Should Calling yourself a Marxist be as Bad as Calling yourself a Nazi In Our Society? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is a globally leading online debate platform that is transforming the online debating experience. DebateIsland enables anyone to civilly debate online, casually or formally, with five fun debating formats: Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas. With DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use, online debate website, users can debate politics, debate science, debate technology, debate news, and just about anything else in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free while improving your debating skills with the help of Artifical Intelligence on DebateIsland.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Should Calling yourself a Marxist be as Bad as Calling yourself a Nazi In Our Society?

Debate Information

Discuss civilly and rationally.
Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenJace
  1. Live Poll

    Should It Be As Bad?

    20 votes
    1. Yes
      15.00%
    2. No
      85.00%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    It should be the same.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenanarchist100
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    The US won a war against Nazi's.

    The US has never won a war against communists.
    Debater123JasmineGeorge_Horse
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    The US won a war against Nazi's.

    The US has never won a war against communists.
    The Korean Civil War.

    The Greek Civil War.

    Just two examples.

    ---edit----

    The 1958 Lebanon Crisis as well.
    Happy_KillbotTreeMan
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    I guess you are not a student of history.

    The Korean war: Still declared. Also, the fact that the DPRK exists is a clear indication that the US did not win against the Juche Communists.

    Greek Civil war: The US did not declare war or deploy troops in this conflict, therefore my statement is not in conflict with the defeat of the Democratic Army of Greece despite British and American funding of the Greek army. 

    A similar situation in Lebanon. No War was declared so officially the US was never at war with Lebanon despite US deployment of troops and supplies to the region during operation blue bat.

    Now, you might want to point out that the US has never actually declared a war with a communist power, however in the other major conflicts in which the US was involved the US had no decisive victory, losing both Vietnam and North Korea.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @Debater123 ;
    I guess you are not a student of history.

    The Korean war: Still declared. Also, the fact that the DPRK exists is a clear indication that the US did not win against the Juche Communists.

    Greek Civil war: The US did not declare war or deploy troops in this conflict, therefore my statement is not in conflict with the defeat of the Democratic Army of Greece despite British and American funding of the Greek army. 

    A similar situation in Lebanon. No War was declared so officially the US was never at war with Lebanon despite US deployment of troops and supplies to the region during operation blue bat.

    Now, you might want to point out that the US has never actually declared a war with a communist power, however in the other major conflicts in which the US was involved the US had no decisive victory, losing both Vietnam and North Korea.
    Firstly you do not want to argue with me on history...

    The Korean war at this point has ended, it is considered to have ended, the cease-fire was essentially the end of the war.

    Furthermore, the US did officially declare war on Lebanon and intervened successfully, ending the war.
    May I also give a few other examples:

    First Taiwanian Strait Crisis
    Thai Communist Insurgency

    You can also/maybe count the DMZ conflict in the '60s.

    Finally, I think this is going off-topic, so please, can you tell me why you believe saying you are a Marxist is not as bad as you saying you are a nazi.
    Happy_Killbot
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 683 Pts   -  
    Nazis are worse than Marxists.  Nazis intentionally were commiting genocide while most marxists are just ignorant who don't realize that there so called compassion ends up hurting everyone.
    Debater123Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenall4acttJasmine
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Firstly you do not want to argue with me on history...
    If your knowledge of this topic is as strong as your level of knowledge on everything else, I'm sure I have much to be worried about /s
    The Korean war at this point has ended, it is considered to have ended, the cease-fire was essentially the end of the war.
    This is false. The Korean war is often called the forgotten war because we have all forgotten that it is still technically an open conflict between the PRK and the DPRK, with US involvement. The ceasefire only applies to the divided Koreas, not to US forces. This is why the US still occasionally loses soldiers on the DMZ.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1976/08/19/archives/2-americans-slain-by-north-koreans-in-clash-at-dmz-4-us-soldiers.html
    Furthermore, the US did officially declare war on Lebanon and intervened successfully, ending the war.
    May I also give a few other examples:
    Again, this is false. The US has only been in 11 officially declared conflicts. Lebanon is not among them. In fact, none of them are against communist nations.

    https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm
    First Taiwanian Strait Crisis
    Taiwan is sort of a special case, because they are part of China but not part of China. At any rate, China's legacy as a communist country which surpasses the US in economic output should give you pause. The fact that this is like Korea, an ongoing conflict and likely point of contingency for WWIII should also give credence to my statement. 
    Thai Communist Insurgency
    This is a conflict with extremely limited US involvement much like the Greek civil war. The US air force had housed personnel there, but with the exception of a single insurgency there was no major conflict between the US and Thailand communists.
    You can also/maybe count the DMZ conflict in the '60s.
    This has largely been covered above. It is hard to call what happened in Korea a capitalist victory when Juche is still very much alive and well..
    Debater123Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    Nazis are worse than Marxists.  Nazis intentionally were commiting genocide while most marxists are just ignorant who don't realize that there so called compassion ends up hurting everyone.
    Marxists were intentionally committing mass murder, like the red terror, great purge, the Cambodian genocide, cultural revolution, and so on.

