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 can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Communism be given another chance?
As history has shown us all, communism and socialism has been portrayed and used as a horrible system of government and life. However, people throughout the world still believe that communism and socialism could have had a more positive reputation if the system was practiced in its pure form. So, should humanity give another shot at communism and socialism?
Firstly, Hitler was not a communist, he was a fascist, and secondly, I would only support communism if it were anarcho-syndicalism, like the peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the Spanish Civil War.
Hitler was partially socialist, but not in the usual sense. Rather than seeking elimination of class and equality, he actually wanted to keep the hierachial class system of Germany, but make the workers stronger so that Germany overall would be stronger. Oh, and it's probably worth mentioning that one of Hitler's main aims was the eradication of communism, hence the tension between him and Stalin in the Nazi-Soviet pact.
I don't think fascist is the correct word to describe Stalin however, I think authoritarian makes more sense when describing a left wing analogy, as fascism is usually associated with the right wing. Of course, this is due to the outdated one dimensional political spectrum and is merely a linguistic construct.
Either way, yes, both were authoritarian totalitarian ballbag touchers.
Hitler was partially socialist, but not in the usual sense. Rather than seeking elimination of class and equality
Socialism is not a classless society, it never has been, that would be Communism.
Oh, and it's probably worth mentioning that one of Hitler's main aims was the eradication of communism, hence the tension between him and Stalin in the Nazi-Soviet pact.
Yes I do know that, Hitler actually thought Russia was a great country that was just ruined by communism.
I don't think fascist is the correct word to describe Stalin however, I think authoritarian makes more sense when describing a left wing analogy, as fascism is usually associated with the right wing. Of course, this is due to the outdated one dimensional political spectrum and is merely a linguistic construct.
Not really, socialism is left of centrism. And yes, Hitler and Stalin were both extreme authoritarians, but the term fascist is used to describe authoritarian views that are centre right in nature, hence why we call Hitler "far right" when really, economically, he was a bit of a leftie. I'm not saying Stalin wasn't a totalitarian authoritarian prick, I'm just saying you should use those words instead of fascist.
Fascism is just extreme authoritarianism, doesn't matter if you're to the left or right. Now I know in recent times some hipsters who do nothing with their life besides sit at star bucks and listen to Death Cab or Cutie (not referring to you) have decided that fascism only applies to the right wing doctrine of belief, but its really not true.
Socialism is the mid point between Capitalism and Socialism and I would say Hitler was pretty close to that.
Authoritarianism is already an extreme, fascism is just what we call right wing authoritarianism. Left wing authoritarianism is usually called Stalinism if it's communist.
"Now I know in recent times "
Not really, we've had the same definition of fascism since the rise of fascism in the early 20th century.
The problem with using the word fascist is that fascism is a political belief system in itself, embodying extreme nationalism and requiring a dictator. Extreme authoritarianism isn't necessarily nationalistic or dictatorial, sometimes it focuses on an ideal rather than a national identity, like Stalin's Russia.
Socialism is not midway between communism and capitalism. Socialism is between communism and centrism. Centrism is between communism and free market capitalism.
Authoritarianism is already an extreme, fascism is just what we call right wing authoritarianism.
The term fascism is originated from Italian Socialists, as you are probably aware, Socialism is not right wing at all yet that is were the term comes from.
Left wing authoritarianism is usually called Stalinism if it's communist.
Ring wing, Left wing, it doesn't matter, its still fascism.
Not really, we've had the same definition of fascism since the rise of fascism in the early 20th century.
Actually, no we haven't. The term was originally used to describe Italian Socialists, most of whom were authoritarian. Then in the 80's and 90's the term pretty much lost all meaning when people decided to throw the term at anyone who disagreed with them.
The problem with using the word fascist is that fascism is a political belief system in itself, embodying extreme nationalism and requiring a dictator. Extreme authoritarianism isn't necessarily nationalistic or dictatorial, sometimes it focuses on an ideal rather than a national identity, like Stalin's Russia.
Fascism is not primarily about dictatorship and nationalism, however these things are closely related to fascism since fascism is radical authoritarianism nationalism and dictatorship are usually closely tied with the extreme power and authority of the state.
Socialism is not midway between communism and capitalism. Socialism is between communism and centrism. Centrism is between communism and free market capitalism.
Centrism is not the half way point between Communism and Capitalism, it is just a fancy word for being a moderate and not siding with the left or the right. Unlike socialism which is always in the middle of Capitalism and Communism, the definition of centrisim changes from country, just as being a moderate in America is much different then being a moderate in the UK.
Firstly, my regards to the creator of such an excellent debate topic. Now I would like my views to be learned.
Firstly, I think it should be given another chance. History has shown us that communist groups have always been very powerful with the support of the public. Hitler and Vladimir were one of the heroes of communism, and we have the results of their leadership.
Secondly, as mentioned before, a government is of the people, by the people and for the people, without respect of its type ( monarchy, democracy or communist ). So until and unless it has the support of the public, it cant be successful. Communism has this in ample.
Thirdly, they lead by cause. Communism groups have no rules and do not accept the social rules and regulations. Their existence is because of their cause. We don't find this in democracies and monarchies, where people are ready to oppose the leader.
I would thus conclude by adding my last and very important point : communism should be given another chance until and unless -
/ they are very necessary ( because they tend to fight for existence, which is not necessary at all times )
/their aims are noble ( not like dominating the world, like what happened with hitler )
/it should accept the rules made by society and rules of other cultures & origins
Thank you as well for providing such an excellent argument. In all honesty, I support a great majority of the facts you shared. However, I have to say that I as a communist follower do not, and will never place Hitler under that category. I strongly believe that his views were complete garbage. In theory, neither communism nor socialism support the idea of a mester race dominating the world. Socialism and communism support a more peaceful ideology in which the idea of race and nations do not exist. This is done to have a more peaceful environmet and so all people of Earth, no matter what cultures, ethnicities, or religions they come from can live in harmony together and to live in community. Thus, the meaning of Communism. Hitler didnt promote that view. He even had his regime burn any books that supported such an idea, for exaple, communist or socialist books. He also launched a campaign for not only his military, but for his people, to show mass hatred towards the people Hitler hated, especially, the Jews. Overall, I dont believe Hitler was really socialist. His actions sure did not show that. Good argument though.
No, we are already in a communistic/socialistic environment. We have been trapped like this throughout the ages, the only things that have changed are words and ideas, while the words have changed very much, the ideas still remain in a confined zone of "this is the only way it can be"
We need to seriously change that thought process. America started out independent but noone has noticed that we have been infiltrated. And if they did know about this, they were assassinated.
The socialist mode of production is a specific historical phase of economic development in which the criterion for economic production is use-value, and is based on direct production for use, that is production of use-values instead of exchange-values, coordinated through conscious economic planning, where the law of value no longer directs economic activity, and thus monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labor no longer operate. Income would be distributed according to individual contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus would accrue to the working class or society as a whole. This does not fit our current society at all.
