CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It's just how you draw the sliding scale. If you're an absolutist who has three segments on their sliding scale (liberal, moderate, conservative) then it's true liberalism is bordering on Mao. But if you have a 100 point scale and you carefully put every nation on the scale you would end up with most of the world between the 20-80 range and only the most extreme examples beyond that range.
A dictatorship is a hierarchy. The left wants the opposite of a hierarchy. The solitary concept of left wing politics is to equalise power and wealth, and by bringing up names like Mao you turn that concept upside down.
Mao claimed to be influenced by the writings of Marx, so you put him on the left, but the reality was that Mao was a dictator (i.e. hierarchist) whose rise to power was violently opposed by Chinese Marxist-Lennists. That is, until Mao had them all killed.
We see a similar version of history in Soviet Russia, where Stalin the great opportunist, looking to consolidate his own power, had his political rivals and genuine Marxists like Trotsky murdered. We see it again in Nazi Germany, during the night of the long knives, when the Nazis had most of the left killed, along with many ordinary establishment conservatives.
The point is that all of these men (i.e. Mao, Stalin and Hitler) shared behaviour and beliefs which exclude them de facto from left wing ideology. While you busy yourself guffawing at this, consider the current American trend of berating the left with phrases like "SJW" and "snowflake". Do "social justice warrior" or "snowflake" sound like an accurate personality description of either Stalin or Mao?
Face facts. These people were just like you and your alt-right heroes. You worship people like Mao and Stalin as gods.
He had them killed because they dared to question the omnipotent state. The same omnipotent state that you are trying to create. Just because you claim you don't want Mao, that doesn't nullify that your ideology did create someone like him and will create someone like him again. You hope for and assume too much, and assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups.
A dictatorship is a hierarchy. The left wants the opposite of a hierarchy. The solitary concept of left wing politics is to equalise power and wealth
This is exactly what leads to Mao and the whole host of Leftist Tyrants. If people are left free, they will not be equal. Not everyone is of equal capacity. Disparate outcomes are a product of freedom. To equalize wealth and power, a people must be forced. The freedom to rise in life must be suppressed. Those free to fall in life, must be propped up.
Equality before the law is the only systematic equality a Capitalist cares about. Pushing for equality of wealth and power has always lead to a version of Mao.
This is exactly what leads to Mao and the whole host of Leftist Tyrants
Opposition to fascist dictatorship is what causes fascist dictatorship?
The Orwell is strong with you today, Herr Amarel.
If people are left free, they will not be equal.
That depends entirely on the context the word "equal" is being used in. When socialists use the word "equal" they mean socially equal, not physically or intellectually equal. Hence, you are misrepresenting the context of the word "equal" in order to build a straw man fallacy.
Opposition to fascist dictatorship is what causes fascist dictatorship?
If you ever argued against things people actually say, you might distance yourself from your reputation for dishonesty.
That depends entirely on the context the word "equal" is being used in.
That's why I made sure to include the context. Equality before the law is not at all the same as equality of wealth and power. The former is necessary for Liberty, the latter is the key to Liberty's destruction.
When socialists use the word "equal" they mean socially equal
Didn't you JUST say left wing politics is to equalise power and wealth? Keep back peddling and you'll find yourself on the right.
If you ever argued against things people actually say, you might distance yourself from your reputation for dishonesty.
Amarel, you are absolutely beyond delusional. You quoted a sentence in which I talked about the Marxist opposition to Mao, and underneath it you claimed that this was exactly what caused people like Mao and other "leftist tyrants". You responded to a sentence in which I pointed out the left was violently opposed to Mao in China, and concluded from it that leftist opposition to tyranny is what causes "leftist tyrants".
Whatever the truth is, you are turning it upside down, organising language in a way you believe disguises it, and offering it as a reality. It's absolutely stupid. You accuse me of having a "reputation for dishonesty" and yet you have not told the truth since 1997. In the hour or so I have been here today, I have already seen you claim that Trump is a Democrat and that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was legal.
Amarel, you are absolutely beyond delusional. You quoted a sentence in which I talked about the Marxist opposition to Mao, and underneath it you claimed that this was exactly what caused people like Mao and other "leftist tyrants". You responded to a sentence in which I pointed out the left was violently opposed to Mao in China, and concluded from it that leftist opposition to tyranny is what causes "leftist tyrants".