    The fact that Marxists killed more people and ruined more nations and lives makes them in my opinion the same as nazis.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    Nazis are worse than Marxists.  Nazis intentionally were commiting genocide while most marxists are just ignorant who don't realize that there so called compassion ends up hurting everyone.
    One small disagreement here, Marxism is distinct from ideologies which use it as an economic foundation. Marxism is a system through which we can understand class struggle and conflict between those who work for labor and those who exploit labor for profit. Much the same way that liberalism espouses capitalism but is itself wholly distinct from these ideas, ideologies such as Stalinism or Maoism espouse Marxism as an economic foundation.

    It was the failure to eliminate this class struggle which lead to the deaths of Marxist regimes, so in that regard I would very much agree that it is unfair to compare them to the Nazi and other fascist regimes which have the explicit goal of killing people for pseudo-scientific reasons such as racial purity.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @MichaelElpers ;
    Nazis are worse than Marxists.  Nazis intentionally were commiting genocide while most marxists are just ignorant who don't realize that there so called compassion ends up hurting everyone.
    One small disagreement here, Marxism is distinct from ideologies which use it as an economic foundation. Marxism is a system through which we can understand class struggle and conflict between those who work for labor and those who exploit labor for profit. Much the same way that liberalism espouses capitalism but is itself wholly distinct from these ideas, ideologies such as Stalinism or Maoism espouse Marxism as an economic foundation.

    It was the failure to eliminate this class struggle which lead to the deaths of Marxist regimes, so in that regard I would very much agree that it is unfair to compare them to the Nazi and other fascist regimes which have the explicit goal of killing people for pseudo-scientific reasons such as racial purity.
    False, Marxism, is both a political and economical ideology, where they first require a dictatorship of the 'proletariat', which would then vanish in replace of anarcho-communism.
    'It was the failure to eliminate this class struggle which leads to the deaths of Marxist regimes' No it was not, the deaths of the cultural revolution and the great purge were not the results of class struggle, as other mass murders and famines caused by Marxism, your disgusting attempt to defend Marxism is truly horrible, my parents suffered under the hands of marxism, and here you defend it!

    You always talk of morality, so let me give you an example, you are in a room, with two other people, you have 1200 dollars in a wallet, which you recently got working at the office for your weekly paycheck, you work hard, and make ends meet, two other people are in the room, with no money, under a Marxist mindset, and ideology in effect, it would be acceptable for those men to beat the one with money up, and each take a third of his money, 400 dollars for each of them, this is moral and acceptable since redistribution of wealth through force is required, is it moral?

    But here you might respond, avoiding the question, 'But I don't want to redistribute the wealth, I want voluntary non-violent redistribution!', well that is just , no-one will give up their money for redistribution, as people want to keep the hard-earned wealth they have.

    'Stalinism or Maoism' They are both Marxist, one is simply more industrial while the other is agrarian.

    'so in that regard, I would very much agree that it is unfair to compare them to the Nazi and other fascist regimes which have the explicit goal of killing people for pseudo-scientific reasons such as racial purity.' But it is comparing the mass murder of more people for ideological reasons and 'wrong think' reasons rather than reasons based on race, ethnicity, and heritage, this comparison is very fair.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    False, Marxism, is both a political and economical ideology, where they first require a dictatorship of the 'proletariat', which would then vanish in replace of anarcho-communism.
    No, you have no idea what you are talking about. Marxism is no more a political ideology than capitalism is because it makes no recomendations for how a government ought to be organized. This is why Marxism is always paired with a political ideology the exact same way that capitalism is. Did you just not notice that, or is this another example of your extreme lack of knowledge of anything that isn't spoon-fed to you?
    You always talk of morality, so let me give you an example, you are in a room, with two other people, you have 1200 dollars in a wallet, which you recently got working at the office for your weekly paycheck, you work hard, and make ends meet, two other people are in the room, with no money, under a Marxist mindset, and ideology in effect, it would be acceptable for those men to beat the one with money up, and each take a third of his money, 400 dollars for each of them, this is moral and acceptable since redistribution of wealth through force is required, is it moral?
    That's not Marxism though.

    It would be Marxism if all the men worked at the office which made $6000 in profit and the 3 of them divided those profits evenly with no violence or force involved, and no owner who keeps $2400 for himself without doing any labor.
    But here you might respond, avoiding the question, 'But I don't want to redistribute the wealth, I want voluntary non-violent redistribution!', well that is just , no-one will give up their money for redistribution, as people want to keep the hard-earned wealth they have.
    Marxism doesn't advocate for redistribution of wealth, that is communism, socialism, or any political ideology which derives it's values from it.

