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.
"National socialism" was a form of far right fascism which Hitler falsely associated with socialism because he was trying to win votes.
Words are one thing, but reality is another. You can argue that Hitler was lying to win votes, but either way National Socialism and "far right fascism" manifest themselves just like any other kind of socialism does... with the state owning everything and killing a lot of people.
Did you believe everything Hitler said?
Rhetoric is one thing, but socialists promote the ideology that always ends up manifesting as fascism despite your best efforts to make it sound like the opposite. So yes, I believe Hitler when he claims to be the thing that always leads to dictatorship and state sponsored mass killings but not when he says it's about tolerance and equality and unicorns and rainbows.
You just don't understand Nom. Hitler WAS lying when he claimed to be a socialist. Not about being a socialist, but about socialism meaning what every socialist says it means until it's implemented and kills millions of people.
The reality is that you are agreeing with Hitler and rejecting the work of every political scientist who has ever researched Nazi politics. That's good enough reason for me to ignore you.
The burden of proof is on you that "every political scientist" thinks the Nazis were right wing
Wrong. The burden of proof is on you that national socialists were/are on the left, since that is what your title implies. Your trolling is just plain childish.
Communism is a political term, Socialism is a economical term. Therefor, socialism can be "integrated" into ANY political entity. I would never support a communistic entity! I would never support a completely socialistic entity. I DO support a combined socialist/capitalist/Democratic entity that works for the PEOPLE, not just the FEW!
So called "National Socialists" are a political group of the worst kind! NAZI's, any way you spell it! THAT'S WHY left wingers do not "claim" either! Any more Putinesgue propaganda you would like to spread??? :-(
"National socialism" was an attempt by the far right to hijack the socialist label, as at the time socialism was inextricably linked with ideas of policies that were for the people, not the elite (think monarchies and hereditary lordship etc). But the difference is that true socialism is intrinsically democratic: it works from the bottom upwards. The populace control the means of production and exchange ie. they direct the economy. But in a "national socialist" or "Nazi" framework, the authoritarian government control all aspects of life, under the guise of "for the people".
Left wing socialism is democratic, and puts power in the hands of the many. Nazism is anti-democratic, and puts the power in the hands of the few. The only thing "socialist" about Nazism is the name.
The far right, from Oswald Mosley to Hitler to Mussolini, have always attempted to claim "the will of the people", and that they "speak for the many", when actually, the people become pawns in a political coup that sees their rights and values distorted and stolen.
True socialism does not take power from the many, it gives it to them.
"National socialism" was an attempt by the far right to hijack the socialist label, as at the time socialism was inextricably linked with ideas of policies that were for the people, not the elite
Buddy, you are absolutely correct but he already knows this. The OP is a FactMachine alt. He entertains himself by pretending to have opinions he doesn't actually have, so that he can troll people like you and I who come here to debate. Just like a child, what he wants is attention.
I call it the disingenuous strawman. It's the guy playing the Devil's Advocate with no horns, trying to convince people of something he doesn't believe himself.
I don't get why people can't just be honest with themselves and others anymore. I, and my family and general, have the knack of cutting through the bullshit. But it seems like even then, people nowadays wear the cognitive dissonance to completely ignore logical schema like badge of honour.
National Socialism cannot exactly be identified as 'Left'. Leftists can only claim the legacy of Communist regimes in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America because these were the only regimes that directly descended from Marxian thoughts and ideas (although these regimes came up with customized versions of Communism to suit their own agendas). An important thing to note here is that these regimes eventually wanted to achieve a classless and stateless societies, but had a state system. The existence of the state in these countries under the Communists can only be justified under the context of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' and the eventual de-alienation of the Proletariat. Therefore, there is a justification to the existence of the state, which however turned out to be very controversial. On the other hand we also have the more liberal leftists of the Western Europe and the United States who are 'Democratic Socialists', Democratic Socialism is a more liberal form of leftism which supports democratic means of achieving socialism without a bloody revolution. It is not right to identify Democratic Socialism of the West as pure leftism due to the fact that Democratic Socialism doesn't outright condemn private property and also doesn't have a strong anti-state agenda. Democratic Socialists believe in a more gradual transformation to an era of socialism with communal ownership of capital. The Nazis were supporters of a strong state, pro-industry, and also strong believers in cultural-religions identities. Being cultural nationalists, the Nazis contradicted Marxian positions on religion. The Nazis also allowed private ownership of capital and pursued mercantile ideas of economic prosperity. Therefore it is impossible for the 'Leftists' of the modern world to identity themselves with 'National Socialists' and 'Democratic Socialists'.
National Socialism cannot exactly be identified as 'Left'.
Lol. It's the precise political opposite of the left according to just about every historical scholar and/or political scientist who ever had any credibility. But somehow you interpret that as "not exactly" the left? That's hilarious. Nobody of any intelligence is going to care what you write after beginning with a line like that. You should stop jabbering. The Nazis were as far right as it is possible to be. Every single white supremacist and neo-Nazi group on the face of the planet is on the far right. "Not exactly" the left, huh?
You would not know the difference between left and right even if the political spectrum was sitting on your head. You are either too naive or too stupid to define 'Right' and 'Left' in such absolute terms. Anti-elitism (which was mainly targeting the Jews) was also part of Hitler's campaign, to protest against the domination of the economy by one community definitely has a flavor of leftism. Hitler however could not sell Socialism after coming to power due to his extreme views on the powers of the State. But the anti-elitist (Jewish elites controlling the economy) campaign of Hitler was one of the primary reasons for his success. if you define right and left purely on racial lines, you are a big joke. What about economics? What about Political transformation? Before vomiting all over this debate space and spewing venom on opponents, at least have the decency to read their full argument. Stop being a joke!
You would not know the difference between left and right even if the political spectrum was sitting on your head.
So you're basically arguing the hundreds of professional historians who say the Nazis were on the far right are all stupid, yes? None of them would have any idea of the difference between left and right even if it were "sitting on their head"?
You're a moron. Shut up.
Also, note how I used the correct word, "were", rather than "was". You should try mastering the basics of your own language before getting into anything complicated like history or politics.
It's the precise political opposite of the left according to just about every historical scholar and/or political scientist who ever had any credibility.
Now you're moving the goal post. Before you said it was every single one, now you claim it's only the ones that have "credibility"(by which you mean they are "Nom-approved" which requires them to be far-left ideological zealots and thus not very credible to those with functioning brains).
Every single white supremacist and neo-Nazi group on the face of the planet is on the far right.
The KKK was founded by a Democrat and the Nazis were Socialists though.
So not a historian or a political scientist then. Someone who studies the economy for a living.
Lol. Your failure to produce a single historian or political scientist to back up your idiocy wins you an automatic fail. Go stand in the corner and shut your face.
He was alive during the Nazi regime so he doesn't need to be a historian and it was your own fat mouth that has repeatedly stated that Socialism is an economic theory and not a political one.
I simply just don't care what you think is fake news or not, because something equally far left would be just fine as far as you're concerned which indicates that you are not pointing out the bias in the article but pointing out your own bias by claiming it is fake news and citing far left sources in the meantime.
I simply just don't care what you think is fake news or not
You are very confused. It is not a matter of opinion. The Federalist is a fake news website. See:-
The Federalist has also promoted pseudoscience
A factual search reveals that The Federalist has made a few verified false claims.
Overall, we rate The Federalist a borderline Questionable and far Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of pseudoscience and three failed fact checks.
left wing "fact checkers" attacking right wingers and claiming to be objective. Left wing Nom bitching about my sources than citing said biased left wingers.