Thank you for that. It was interesting to read the details of your failure to comprehend what you read. I shouldn’t call you dishonest for failing to address the things people actually say. I’ll try to remember that you misrepresent peoples positions because you truly do not understand what you read.
First, you stated that Marxists in China were opposed to Mao, as if that negates Mao’s communists ideology. It doesn’t. The purpose of my response is to illustrate how leftist ideology leads precisely to tyranny of the sort seen under Mao. Which you did not and cannot refute. You can only call me a liar. If Mao’s Marxist opposition had killed him, then we would be calling the leader of the desolation of China under Communism by a different name. Leftists fight amongst themselves all the time.
Leftist principles lead to tyranny. It doesn’t matter if little leftist tyrants want to kill big leftist tyrants, they are all tyrants.
In the hour or so I have been here today, I have already seen you claim that Trump is a Democrat
I claimed that Trump was a democrat. Specifically, that he was a democrat at the time that he was investigated for racist practices. I provided a link that shows the history of Trump’s political affiliation.
Thank you for that. It was interesting to read the details of your failure to comprehend what you read.
Like I just pointed out, you are delusional.
First, you stated that Marxists in China were opposed to Mao, as if that negates Mao’s communists ideology.
Mao was not a Communist you delusional Orwellian liar. Communism was a theory invented by Karl Marx, and Maoism is what Mao's revisionist interpretation is called. See:-
Maoism, is a political theory derived from the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong (1893–1976), whose followers are known as Maoists.
Debating you is pointless Amarel because your only tools are deceit, mockery and absolutely outrageous lies. I'll let The Guardian do it for me.
Communism commits evil when it goes wrong; fascism commits evil when all goes to plan. No one, not even Stalin, ever became a communist in order to do evil, whereas that's the whole point in becoming a fascist.
I've noticed, too, that people who throw around the number of deaths under Stalin and Mao as if that was the final word on the matter tend to throw up their hands in horror if anyone suggests that the millions who have died in the name of religion serve as witnesses to the fact that it is inherently evil. You could even, following the same piles-of-corpses logic, make a case for the family being inherently evil, on the grounds that some 80% of killings take place in it.
But no one would dream of claiming that . Communism alone is slandered as nothing more than the sum of its deaths. Indeed, if you were serious about evaluating the evil of a regime by the number of deaths it caused, you'd have to say the British Empire was worse than the Nazis. Which I don't for a moment believe.
Communism commits evil when it goes wrong; fascism commits evil when all goes to plan. No one, not even Stalin, ever became a communist in order to do evil, whereas that's the whole point in becoming a fascist.
I don't think citing a source describing Stalin as essentially a misguided do-gooder is a particularly robust argument
I'm not arguing that the USSR didn't play a very important role in WWII--they did. However, that is orthogonal to the point you were attempting to make (and are now attempting to "side-step")
Baseless bullshit in a Op-Ed of the Guardian is not more credible that baseless bullshit from you. If Communism only commits evil when it goes wrong, then any moral communists should consider turning away from a system that always, necessarily, goes wrong. And the notion that no one becomes communist to do evil requires either a willful ignorance of relatively recent history, or an acceptance of an inhuman lie. History has never witnessed a leader who became communist to do good. Not once.
The opposite of Communism isn't Fascism. Both are economic systems that are governmental systems. Both are evil, tyrannical systems stemming from collectivist values. The opposite of Communism is Capitalism, which is an economic system distinct from it's government whose values are necessarily individualistic in nature.
I know that last bit is a little over your head, but other readers will comprehend it.
Mao was not a communist ? 😂😂😂 Oooookay , I think you may have taken your Stoners guide to modern history a little too seriously 🤪
Maoism had a more rural bent than the ideologies espoused by Marx and Lenin. Marxism-Leninism, as the Soviet version of communism is often called, held that urban workers should form the revolutionary vanguard.
Mao Zedong, on the other hand, believed that Communist revolutions should gestate among the rural peasantry, who would later join with their proletariat comrades in the cities to form classless paradises. Indeed, the bulk of Mao's rebel force was drawn from China's hinterlands, where the vast majority of the population lived in abject poverty similar to that of modern-day Nepal.