    All Marxism is is the observation that as the capitalist class accumulates more wealth that they will inevitably invoke the wrath of the working class who find themselves with increasingly less wealth due to it accumulating at the top. Ironically, the very fact that Marx, Engels, and other socialist thinkers put forth these ideas is the very reason that they never came to fruition, because the wealthy read about them and then made the appropriate adjustments to prevent the conflicts from occurring.
    'Stalinism or Maoism' They are both Marxist, one is simply more industrial while the other is agrarian.
    Those are political ideologies which are paired with Marxist economic theory, with the objective of both being to eliminate the class struggle which Marx so brilliantly lays out.

    This happens to be an example of the point I am making here.
    so in that regard, I would very much agree that it is unfair to compare them to the Nazi and other fascist regimes which have the explicit goal of killing people for pseudo-scientific reasons such as racial purity.' But it is comparing the mass murder of more people for ideological reasons and 'wrong think' reasons rather than reasons based on race, ethnicity, and heritage, this comparison is very fair.
    Except that Marxism isn't exactly what killed these people. Where the Nazi's killed with intention, the deaths of communist regimes were organizational failures. This is why many of the nations that do hold Marxist principals openly don't have the problems that these early adopters of the ideology had, and are in fact among the happiest, wealthiest, and most developed countries on earth. Most of the atrocities of the early communist countries took a state-capitalist welfare system which due to corruption and internal conflict could not survive.

    There is a critical difference here: did the government control the means of production for the people, or did the people own the means of production for themselves?
    PlaffelvohfenGeorge_Horse
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 3338 Pts   -  
    A ridiculous debate topic demonstrating clearly that the OP is yet again holding forth on a subject he has not a clue about , no surprise there really.

    . To define Marxism in simple terms, it’s a political and economic theory where a society has no classes. Every person within the society works for a common good, and class struggle is theoretically gone, this sounds perfectly reasonable and entirely fair to me the manifestations of what people like Lenin, Stalin , Mao unleashed is not Marxism but their interpretation of such and it deviates totally from what Marx envisioned 


    Debater123Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenCrystalSky101
  • Starlord616Starlord616 267 Pts   -  
    Karl Marx was not a bad man and neither was his ideologies and critiques of capitalism. To say that being a follower of his ideas makes you as bad as those who abused them is an insane comparison. To make an analogy:
    Just because you support the academic advances of Albert Einstein doesn't mean that you support the use of the H bomb in WW2

    DeePlaffelvohfenCrystalSky101Debater123
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1143 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    Should Calling yourself a Marxist be as Bad as Calling yourself a Nazi In Our Society?

    As bad in whose opinion? Marxist Nazis will think both are good, Marxists who are not Nazis will think that Marxism is better... whose opinion are we working from here?
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @Debater123 ;
    False, Marxism, is both a political and economical ideology, where they first require a dictatorship of the 'proletariat', which would then vanish in replace of anarcho-communism.
    No, you have no idea what you are talking about. Marxism is no more a political ideology than capitalism is because it makes no recomendations for how a government ought to be organized. This is why Marxism is always paired with a political ideology the exact same way that capitalism is. Did you just not notice that, or is this another example of your extreme lack of knowledge of anything that isn't spoon-fed to you?
    You always talk of morality, so let me give you an example, you are in a room, with two other people, you have 1200 dollars in a wallet, which you recently got working at the office for your weekly paycheck, you work hard, and make ends meet, two other people are in the room, with no money, under a Marxist mindset, and ideology in effect, it would be acceptable for those men to beat the one with money up, and each take a third of his money, 400 dollars for each of them, this is moral and acceptable since redistribution of wealth through force is required, is it moral?
    That's not Marxism though.

    It would be Marxism if all the men worked at the office which made $6000 in profit and the 3 of them divided those profits evenly with no violence or force involved, and no owner who keeps $2400 for himself without doing any labor.
    But here you might respond, avoiding the question, 'But I don't want to redistribute the wealth, I want voluntary non-violent redistribution!', well that is just , no-one will give up their money for redistribution, as people want to keep the hard-earned wealth they have.
    Marxism doesn't advocate for redistribution of wealth, that is communism, socialism, or any political ideology which derives it's values from it.

    All Marxism is is the observation that as the capitalist class accumulates more wealth that they will inevitably invoke the wrath of the working class who find themselves with increasingly less wealth due to it accumulating at the top. Ironically, the very fact that Marx, Engels, and other socialist thinkers put forth these ideas is the very reason that they never came to fruition, because the wealthy read about them and then made the appropriate adjustments to prevent the conflicts from occurring.
    'Stalinism or Maoism' They are both Marxist, one is simply more industrial while the other is agrarian.
    Those are political ideologies which are paired with Marxist economic theory, with the objective of both being to eliminate the class struggle which Marx so brilliantly lays out.

