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.
You don't get to pick and choose which parts of society are your society and then declare your sociopolitical government based on it. If that were the case the head of the KKK could call himself both supreme ruler and a USA socialist while he burns crosses and lynches dark skinned people.
It’s not as simple as that, but the point is that sanctioned murder and socialism can and often have co-existed. If you’re a nationalist and a socialist it’s a logical progression.
You don't get to pick and choose which parts of society are your society
I’m not giving him a pass on his ugliness. I’m saying his socialism is a part of his ugliness. You can be a socialist and sanction murder. The history of socialism is full of such leaders, including the right wing Hitler.
The history of socialism is full of such leaders, including the right wing Hitler
But this is a contradictory statement. Hitler cannot have been both a socialist and on the right, since socialism is not on the right. Socialism is on the left.
The fact of the matter is that the only person to describe Hitler as a socialist was Hitler. You know this is true, you know that Hitler was a pathological liar, and you know that all the evidence suggests he was a fascist not a socialist.
But still you persist in propagating these anti-socialist myths.
But this is a contradictory statement. Hitler cannot have been both a socialist and on the right, since socialism is not on the right. Socialism is on the left.
you know that all the evidence suggests he was a fascist not a socialist.
You act as though someone can't desire a master race & socialism for that race. You act as though a person has to be left or right & can't be neither or both. You act like Hitler wasn't a sneaky, self absorbed lying psychopath on drugs. You act like your head is shoved up your ass. Can you breathe? What's it smell like up there?
You act as though someone can't desire a master race & socialism for that race
Very clearly you do not understand the difference between fascism and socialism, or why they are mutually exclusive ideologies. I'll explicate in very simple terms for you.
Socialists believe in equality wherever it is possible.
Fascists believe in hierarchy wherever it is possible.
A master race cannot be socialist by very virtue of its self-identification as being supreme to other races. I hope this clears the matter up for you.
Hitler was placed on the right by socialist who wished to distance themselves from him. Easy to do since Hitler was a Nationalist, which is associated with the Right. But he also had many policies that the modern left still holds near and dear. And yeah, his ideas went well with Mussolini’s Fascism. But Mussolini got his Fascism from Giovanni Gentile, a Marxist. Minus the murder, Fascism is simply a form of mixed economy.
You think left and right are universal categories with ideologies fitting neatly into one or the other. This is simplistic and unrealistic. It’s convenient for you because everything you don’t like, you claim is Right, while the things you like, you claim are left.
Your version of Hitler makes him sound like an illegal immigrant. Screw other peoples' borders & just take over. If anyone opposes you call them evil & do what you want anyways.
You are think too one dimensionally. You are assuming that all socialists are non-authoritarians and all have the same social values. You can be a socialist and an egalitarian but you can also be a socialist and a racist authoritarian nutjob case.
No one segments society more than the socialistic left. For them it’s all about rich vs poor, black vs white, gay vs straight, trans vs cis. The problem is that the alt right agree with them. Th only difference is that the modern socialist left wants to get on top by force while the alt right wants to stay on top by force. Yes, there is such a thing as a right wing socialist. Hitler’s right wing label stems from his nationalism.
What you MISS is that socialists don't SEE a segmented society.
This is because left wing folks wear blinders. Every race and religion in the country has segregated itself away from the other races & religions. The blacks live in black neighborhoods. Same with whites, Asians, & Hispanics. The Mormons are in Utah. The Muslims are in Dearborn. But left wing folks cannot ever admit that this is how people really are in real life. Everyone goes to what they know. It is nature. Left wing folks prefer a fictional reality that is not real. It is sad to watch them try to create something that keeps tribalizing and segregating itself.
A.H. wanted a NATIONALIST Germany with a "socialistic" lean of his own design. Just like the U.S.S.R. twisted socialism to their own design. A TOOL to make people THINK the "Peoples Government", the "Peoples Army", the "Peoples court", etc, belonged to "the people". The Peoples vote was controlled by the Peoples Government making it totally different from democratic socialism. Socialism is supposed to be like a collective where "the people" share the costs AND the benefits and the CONTROL .... just like our Constitution lays out. Just like it was when America WAS great!