You really need to stop holding forth on topics you haven’t a clue on
No, he was a Maoist. He claimed to be influenced by the writings of Marx, but then did the opposite of what Marx claimed needed to be done. He increased the power of the state instead of dissolving it. Stalin did the exact same thing.
I think you may have taken your Stoners guide to modern history a little too seriously
Mocking me because YOU have been indoctrinated with a purposefully distorted interpretation of history only serves to prove my point. China is run by a party which calls itself the Communist Party, but China is not a communist country. It has an absolutely thriving capitalist economy.
Maoism had a more rural bent than the ideologies espoused by Marx and Lenin
Dermot, please mate. Spare me the lecture you feel you're qualified to give after spending five minutes on Wikipedia.
No need to give me a lecture I just corrected your misunderstandings on the issue
I’m not mocking you , I find most amusing that you toss accepted historical fact out the window to accommodate your revised interpretation of modern history
What has modern day China got to do with whether Mao was a communist or not ?
I didn’t spend “ five minutes on Wiki “ you loon , it’s hilarious you always accuse others of what you do as in your last post where you posted a link to ....... 🙀 Wiki to back up your “ five minute revisionist history “ lesson “
You really ought to debate on topics you know something about ( you may find something ) because you’re lack of knowledge on the subject is rather embarrassing
But what you don't seem to understand is that it is you who is doing that, not me. Clearly, you have not read the work of Karl Marx otherwise you would know he proposed the complete destruction of the state. Yet, despite this, you describe a man who dramatically increased state power and elected himself head of a totalitarian dictatorship a communist. You have no intention of explaining this glaring contradiction, and simply want to force your beliefs onto other people when they fail a basic logic test.
There you go again accusing me of exactly what you do when cornered
No I didn’t read the three 800 pages volumes of this “ page turner “ only closing time commies and radicals like you claim to have read , but like all your claims based on nonsense
Yes , yes , that must be it I’m forcing my beliefs on others
There you go again accusing me of exactly what you do when cornered
I don't mock you when I'm cornered. I mock you when you say stupid stuff. Just because Mao claimed to be a communist does not necessarily make him a communist and just because Hitler claimed to be a socialist does not necessarily make him a socialist. Both of these men did the precise opposite to what they should have done had they actually been what they said they were.
I never accused you of mocking me , I admitted I mocked you though
Calling established facts “ stupid “ is not a very good argument , Mao was most definitely a communist and I’ve attempted to clear up your misunderstanding on the topic , your failure to comprehend this is entirely your fault and no one else’s
Calling established facts “ stupid “ is not a very good argument
You have been given two opportunities to defend the contradiction inherent in your belief and both times have tried to deflect this obligation by calling your belief a fact. That is not debate. That is you losing a debate and not being man enough to admit it.
No contradiction whatsoever in what I stated let me refresh your memory you claimed Mao was not a communist , here you go again please read slowly and the penny may drop .....
Maoism had a more rural bent than the ideologies espoused by Marx and Lenin. Marxism-Leninism, as the Soviet version of communism is often called, held that urban workers should form the revolutionary vanguard.
Mao Zedong, on the other hand, believed that Communist revolutions should gestate among the rural peasantry, who would later join with their proletariat comrades in the cities to form classless paradises. Indeed, the bulk of Mao's rebel force was drawn from China's hinterlands, where the vast majority of the population lived in abject poverty similar to that of modern-day Nepal.
You really need to stop holding forth on topics you haven’t a clue on
There is a galactic sized contradiction in what you stated, so you appear to be every bit as delusional as Amarel. Let me reiterate again what it is, since you seem to have excluded it from your mind.
Communism is a theory about the destruction of the state. Mao vastly increased the power of the state.
Nonsense , you really ought to get your Engels reader out and study what the millionaire Engels actually stated on the matter of the state ......
The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away............
Now a quote from Mao ..........
Socialist revolution aims at liberating the productive forces. The changeover from individual to socialist, collective ownership in agriculture and handicrafts and from capitalist to socialist ownership in private industry and commerce is bound to bring about a tremendous liberation of the productive forces. Thus, the social conditions are being created for a tremendous expansion of industrial and agricultural production..............
You are wrong yet again Nom that’s Mao perfectly following Engels pronouncements .............