    This happens to be an example of the point I am making here.
    so in that regard, I would very much agree that it is unfair to compare them to the Nazi and other fascist regimes which have the explicit goal of killing people for pseudo-scientific reasons such as racial purity.' But it is comparing the mass murder of more people for ideological reasons and 'wrong think' reasons rather than reasons based on race, ethnicity, and heritage, this comparison is very fair.
    Except that Marxism isn't exactly what killed these people. Where the Nazi's killed with intention, the deaths of communist regimes were organizational failures. This is why many of the nations that do hold Marxist principals openly don't have the problems that these early adopters of the ideology had, and are in fact among the happiest, wealthiest, and most developed countries on earth. Most of the atrocities of the early communist countries took a state-capitalist welfare system which due to corruption and internal conflict could not survive.

    There is a critical difference here: did the government control the means of production for the people, or did the people own the means of production for themselves?
    'No, you have no idea what you are talking about. Marxism is no more a political ideology than capitalism' False, I see you have not read the communist manifesto, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    'It would be Marxism if all the men worked at the office which made $6000 in profit and the 3 of them divided those profits evenly with no violence or force involved,' That's not marxism though, Marx explicitly stated that the only way force can be efficiently distributed it through force, and you have still avoided the question.

    'Marxism doesn't advocate for redistribution of wealth, that is communism, socialism, or any political ideology which derives its values from it.' But communism and Marxist Socialism are Marxism.

    'All Marxism is is the observation that as the capitalist class accumulates more wealth that they will inevitably invoke the wrath of the working class who find themselves with increasingly less wealth due to it accumulating at the top.' False, Marxism is the ideologies and systems of governance created by Karl Marx, so a Marxist Socialist would be a Marxist, as a communist.

    'Those are political ideologies which are paired with Marxist economic theory' They are still both Marxist.

    'Where the Nazi's killed with intention, the deaths of communist regimes were organizational failures' Atrocities like the great purge, cultural revolution, Cambodian genocide, and red terror contradict this statement.

    'This is why many of the nations that do hold Marxist principles openly don't have the problems that these early adopters of the ideology had, and are in fact among the happiest, wealthiest, and most developed countries on earth.' What are they? Stop feeding me this propaganda, no Marxist country has ever succeeded, and will ever succeed.

    'Most of the atrocities of the early communist countries took a state-capitalist welfare system which due to corruption and internal conflict could not survive.' They weren't corrupt, for example, if they were corrupt, you could buy your way out of court, but you cant in Marxist government, because of the devoidence of corruption, internal conflict always erupts when systems require a dictatorship and force to enforce their ideas.

    'There is a critical difference here: did the government control the means of production for the people, or did the people own the means of production for themselves?' If you understand Marxism, the answer is self-apparent, the government owns the means of production.
    Happy_KillbotDeePlaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    Should Calling yourself a Marxist be as Bad as Calling yourself a Nazi In Our Society?

    As bad in whose opinion? Marxist Nazis will think both are good, Marxists who are not Nazis will think that Marxism is better... whose opinion are we working from here?
    Is it bad in your opinion?
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    A ridiculous debate topic demonstrating clearly that the OP is yet again holding forth on a subject he has not a clue about , no surprise there really.

    . To define Marxism in simple terms, it’s a political and economic theory where a society has no classes. Every person within the society works for a common good, and class struggle is theoretically gone, this sounds perfectly reasonable and entirely fair to me the manifestations of what people like Lenin, Stalin , Mao unleashed is not Marxism but their interpretation of such and it deviates totally from what Marx envisioned 


    I actually seem to know a lot more than Happy_Killbot for example.
    'To define Marxism in simple terms' Misleading terms, Marxism, in other words, communism, is described in the communist manifesto, you all should read it.
    'like Lenin, Stalin, Mao unleashed is not Marxism' They all were marxism! All following his words, his ideology!
    Happy_KillbotDeePlaffelvohfenMonketrunk
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    Karl Marx was not a bad man and neither was his ideologies and critiques of capitalism. To say that being a follower of his ideas makes you as bad as those who abused them is an insane comparison. To make an analogy:
    Just because you support the academic advances of Albert Einstein doesn't mean that you support the use of the H bomb in WW2

    You are not as bad as someone like say... Pol Pot, but not good either, like if I say I'm a Nazi, I'm not as bad as Hitler, but I'm not good either. People didn't abuse Marxism, they took it to its conclusion, bloodshed, death, famine, scientific advancement, and inevitably a reform/revolution to something other than communism.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    False, I see you have not read the communist manifesto, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Yeah, keep dreaming kid. One of us is clearly not well-read, the other is a confused NPC conservative.
    That's not marxism though, Marx explicitly stated that the only way force can be efficiently distributed it through force, and you have still avoided the question.
    This is another instance of your personal incredulity. Not only is this the case, it is the definition of Marxism.
    But communism and Marxist Socialism are Marxism.
    Those are political ideologies based on Marx's ideas, Notice "Marxist-socialism" is analogous to the "democratic-capitalism" status quo.
    False, Marxism is the ideologies and systems of governance created by Karl Marx, so a Marxist Socialist would be a Marxist, as a communist.
    Again, no idea what you are talking about here. Liberalism is an ideology based on capitalist economic principals, same as anarcho-capitalism, or Fascism. 

