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.
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?
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?
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.
"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.
How are you defining "Fascism?" Hitler's political system was called "National Socialism" whereas Mussolini's political system was called "Fascism"
Shut up Winston.
Man says Nazis were socialist, gets schooled by history writer.
The fact that the far-right party contained 'socialist' in the name was a rebranding gambit to draw workers away from communism and into populist nationalism.
Despite this, the populist nationalists that support the likes of Donald Trump, regularly take the opportunity to remind modern day liberal or left-leaning critics of white-supremacists and neo-nazis that 'Socialism' was included in the Nazi party name.
You do realize that I never said that Nazis were socialist but rather merely quoted their name? I tried to have an intelligent discussion with you but rather than engage you attack a point I never made.
You do realize that I never said that Nazis were socialist
Didn't I just tell you to shut up? You do not have to explicitly state something in order to make it your explicit implication. For example, I did not tell you that you thought the Nazis were socialists, and yet you seem to have discovered my implication without difficulty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was Lenin who led the Bolshevik Revolution, not Marx.
Nobody said otherwise.
The fact that Lenin implemented a system based on the naïve fantasy of a de facto child is not Marx's fault, but Lenin's.
The fact that the system devolved automatically into brutality and oppression was predictable based on the human drive to compete and climb hierarchies.
While that [requirement of dictatorships to implement the system] is true it applies equally to capitalism and every other system which has ever been tried.
Erroneous.
Modern free market capitalism was not implemented by dictatorships, but rather arose in republics (e.g., the US) and parliamentary monarchies (e.g., Great Britain) without any government plan or push to implement it.
While some dictatorships have arisen in capitalist societies, the economic system preexisted the dictatorship (e.g., Peron in Argentina.)
This [Human beings have an overwhelming tendency toward competitive tribal organizations and hierarchies.] is egregious bullshit.
Really?
Name one non-hierarchical society.
Name one society that does not divide (or has not divided) into classes, castes, ranks, or into competing groups like political parties, factions, tribes, clans, companies, competing families, etc.
It's the same as saying humans have an "overwhelming tendency" toward wanting to serve other humans.
You leapt from "humans compete (and often try to control) others" to humans want to lose and serve/be controlled. A tendency toward the one in no way implies a tendency toward the other.
In fact the competition seems to be as much about trying to avoid being at the bottom of the hierarchy (controlled) as it is about trying to move toward the top (have control.)
It is possibly less about power over other people (as an end in itself) than it is about being closer to the front of the line (metaphorically speaking) in order to have access to more resources, and surer access to resources.
You have leaped from your erroneous conclusion that humans want to serve other humans to the further conclusion that this desire is genetic.
Not so.
- 1 - As I just pointed out, my conclusion was not that humans want to serve. A tendency toward hierarchies and competition in no way suggests or even relates to a desire to serve.
- 2 - I made no claim about the cause of the tendency toward hierarchies and competition.
While it very well may be genetic (the dominance hierarchy is near-universal in social animals), I know of no identified genes shown to have a causal, or even correlative link to this drive. There could be other causes like universal aspects of culture, though I make no claims about that either.
Whatever the cause, the phenomenon clearly exists.
You did not need to say it because your implication was obvious. You state the implication outright in your very next sentence:-
The fact that Lenin implemented a system based on the naïve fantasy of a de facto child is not Marx's fault, but Lenin's.
Firstly, I do not think you understand what "de facto" means or when it should be applied within a sentence. Secondly, Lenin's ideology was reformist. He was not following Marx's ideas. That is why you needed to be told that Lenin and not Marx started the Bolshevik Revolution. Unfortunately, since you are quite flagrantly intellectually dishonest, instead of acknowledging the point being made, you have simply deflected it and repeated your original fallacy that Marx's ideas and Lenin's are one and the same.
The fact that the system devolved automatically into brutality and oppression was predictable based on the human drive to compete and climb hierarchies.
The system did not delve automatically into brutality and oppression you revisionist idiot. There was a violent revolution. The thing which is "predictable" is that violence occurs during violent revolutions. The part about "human drive to compete and climb hierarchies is complete fucking nonsense which you simply made up.
Erroneous.
History is erroneous? That's absolutely hilarious. Good one.
Modern free market capitalism was not implemented by dictatorships
You are a lying idiot. American capitalism was founded on the back of a violent revolution exactly the same as Bolshevism was founded on the back of a violent revolution. Like everybody else on the American right, your double standards are SPECTACULAR. You have one frame of reference which you use for yourself and your ideological allies, and you use the opposite frame of reference when discussing your ideological opposition.
While some dictatorships have arisen in capitalist societies
Capitalist society is a dictatorship you fool. Nobody gives you a choice about whether you want capitalism or something else.
Save the rest of your false, deceitful, long-winded nonsense for somebody who is going to read it.
American capitalism was founded on the back of a violent revolution
Learn some history.
The American Revolution did not happen until 1775, and was not over until 1783.
Free Market Capitalism in the American colonies, particularly New England, is easily traceable to early in the 18th century, and arguably was in place well before that.
For example, the development of mechanized textile mills in New England dates to the early 1730s, and was the result of capitalism and the free market.
The mills were the result of a cycle of capital investment, reinvestment profits by private owners (from previous textile manufacture and sale) used to build the larger facilities and take advantage of economies of scale. The implementation of technological developments was the result of the need to compete with other producers, and that implementation was made possible by the reinvestment of profits.
None of this process of reinvestment of profits to develop businesses was designed, regulated, or mandated by any governmental institution.
The violent revolution did not start until a half century after this process was well underway.
fallacy that Marx's ideas and Lenin's are one and the same.
Without Marx, you don't get Lenin...or nomenclature. And Marx's ideas will be used by the next Hitler to control the masses and any opposition through brutal force.
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.
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?
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.
Common enemies, whether real or manufactured, are useful to governments and rising politicians. Hitler used them to fuel his rise to power, further consolidate his power once he was chancellor, and build his ambitions as fuhrer.
The eradication of communism, like the eradication of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. were convenient goals to unite Germany by pushing the common enemy button, as a way to convince the people to cede power to the government and to.
Interestingly, American politicians used the Red Scare, and the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror in a similar way.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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"
"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"
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?