Nonsense , you really ought to get your Engels reader out
Now you are just being stupid. I don't know if you remember, but I just had to correct your English because you made a mistake so basic that it is addressed in the junior school curriculum.
You seem to be under the impression that simply denying everything you don't have an answer for and then insulting me afterwards is a reasonable response. It really isn't.
study what the millionaire Engels actually stated on the matter of the state
Ah, this old chestnut. Attack the left winger because he lives in a capitalist system and makes money. Don't mention his complete lack of choice about living in a capitalist system. Pretend that he's a hypocrite for something he has absolutely no choice in and that his life is devoted to fighting against. Good one, Adolf.
Incidentally, Engels claimed the state would wither away once the proletariat had power. Since Mao never gave the proletariat power, but rather kept them enslaved in a nightmare of violence, famine and fear, rather unsurprisingly the state did not wither away.
No the stupidity is on your part as you keep demonstrating , I don’t know if you know but I’ve corrected your stupidity 6 times so far ?Yet you are making mistakes that junior school history pupils would blush at
Youaccuse me of being a Nazi yet another favourite tactic of the loser and not surprising as you are a predictable example of Godwin’s law and The Scotsman’s fallacy in two posts .
Yes the millionaire Engels and the wine loving Marx spent their lives fighting against ........ wine lovers and millionaires 😳😳😳
Shut the fuck up Nomenclature you authoritarian lizard monkey's reptilian grandfather of the borg. Stop pretending you care about equality, you are an orwellian authoritarian hypocrite. You haven't given any indication that you want to ebolish the state or have any interest in diminishing the power of the state, you are even worse than a Marxist. Not only do you fundamentally fail to comprehend the problems with using an authoritarian regime to end the old authoritarian regime and redistribute wealth but you don't even want to dissolve that regime once it's done it's job.
The fundamental problem with everything that you promote is that it will just lead to another form of tyranny, you cannot use force to achieve your goals and you cannot end the state by creating a new state and you cannot end inequality by taking every ones guns and moderating their speech and still having a state to enforce those rules which still has fucking guns and can use force on the fucking citizens you fucking idiot. This is not how you create a free and equal society.
If you really want to end wealth inequality and tyranny then you need to change a few things to say the least. You still haven't explained how you are going to take the guns or enforce gun laws without a government that still has guns, nukes drones etc. or expressed any interest in taking their ability to destroy the whole planet. You still haven't explained how you plan on making sure that when free speech is banned in your socialist utopia the government will be stopped from using those laws to censor everyone who questions the official anything. What it comes down to is that you are either a massive retard, a consciously tyrannical authoritarian, or you will give up your orwellian socialism and instead start advocating for a RBE.
The Marxist guide to obfuscation: When referring to Communist leaders, refuse to admit they are Communists. Remove him from the ideology by simply putting "ist" on the end of his name. Example: Stalinists, Maoists, Leninists. Tada! Communism is all better now. And remember, when promoting Communism, always refer to the theory, always avoid the fact.
Public service announcement brought to you by Nom&Co;
The Marxist guide to obfuscation: When referring to Communist leaders, refuse to admit they are Communists
The Amarel Guide To Impossible Double Standards and Destroying Your Own Credibility: Spend all day arguing that the Nazis were on the left wing, and then pretend that communism is a theory compatible with minority power just so you can claim the brutal dictator of your choosing was a real communist.
You included your own context, sure. You didn't include anybody else's.
Equality before the law is not at all the same as equality of wealth and power
Your straw man arguments are bizarre and stupid. Nobody made the claim you have denied.
Didn't you JUST say left wing politics is to equalise power and wealth?
That's exactly what I said. Why don't you sit down and have a good long think about how the redistribution of power and wealth might lead to social equality?
Why don't you sit down and have a good long think about how the redistribution of power and wealth might lead to social equality?
Why don't you think about what I actually posted. Consider what is required for the redistribution of power and wealth. Consider the fact that those who have the power to redistribute, will never be equal, in any way, to those to whom they redistribute to. You don't even know that you advocate the kind of social equality that exists under Kim Jong-Un. There cannot be equality of wealth and power unless there is a strong tyrant on top to enforce it.