    This is a composition fallacy.
    They are still both Marxist.
    You clearly are not getting it.
    Atrocities like the great purge, cultural revolution, Cambodian genocide, and red terror contradict this statement.
    Those were not Marxist though. They were the responsibility of another political ideology.
    What are they? Stop feeding me this propaganda, no Marxist country has ever succeeded, and will ever succeed.
    We have talked about this before, all of the Nordic countries and most of the European countries have Marxist elements to their politics. Also, China, which is the richest country in the world is very Marxist.
    They weren't corrupt, for example, if they were corrupt, you could buy your way out of court, but you cant in Marxist government, because of the devoidence of corruption, internal conflict always erupts when systems require a dictatorship and force to enforce their ideas.
    A dictatorship =/= Marxism. Turns out that you can have it as a not state controlled organization. Also, the Stalinist and Maoist governments were very corrupt, not only could you buy your way out of court but you could buy anyone into jail.
    If you understand Marxism, the answer is self-apparent, the government owns the means of production.
    The government owning the means of production is state capitalism, not Marxism. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, stop pretending like you do.
    DeeDebater123Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1145 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    Nazis are worse than Marxists.  Nazis intentionally were commiting genocide while most marxists are just ignorant who don't realize that there so called compassion ends up hurting everyone.
    One small disagreement here, Marxism is distinct from ideologies which use it as an economic foundation. Marxism is a system through which we can understand class struggle and conflict between those who work for labor and those who exploit labor for profit. Much the same way that liberalism espouses capitalism but is itself wholly distinct from these ideas, ideologies such as Stalinism or Maoism espouse Marxism as an economic foundation.

    It was the failure to eliminate this class struggle which lead to the deaths of Marxist regimes, so in that regard I would very much agree that it is unfair to compare them to the Nazi and other fascist regimes which have the explicit goal of killing people for pseudo-scientific reasons such as racial purity.
    The nazis themselves used a form of marxism. karl marx did not create communism or socialism, but he "legitimized" them as valid political, economic, and governmental ideologies. socialism and communism are not simply economic systems, they are an ideology also.

    The nazi 25 point program called for outlawing making profits from the interest of loans. They called for big corporations to be seized by the German government and owned outright by the German people. They called for mandating profit sharing and increased pensions, as well as a robust social security system. They called for large department stores to be split so they wouldn't be so large. They called for eminent domain and outlawing profit from land speculation (buying land to sell it for a higher price). Number 24 of the program had the phrase "The good of the community before the good of the individual".("GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ") capitalized. This shows the unrelenting dedication the nazis had for the "ideal" of collectivism. They outlawed profiteering and made it law that every German citizen work and live solely for the common good of all of Germany rather than their own interests including happiness. The nazis were marxists.

    marxism and nazism are indistinguishable and just as bad!!!!!      
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1145 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    Karl Marx was not a bad man and neither was his ideologies and critiques of capitalism. To say that being a follower of his ideas makes you as bad as those who abused them is an insane comparison. To make an analogy:
    Just because you support the academic advances of Albert Einstein doesn't mean that you support the use of the H bomb in WW2

    The H bomb wasn't used in WWII. Einstein did not create the H bomb or the A bomb, and karl marx never held a job, he was reliant on his accomplice friedrich engles. If people are so misanthropic they believe the common man is too unintelligent to know what they should do for work so they must not be allowed to choose what they should do, like karl marx believed, they are not the kind of people who would make it onto my "not a bad man" list. But I guess that's still OK in some people's mind. 
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @piloteer ;
    The nazis themselves used a form of marxism. karl marx did not create communism or socialism, but he "legitimized" them as valid political, economic, and governmental ideologies. socialism and communism are not simply economic systems, they are an ideology also.
    You are missing the subtle context here, Marxism is not a political ideology. Also, the Nazi's were not Marxist in that they did not follow Marxist theories. Hitler called himself a liberal but he was anything but.
    The nazi 25 point program called for outlawing making profits from the interest of loans. They called for big corporations to be seized by the German government and owned outright by the German people. They called for mandating profit sharing and increased pensions, as well as a robust social security system. They called for large department stores to be split so they wouldn't be so large. They called for eminent domain and outlawing profit from land speculation (buying land to sell it for a higher price). Number 24 of the program had the phrase "The good of the community before the good of the individual".("GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ") capitalized. This shows the unrelenting dedication the nazis had for the "ideal" of collectivism. They outlawed profiteering and made it law that every German citizen work and live solely for the common good of all of Germany rather than their own interests including happiness. The nazis were marxists.
    Those are all state-capitalism programs. Nazism and other fascists looked to join state and private production into a single entity, so that there are close ties between government intervention and private enterprise. While fascism is inherently collectivist, this alone is not adequate to justify that they were Marxist in practice. Keep in mind that Hitler rose to power on a platform of eliminating the socialists, and of course the most damming evidence is that the Nazi's did not eliminate class conflict and in fact justified it via their racial theories. This last point is fundamentally at the crux of any theory that the Nazi's were somehow Marxist, where the Socialists and Communists use class warfare to justify revolution and political power, the Nazi's used race to do ostensibly the same thing.
    DeePlaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1143 Pts   -  

