrative.

Side: I dunno
Demosthenes9(15) Disputed
2 points

Japanese were never Communist. Ever. At any point in the country's history. They were an empire, ruled by an emperor. Hirohito was an emperor who was considered divine by his people. The only thing close to socialism or communism they ever displayed was their mandatory military service. But that doesn't make them communists. Where do you get this info?

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie

National Socialists, or NAZIS, were a form of fascism and not communism. The American media of the time conflated one with the other. Communism, which is simply a form of government, was actually demonized in the US in the 40s-50s-60s. It was a very strange phenomenon. So much so, that most Americans came to believe that their true enemy was Communism itself and that all of the country's political opponents were Communists. That is not the case at all. The Soviet Union practiced communism and after World War 2, Russian influence spread through portions of eastern Europe and Asia.

Hitler's party, on the other hand, had as one of its goals the destruction of communism. So, they were not commies at all.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
1 point

Your inner nomenclature is showing. Maybe you should pretend to be a chimpanzee with your next profile.

Side: I dunno
1 point

The American media of the time conflated one with the other.

The American media was and is? Liberal.

Your hatred for America and need to demonize its "vile acts" keeps causing you to throw leftists under the bus.

Side: I dunno
marcusmoon(540) Clarified
-2 points
1 point

Hitler was not a communist. He was a nationalist socialist. Hitler was basically the brown shirt of Germany.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
1 point

Nomenclature is the brown shirt of Marxism and Islamofascism.

Side: I dunno

National Socialism was definitely Not commie. It was the best of the left and the right. Extreme socialism (communism) is really not a lot different than extreme capitalism- they both concentrate the wealth in the hands of a small % of the population. Jews were behind both. Stinking Jews. Brought the holocaust on themselves to be honest.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
1 point

National Socialism was definitely Not commie. It was the best of the left and the right

Are you honestly stupid?

Communist ideology and ideas were spreading throughout Europe and gaining momentum quickly. Hitler wanted the Communist vote and he wanted the Conservative vote. Hence, he created the spectacular lie that he was simultaneously left and right wing. The same lie you are repeating on his behalf 70 years later.

Side: I dunno

If Hitler was a commie, and the Russians were commies, why did they war on each other

Why did they take over Poland together? Because they could.

Side: I dunno
2 points

The Sino-Soviet border conflict was a seven-month undeclared military conflict between the Soviet Union and China at the height of the Sino-Soviet split in 1969.

Would one organized crime boss going after another organized crime boss imply that one of them is not an organized crime boss? No.

Anyway, I don’t think anyone is claiming that National Socialism is the same as Communism

Side: I dunno
1 point

Anyway, I don’t think anyone is claiming that National Socialism is the same as Communism

National socialism is a form of fascism. When you call it national socialism to make people think it is either in the middle or on the left then you mimic the lies of the Nazis themselves.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
Amarel(4057) Disputed
1 point

I called the man by their name. I don’t speak German so Nationalsozialismus doesn’t exactly work. The fact that they were nationalists bent on making Europe Germany does not negate the various socialistic policies they had. I’ve provided the National Socialist Party platform before, it’s not dissimilar from modern progressivism. Which makes sense given progressives of the time liked Fascists before the Fascist decided to conquer Europe.

Side: I dunno

Well Con, the Japanese were Commies, and guess who they fought beside during WWII. It wasn't us...

Side: I dunno
Demosthenes9(15) Disputed
4 points

Japanese weren't Commies at all. What? It was an empire. There were no socialism practices at all.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
1 point

Japanese Communist Party

Founded: 1922

"The Japanese Communist Party is a political party in Japan and is one of the largest communist parties in the world. The JCP advocates the establishment of a society based on socialism"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese CommunistParty

Side: I dunno
excon(8946) Disputed
2 points

Hello bront:

Dude! Japan was an EMPIRE. That’s about as far away from communism as you get.

excon

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie
1 point

Japanese Communist Party

Founded: 1922

"The Japanese Communist Party is a political party in Japan and is one of the largest communist parties in the world. The JCP advocates the establishment of a society based on socialism"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese CommunistParty

Side: I dunno
1 point

Didn't you literally fight Commies Con? Weren't your brothers in arms demonized by the left when they came home? Wasn't the KKK running the Democratic Party in those days? And you love these bastards why?

Side: I dunno

Communists don't inherently like one another. Look at Stalin and Trotsky for an example.

Side: I dunno
2 points

Look at Stalin and Trotsky for an example.

Only one of those was actually a Communist. The one who got an ice pick in his head.

Side: One of them ISN'T a commie