You always use mockery as a deflection immediately after you are corrected or schooled about anything. It's repetitive, childish and exposes the fact that the rhetorical fallacies you use are purposeful. You are, quite simply put, a Nazi.
Why don't you think about what I actually posted.
Why don't you stop using "don't understand" and/or "didn't say that" as a mindlessly generic response every time I butcher one of your arguments?
Consider what is required for the redistribution of power and wealth.
Socialism is required. Have you even been reading the conversation we've been having? Did you think we were talking about cricket?
Consider the fact that those who have the power to redistribute, will never be equal, in any way, to those to whom they redistribute to.
But this is just yet another sneaky fallacy in which you try to impose the existing conditions of capitalism (i.e. minority power) onto the proposed conditions of socialism. Under socialism, the power to redistribute rests with the entire proletarian (i.e. working) class. It only rests with a small elite few under capitalism. Hence, what you seem to be doing (i.e. are definitely doing, based on my personal experience with you) is offering a specific condition of capitalism as a reason why socialism can't work. It's stupid.
Under socialism, the power to redistribute rests with the entire proletarian (i.e. working) class
First, this never has, nor ever could be the case under socialism. No population has ever voiced a singular intention but through a leader who represents them.
Second, the redistribution itself is the injustice. Whether you are being murdered by a single tyrant, or a mob of tyrants called the proletariat, you're still being murdered.
Third, if you replaced "proletarian" with "master race", do you know what you would be? Here's a hint, you would still be a socialist.
First, this never has, nor ever could be the case under socialism
Then you are not attacking socialism, are you? You are attacking people who have used the name only to institute their own despotic regimes. You just disproved your own argument again.
Let me guess. I have "failed to comprehend what was written"? Am I right? Lol.
If I am selling you snake oil as a cure for cancer, and you tell me that snake oil has never cured cancer, would an honest response be "Well, you must not be talking about real snake oil, because my snake oil cures cancer". No. Nobody, anymore, is buying the bullshit you are selling.
If I am selling you snake oil as a cure for cancer
You are not selling me snake oil for cancer. You are telling me that the theory of socialism/communism has not been implemented, nor could be implemented, while at the same time you are telling me that Mao was a communist. In other words, you are talking so much utter bullshit that you have gotten lost. Debating deceivers is easy because it's a simple waiting game. I know that eventually you are going to tell a lie which contradicts one of your earlier lies, so it is just a matter of being patient.
You’re fallacious thinking has deafeated you again , the “ No true Scotsman “ argument is most amusing but childish to say the least . You keep wailing Mao was not a communist Stalin was not a communist as no real commie would act a certain way , at this stage you’re merely flogging a dead horse
I am not making a no true Scotsman argument. You are making the argument that, if someone claims to be a Scotsman, they must necessarily be a Scotsman, even if they have an Irish accent.
Ah Noms run to tactic when humilated resort to pointing out grammatical mistakes 👌
A recent study came to a discovery about people like you ......
Predictably, grammar police tend to be disagreeable, close-minded, and conscientious introverts. Frothing at the mouth upon seeing "you're mom" and "stop right their" isn't the only thing these alleged tools have in common.......
That’s you to a Tee , and yet again you close by accusing me of the very Fallacy you’re guilty off 👌🤪
No retard. You are the snake oil salesman in the analogy. You keep saying that the other snake oil salesmen must not have been selling snake oil. Jesus Christ...
Your references to snake oil, cancer and salesmen have no relevance to the discussion and are a deliberate attempt on your part to deflect the glaring contradiction you have just been busted for. Your wild changes of subject whenever you get busted for contradicting yourself do not make me a retard.
Shut the fuck up Nomenclature you authoritarian lizard monkey's reptilian grandfather of the borg. Stop pretending you care about equality, you are an orwellian authoritarian hypocrite. You haven't given any indication that you want to ebolish the state or have any interest in diminishing the power of the state, you are even worse than a Marxist. Not only do you fundamentally fail to comprehend the problems with using an authoritarian regime to end the old authoritarian regime and redistribute wealth but you don't even want to dissolve that regime once it's done it's job.
The fundamental problem with everything that you promote is that it will just lead to another form of tyranny, you cannot use force to achieve your goals and you cannot end the state by creating a new state and you cannot end inequality by taking every ones guns and moderating their speech and still having a state to enforce those rules which still has fucking guns and can use force on the fucking citizens you fucking idiot. This is not how you create a free and equal society.