    Should Calling yourself a Marxist be as Bad as Calling yourself a Nazi In Our Society?

    You can't expect everyone in our society to agree. The non-Nazi Marxists in our society will of course disagree.
    Debater123
  • DeeDee 3338 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @Debater123

    I actually seem to know a lot more than Happy_Killbot for example.

    A lot about what? I think you’re a very uneducated oaf who knows very little about anything you copy and paste (without credit ) the words of other poorly educated oafs which makes you look more ridiculous than you are ( if that’s possible) @Happy_Killbot  is a patient man attempting to correct you which at this stage is pretty futile as you’re beyond help,



    'To define Marxism in simple terms' Misleading terms, Marxism, in other words, communism, is described in the communist manifesto, you all should read it.

    You have never read Marx as your babble clearly demonstrates 


    'like Lenin, Stalin, Mao unleashed is not Marxism' They all were marxism! All following his words, his ideology!


    They’re not , stop saying things .....wait,  in fairness what I ask is impossible 
    Happy_KillbotDebater123Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    False, I see you have not read the communist manifesto, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Yeah, keep dreaming kid. One of us is clearly not well-read, the other is a confused NPC conservative.
    That's not marxism though, Marx explicitly stated that the only way force can be efficiently distributed it through force, and you have still avoided the question.
    This is another instance of your personal incredulity. Not only is this the case, it is the definition of Marxism.
    But communism and Marxist Socialism are Marxism.
    Those are political ideologies based on Marx's ideas, Notice "Marxist-socialism" is analogous to the "democratic-capitalism" status quo.
    False, Marxism is the ideologies and systems of governance created by Karl Marx, so a Marxist Socialist would be a Marxist, as a communist.
    Again, no idea what you are talking about here. Liberalism is an ideology based on capitalist economic principals, same as anarcho-capitalism, or Fascism. 

    This is a composition fallacy.
    They are still both Marxist.
    You clearly are not getting it.
    Atrocities like the great purge, cultural revolution, Cambodian genocide, and red terror contradict this statement.
    Those were not Marxist though. They were the responsibility of another political ideology.
    What are they? Stop feeding me this propaganda, no Marxist country has ever succeeded, and will ever succeed.
    We have talked about this before, all of the Nordic countries and most of the European countries have Marxist elements to their politics. Also, China, which is the richest country in the world is very Marxist.
    They weren't corrupt, for example, if they were corrupt, you could buy your way out of court, but you cant in Marxist government, because of the devoidence of corruption, internal conflict always erupts when systems require a dictatorship and force to enforce their ideas.
    A dictatorship =/= Marxism. Turns out that you can have it as a not state controlled organization. Also, the Stalinist and Maoist governments were very corrupt, not only could you buy your way out of court but you could buy anyone into jail.
    If you understand Marxism, the answer is self-apparent, the government owns the means of production.
    The government owning the means of production is state capitalism, not Marxism. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, stop pretending like you do.
    It is useless to continue to argue with someone who considers denying that the soviet union was Marxist, or that china was Marxist

    By your logic Marxism is 'state capitalism'

    'We have talked about this before, all of the Nordic countries and most of the European countries have Marxist elements to their politics. Also, China, which is the richest country in the world is very Marxist.' China firstly is not Marxist by any means, it isn't even socialist, and it isn't rich, not by GDP by capita https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/, which goes to Qatar, and not by GDP in general http://https//mgmresearch.com/china-vs-united-states-a-gdp-comparison/, furthermore, nordic countries are not Marxist by any means, they allow large free markets, especially the Nordic countries, furthermore they are infinitely more similar to capitalism rather than socialism(Marxism).