The Constitution lays out the guidelines for a minimal government with elected representatives. A socialist government requires massive intrusion into the lives of the people; a gigantic government.
Even if someone noble starts off at the helm with such power as that provided to the leaders of a socialist system, it is a short matter of time before a Mao or a Stalin ousts them and takes control. That’s one of many reasons why a full system of socialism has always lead to destruction. And it’s foolish little future serfs who always claim that socialism hasn’t been tried, leading the way to another in a long history of socialist catastrophes, which they will then claim wasn’t true socialism.
Well, the Mao, Stalin, Castro socialism was a TOOL, as I said. The socialism I want is the socialism we've had since the 40's. You can't easily "take control" of a Social Democracy. Not easily I said. Trump is trying desperately right now, and that IS dangerous. As he says, "We'll see what happens." There are several descriptions of "true socialism", there's only ONE I'm interested in, and it doesn't include anyone like Stalin or Trump!
A socialist system, achieved by democratic means, is still a catastrophe when they run out of other people’s money. Every form of socialism relies on the production and market signals provided by capitalism. That’s why the only socialism that is tenable, is the very small socialism within capitalist societies. They are tenable, but often no more just.
A socialist system, achieved by democratic means, is still a catastrophe when they run out of other people’s money.
Oh just stop with your generic appeals to cliche and fallacy. Socialism is the precise opposite of taking other people's money because the money they take belongs to them in the first place. If I do a full day's work but only receive 20 percent of the profit my work produces, then you are stealing my fucking money. Well, I want it back. THAT'S socialism.
The democratic form of socialism relies on the cooperative tax money sent to its government to be well distributed to where it will do those "donors" the most good. Having the money to "donate" to a collective cause means we must work to earn some money. Enter capitalism as a stimulant to earn more so that our collective grows and improves. Hard to separate that from a democracy because a REAL democracy must BE socialistic! We all donate for our infrastructure, health care, education of our kids. It CANNOT work under a dictator! You MUST have a free vote for a socialistic society to work, to minimize the corruption that comes from communism and fascism (or authoritarianism)! Capitalism is a natural partner to democratic socialism ... as the last 200 plus years of America's greatness has shown. The move toward authoritarianism by THIS government threatens to destroy what we have had!
The democratic form of socialism relies on the cooperative tax money sent to its government to be well distributed to where it will do those "donors" the most good. Having the money to "donate" to a collective cause means we must work to earn some money. Enter capitalism as a stimulant to earn more so that our collective grows and improves.
But your argument here is predicated on the false belief that working hard and/or "earning more" is how major political donors can afford to support their ideological causes. You must get this childish idea out of your head that capitalism is a fair system where the people who work hardest are those who are rewarded. It is a demonstrable myth which has been propagated en masse into American psychology only so you do not revolt.
Citizens United is NOT something that came from a socialistic SCOTUS. What DOES come from socialistic thinking is getting the big money OUT of politics, and leaving a level playing field for "WE, the People". That, of course, coupled with getting rid of the act of Gerrymandering. The "capitalists" are kicking and screaming about balancing the map in PA and other places. Democratic socialists want fairness. I guess that's too much to ask of "some people". The only "revolt-like" activity is that which I see coming from the conservative capitalist side.
It is a demonstrable myth which has been propagated en masse
No one thinks that hard work is all it takes. If people thought that, they would just work hard digging holes and producing nothing of value. Your Marxist labor theory of value is what’s mythical.
Tax is not cooperative, it’s compulsory. We don’t work to fund the tax regime. It is completely backwards to start with a tax system and then say “enter capitalism” as though it is merely a funding tool. Rather, government that protects individual rights will enable the emergence of capitalism. When governmental functions are not specifically limited, enter socialism to leach of the productive power of capitalism.
There are a number of goods and services that are not most efficiently produced by markets and/or necessarily have free riders due to unavoidable common use. These are things like roads, military, law enforcement etc. funding these things via the government is necessary and proper. When you start funding beyond a narrow governmental role, you create perverse incentives and market inefficiency. When that happens, people (in DC) whose lavish livelihoods depend on big government will say they need another government program to fix the market inefficiency or crisis created by the perverse incentives they themselves produced. And people like you will agree with them.