If you really want to end wealth inequality and tyranny then you need to change a few things to say the least. You still haven't explained how you are going to take the guns or enforce gun laws without a government that still has guns, nukes drones etc. or expressed any interest in taking their ability to destroy the whole planet. You still haven't explained how you plan on making sure that when free speech is banned in your socialist utopia the government will be stopped from using those laws to censor everyone who questions the official anything. What it comes down to is that you are either a massive retard, a consciously tyrannical authoritarian, or you will give up your orwellian socialism and instead start advocating for a RBE.
Shut the fuck up Nomenclature you authoritarian lizard monkey's reptilian grandfather of the borg. Stop pretending you care about equality, you are an orwellian authoritarian hypocrite. You haven't given any indication that you want to ebolish the state or have any interest in diminishing the power of the state, you are even worse than a Marxist. Not only do you fundamentally fail to comprehend the problems with using an authoritarian regime to end the old authoritarian regime and redistribute wealth but you don't even want to dissolve that regime once it's done it's job.
The fundamental problem with everything that you promote is that it will just lead to another form of tyranny, you cannot use force to achieve your goals and you cannot end the state by creating a new state and you cannot end inequality by taking every ones guns and moderating their speech and still having a state to enforce those rules which still has fucking guns and can use force on the fucking citizens you fucking idiot. This is not how you create a free and equal society.
If you really want to end wealth inequality and tyranny then you need to change a few things to say the least. You still haven't explained how you are going to take the guns or enforce gun laws without a government that still has guns, nukes drones etc. or expressed any interest in taking their ability to destroy the whole planet. You still haven't explained how you plan on making sure that when free speech is banned in your socialist utopia the government will be stopped from using those laws to censor everyone who questions the official anything. What it comes down to is that you are either a massive retard, a consciously tyrannical authoritarian, or you will give up your orwellian socialism and instead start advocating for a RBE.
Second, the redistribution itself is the injustice.
So if you believe that justice is when all the wealth and power are held by a small elite minority then that makes you a Maoist. I mean, I'm just using your own logic here.
Whether you are being murdered by a single tyrant, or a mob of tyrants called the proletariat, you're still being murdered.
How on Earth did you jump from wealth redistribution to murder? You're mad.
Shut the fuck up Nomenclature you authoritarian lizard monkey's reptilian grandfather of the borg. Stop pretending you care about equality, you are an orwellian authoritarian hypocrite. You haven't given any indication that you want to ebolish the state or have any interest in diminishing the power of the state, you are even worse than a Marxist. Not only do you fundamentally fail to comprehend the problems with using an authoritarian regime to end the old authoritarian regime and redistribute wealth but you don't even want to dissolve that regime once it's done it's job.
The fundamental problem with everything that you promote is that it will just lead to another form of tyranny, you cannot use force to achieve your goals and you cannot end the state by creating a new state and you cannot end inequality by taking every ones guns and moderating their speech and still having a state to enforce those rules which still has fucking guns and can use force on the fucking citizens you fucking idiot. This is not how you create a free and equal society.
If you really want to end wealth inequality and tyranny then you need to change a few things to say the least. You still haven't explained how you are going to take the guns or enforce gun laws without a government that still has guns, nukes drones etc. or expressed any interest in taking their ability to destroy the whole planet. You still haven't explained how you plan on making sure that when free speech is banned in your socialist utopia the government will be stopped from using those laws to censor everyone who questions the official anything. What it comes down to is that you are either a massive retard, a consciously tyrannical authoritarian, or you will give up your orwellian socialism and instead start advocating for a RBE.
Third, if you replaced "proletarian" with "master race", do you know what you would be?
Ahahahahahahahaha!
In Hitler's mind, Communism was a major enemy of Germany, an enemy he often mentions in Mein Kampf. During the trial for his involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in "fighting Marxism".[102] Marxism, Bolshevism, and Communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler as evidenced by their use in Mein Kampf
The very fact that you are telling me what I want and don't want is indubitable proof that you are a fascist. In a free society, you don't get to tell me what I want or don't want. I make up my own mind.