    'Those are political ideologies based on Marx's ideas"' Firstly Marxism(communism and generic socialism) is a political ideology, define the differences between Marxism and Stalinism, and Marxism.
    'You clearly are not getting it.' You clearly have shown your inability to accept facts, and political ideology, a huge pattern I've seen from you.
    'Again, no idea what you are talking about here. Liberalism is an ideology based on capitalist economic principles, same as anarcho-capitalism, or Fascism.' Firstly Fascism is socialist, not capitalist, and secondly, liberalism is irrelevant in this debate.
    'A dictatorship =/= Marxism. Turns out that you can have it as a not state-controlled organization. Also, the Stalinist and Maoist governments were very corrupt, not only could you buy your way out of court but you could buy anyone into jail.' Where has someone bought their way out of courts or jail under Stalin or Mao? Furthermore, Marx realized and rightfully so that you first require a brutal dictatorship of the proletariat to enforce any sort of Marxism, now his more dreamy thoughts were that huge government would magically go poof, and we would all live in anarcho-communism and live in a utopia.
    'This is another instance of your personal incredulity. Not only is this the case, but it is also the definition of Marxism.' Answer the question, is it moral to beat up someone and take their money to spread the wealth, as that is Marxism.
    Happy_KillbotDeePlaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @Debater123

    I actually seem to know a lot more than Happy_Killbot for example.

    A lot about what? I think you’re a very uneducated oaf who knows very little about anything you copy and paste (without credit ) the words of other poorly educated oafs which makes you look more ridiculous than you are ( if that’s possible) @Happy_Killbot  is a patient man attempting to correct you which at this stage is pretty futile as you’re beyond help,



    'To define Marxism in simple terms' Misleading terms, Marxism, in other words, communism, is described in the communist manifesto, you all should read it.

    You have never read Marx as babble clearly demonstrates 


    'like Lenin, Stalin, Mao unleashed is not Marxism' They all were marxism! All following his words, his ideology!


    They’re not , stop saying things .....wait,  in fairness what I ask is impossible 
    What is the difference between 'Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism' to Marxism?

    'You have never read Marx as babble clearly demonstrates ' Yes I have, the communist manifesto.

    'A lot about what? I think you’re a very uneducated oaf who knows very little about anything you copy and pastes (without credit ) the words of other poorly educated oafs which makes you look more ridiculous than you are' History, ideology, what conservatism is, perhaps more, I'm also sure he knows more about other stuff than me, and I know more than him about some stuff.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    It is useless to continue to argue with someone who considers denying that the soviet union was Marxist, or that china was Marxist
    Thx for the straw man sh***. I didn't say that the ideology of the soviet union wasn't Marxist now did I?

    Since you clearly are making no attempt to understand the point I am making, why should I waste time with your personal incredulity and lack of education?
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    It is useless to continue to argue with someone who considers denying that the soviet union was Marxist, or that china was Marxist
    Thx for the straw man sh***. I didn't say that the ideology of the soviet union wasn't Marxist now did I?

    Since you clearly are making no attempt to understand the point I am making, why should I waste time with your personal incredulity and lack of education?
    Then please, clarify.
  • DeeDee 3338 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @Debater123

    What is the difference between 'Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism' to Marxism? I explained this to you in my openings response




    'You have never read Marx as babble clearly demonstrates ' Yes I have, the communist manifesto.

    'A lot about what? I think you’re a very uneducated oaf who knows very little about anything you copy and pastes (without credit ) the words of other poorly educated oafs which makes you look more ridiculous than you are' History, ideology, what conservatism is, perhaps more, I'm also sure he knows more about other stuff than me, and I know more than him about some stuff.
    Maybe you should post up a topic you know something about but that limits really to nothing
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Then please, clarify.
    How about you go back, and carefully re-read my argument. We can continue talking when you can tell me what it is to my satisfaction.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 3338 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @Debater123

    Read my opening statement and illumination may follow but as usual you read but never comprehend 

    Regards you “knowing some stuff “ I think thats another unjustified claim as every post of yours confirms the complete  opposite to the reality of this bold assertion and rather convincingly at that 
    Debater123Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Then please, clarify.
    How about you go back, and carefully re-read my argument. We can continue talking when you can tell me what it is to my satisfaction.
    Nope, why can't you just say it? Stop avoiding this, just restate what you said, it can't be that hard, right?
    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Nope, why can't you just say it? Stop avoiding this, just restate what you said, it can't be that hard, right?
    You are not interested in the pursuit of knowledge then now are you?

    You come here to proclaim that you know what you are saying, but can you really claim that is the reality?