Islam is fascist by definition. No nom concern. Islam is antisemitic. No nom concern. Islam is nationalist. No nom concern. Islam is ultra right wing. No nom concern. Islam is antifeminism. No nom concern. Islam is anti homosexuality. No nom concern
Islam oppresses all nonmuslim minorities. No nom.concern. Why? They aren't in the way of your socialist "itopia"...or so you blindly think. Taqiyya, kitman, muruna, and tawriya are words you best get familiar with nom. They're going to come into play on the world stage in your lifetime.
That's not a response. There's a reason it's called Islamo-fascism. You have no response because there is no logical response. You'll simply retreat back and cling to your dogma like it's your own personal religion, fully ignoring the warnings from massive numbers of ex-Muslims and even ignoring the things Muslims themselves say. The irony is that you condemn antisemitic nationalism while Islam is antisemitic and nationalist.
In this context, they aren't. Right wing socialists are concerned with race. Left wing Socialists are concerned with class. To prove it, I will quote you, but replace "socialism" with "nazism" and "proletarian" with "master race". Everyone but you will see it is a perfectly coherent flip.
"Under nazism, the power to redistribute rests with the entire master race. It only rests with a small elite few under capitalism. Hence, what you seem to be doing (i.e. are definitely doing, based on my personal experience with you) is offering a specific condition of capitalism as a reason why nazism can't work. It's stupid."
Talk more about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Keep pretending that dictatorship means freedom.
Lol. In no context is race the same thing as class. Shut up.
Right wing socialists
Amarel, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you if you're going to throw these absurd oxymorons into your writing. It has been well evidenced in academia that socialism is a left wing political theory.
Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–1799).[1] According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, whereas conservatism and capitalism are on the right.
"Usually regarded as" is not the same as "well evidenced"
I have tried to resolve the contradiction inherent in the left/right spectrum analysis as it concerns Nazis by pointing out that their nationalist racism was the most right wing part about them. It's what most people are concerned with. Very well, then they are right wing socialists. But now you tell me that Nazis, and all socialists are actually left wing. Very well...Nazis are left wing
Shut the fuck up Nomenclature you authoritarian lizard monkey's reptilian grandfather of the borg. Stop pretending you care about equality, you are an orwellian authoritarian hypocrite. You haven't given any indication that you want to ebolish the state or have any interest in diminishing the power of the state, you are even worse than a Marxist. Not only do you fundamentally fail to comprehend the problems with using an authoritarian regime to end the old authoritarian regime and redistribute wealth but you don't even want to dissolve that regime once it's done it's job.
The fundamental problem with everything that you promote is that it will just lead to another form of tyranny, you cannot use force to achieve your goals and you cannot end the state by creating a new state and you cannot end inequality by taking every ones guns and moderating their speech and still having a state to enforce those rules which still has fucking guns and can use force on the fucking citizens you fucking idiot. This is not how you create a free and equal society.
If you really want to end wealth inequality and tyranny then you need to change a few things to say the least. You still haven't explained how you are going to take the guns or enforce gun laws without a government that still has guns, nukes drones etc. or expressed any interest in taking their ability to destroy the whole planet. You still haven't explained how you plan on making sure that when free speech is banned in your socialist utopia the government will be stopped from using those laws to censor everyone who questions the official anything. What it comes down to is that you are either a massive retard, a consciously tyrannical authoritarian, or you will give up your orwellian socialism and instead start advocating for a RBE.
in Hitler's mind, Communism was a major enemy of Germany
In Hitler's mind, Winston Churchill, a Conservative, was the enemy of Germany. And you call Conservatives, such as Churchill, Nazis. Plus, you agree with Hitler on Islam anddisagree with Churchill on Islam.
Opposition to fascist dictatorship is what causes fascist dictatorship
Pretending your enemy are fascists (like any Western country) and ignoring real fascists (Middle East, North African, and some Asian countries), is how you will get fascists.
ignoring real fascists (Middle East, North African, and some Asian countries)
Islam is not the same thing as fascism, you ignorant 12 year old idiot. One is a religion invented in the 7th century and the other is a political ideology invented in the 20th century. How is it even possible that you are so stupid?
A dictatorship is a hierarchy. The left wants the opposite of a hierarchy
You can call creating a god like government with control over what you say and whether you eat or not today whatever you feel like calling it.
Face facts. These people were just like you and your alt-right heroes.
Calling Independents "alt right" is pretty sickening. Let me guess. You're a Satanist who sacrifices children because I say so.
You worship people like Mao and Stalin as gods.
Trust me. Communists are in your tribe, and your tribe doesn't get god status. At least not from me. Maybe you give them God status seeing you keep telling us how wonderful Communism is for fighting Nazis, never dreaming that two evil groups can exist and fight each other and neither one be great or good.
You can call creating a god like government with control over what you say and whether you eat or not today whatever you feel like calling it.
I just explained that the left does not want that. Liberals perhaps want that, but liberalism is only the left of capitalism, not the actual left. Marx wrote about the complete dissolution of the state, so I would suggest you do a lot more reading and a lot less writing. At present your complete ignorance of the ideology you are attacking is not assisting your credibility.
Calling Independents "alt right"
You are an independent in the same way that Hitler was an independent. Shut up.
But Marx was Hitler's grandfather. They ate honey in the wilderness together. Haven't you ever read "Der Gibt Auch Der das Deiner" you third world goblin?
Wanting it and creating it are not the same thing. Does man want to destroy the environment? Not at all. But it does it anyway. Does man want colon cancer that is caused by poor diet? Not at all. But it happens anyway.
You have taken the position of There Should be No Freedom of Speech on this forum
@xMathFanx
You are using a purposefully sensationalist title I used for a single debate as a springboard to deliberately misrepresenting my views. My position is actually that you should not be permitted to deliberately misrepresent other people's views, so the irony of your attack cannot be understated.
Do you not appreciate the issues are not the same? The cost is not the same? The cost/benefit is not the same? Or that The purpose is not the same?
Of course not: because you're an idiot.
Waterfall page 2
You're obviously triggered; so when you can defend your idiocy with an argument like a grown up, we can talk.
-
How about you stop being an intellectually lazy retard, who refuses to defend anything he says, and start actually using logic and reason.
-
of someone who has lied multiple hundreds of times on everything they say, making shit up must come naturally to you.
-
I pointed out why it is a lie: and the fact you sit realisethat what you just claimed is refuted by history, geography and basic common sense really speaks volumes about your idiocy.
-
So it's seems your retarded with regards to geography as well as history.
-
It's just that what they mean is "from within is an idiot."
Only somebody who was nauseously stupid would define a person's entire character on the basis of a single action. In fact, only someone who was pathetic and desperately full of hatred would ignore the long explanation for the title given in the opening post and pretend the title was all there was.
Only somebody who was nauseously stupid would define a person's entire character on the basis of a single action. In fact, only someone who was pathetic and desperately full of hatred would ignore the long explanation for the title given in the opening post and pretend the title was all there was.
You're such a child it's honestly pathetic.
First, thanks for clarifying your position.
Second, is it an isolated incident? Or, is it in-line with a perpetual pattern of behavior you have displayed since first joining CD (with your Nomenclature account, that is)?
Amazing! It's my debate title, but I didn't mean it now
But I did mean it. I purposefully used a sensationalist debate title. But that makes me sensationalist in the same way that kissing babies made Hitler compassionate.
Please take the hint. Nobody wants you here on this site.
A dictatorship is a hierarchy. The left wants the opposite of a hierarchy. The solitary concept of left wing politics is to equalise power and wealth, and by bringing up names like Mao you turn that concept upside down.
I agree with you in principle, however a huge problem with the typical talk surrounding the Left-Right dynamic is that the many of the positions/views on both sides are self-contradictory and often highly out of step with theory.
A few examples I have previously given about this from the Left are "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic", student "protests" designed to shut-down Free Speech, ect. ect. From the Right, there are also a plethora of self-contradictory positions such as Small Government but massive military with a global presence, Nationalism and sovereignty are of chief importance but we should perpetually interfere with the affairs of other Nations, Lazefaire Capitalism in theory should reign supreme however promote all sorts of Mixed Economy positions, "Family values" are most important but most parents are encouraged to physically, emotionally, psychologically, educationally, ect. abuse their children, ect. ect.
Are you going to engage with the points I made, or do intend on staying highly active on a Debate Forum without ever actually engaging in any form of communication remotely approaching academic disputation?