    Why should I pander to you? I owe you nothing, and you provide nothing for me in exchange. With all due respect, F*** you sir.
    Debater123piloteer
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1145 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;

     With all due respect, F*** you sir.
    Oh my gosh. That should be the quote at the bottom of all your posts here now. It has an almost melodic quality to it that just bounces around in my brain. I love it!!!!
    Debater123
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 491 Pts   -  
    I wouldn't say yes because Marxists didn't orchestrate genocides of people, or believe in racial superiority. Marxists are just people who follow in Karl Marx's ideology, I'm not a supporter either, however, some Marxists have taken his idea to a radical application in society.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    I wouldn't say yes because Marxists didn't orchestrate genocides of people, or believe in racial superiority. Marxists are just people who follow in Karl Marx's ideology, I'm not a supporter either, however, some Marxists have taken his idea to a radical application in society.
    Did Marxists not orchestrate mass murders like the great purge and the cultural revolution, and did their policies resulted in the deaths of 10's of millions ( the great leap forward, Holodomor)? The holocaust and other killings by the nazis do not equal the death toll by the Marxists, but in fact, are inferior to it, but of course, we also have to take into account the reasons for the deaths, and how much was intentional compared to Marxists and Nazis? It is for those reasons that they are equal in my eyes.
    George_Horse
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1233 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    I don't call myself either. I call myself a liberal American who knows we NEED a little socialism to protect we, the people, from runaway capitalism, just as we have had for years. Capitalism has gripped more than its share of America in the years since Reagan, such as: The current regime pitting state against state, hospital against hospital to get life-saving ventilators $5000 ... up for bid and bringing in sometimes $40,000 each for some of the Pr**idents buddies! Same with face masks and other PPE! Just ONE example of thousands! "It's good for business! Screw the people! Money/money/money! Ah, capitalism!

    Now, take Social Security, Medicare, 6000 cars-a-day food handouts for those who have lost jobs .... what would we do without a little socialism? Answer? starve!
    Then, there's that OTHER socialism, where corrupt politicians hand out money and subsidies to the richest businesses on Earth! That's closer to the Nazi way, Ve gif you dis, you do vat ve vant! That's a GOOD thing .... conservatively speaking. 

    Karl Marx? Like Reagan, he thought he was talking GOOD things. Most everyone liked Reagan .... to an extent .... he meant well.
    George_Horse
  • piloteerpiloteer 1145 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @Happy_Killbot

    cap·i·tal·ism
    /ˈkapədlˌizəm/
    noun
    1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
      "an era of free-market capitalism"
    There is often a debate about the difference between a "capitalist-state" economy and a "socialist -state" economy. I contend that the similarities between the two come from the fact that they really aren't that much different, and the plain fact of the matter is, they are virtually the same. A "capitalist-state" economy is a few shades away from a "socialist-state" economic system, because it IS a socialist economic system. The argument that the socialist policies that were espoused by the nazis were actually "capitalist-state" policies is pretty much a concession by you that they were indeed socialist policies. The proof is in the definition. A state owned, or controlled industry does not fit the description of a capitalist system in any manner. It does fit the description of a socialist system perfectly though. 

    Another blaring difference between the socialist policies that the nazis put in place, and the ideals of the free enterprise espoused in the US constitution was the nazis dedication to collectivism. The 25 point nazi party program was inspired by the constitution of the United States. But it was inspired to be an almost perfect antithesis of the ideals found the the US constitution, first and foremost being the ideal of individualism being flipped as much as humanly possible in the nazi party program. To say the nazis only used the word socialism to appeal to a larger base would be to ignore the fact that the nazis entered into negotiations with the German socialist party in 1921 for the purpose of merging the two parties. Even though the negotiations fell through, the intention was clear and concise. They were socialists.

    I do not deny that the nazis were efficient in appealing to far right nationalist types, but that doesn't mean the policies they implemented were capitalist in nature. A 1926 nazi party pamphlet written by a party officia namedl gregor strassor can be considered nothing less than an anti-capitalist rant that could have easily been ripped right out of the communist manifesto. It read: "We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!"

    I will concede that the nazis were not solely a socialist political party, and they did have strong elements of nationalism and conservatism in their platform, but capitalism and individualism were not the conservative ideals they were pushing for. The nazis were virulent on creating a society that would not have allowed the ideals of individualism and free enterprise to exist. There absolutely were large companies in Germany who were willing to back the nazis even before the nazis gained power. But that doesn't mean the nazis had a robust capitalist agenda for them. It just means the nazis promised to eliminate all of their competitors and guarantee a larger profit for those who supported the nazi agenda. That's not capitalism. That is raw, unadulterated, pure, uncut, state-owned socialism. The nazis killed tens of millions of people, just like the soviets did. The nazis hated capitalism just like the soviets did. And let's not pretend the soviets were ever nice to the Jewish people either.  

      National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.” —adolf hitler 

    The money pigs of capitalist democracy….Money has made slaves of us…Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood.”
    — joseph goebbels 
    Debater123George_Horse
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @piloteer ;
    We could spend hours debating all the little nuances in the differences between the Nazis, capitalists, socialists, and the like, but at the end of the day, the Nazi's were fascists. Sure, there are parallels between these ideas, but that is not sufficient to demonstrate that they were Marxists, because they really weren't. Fascism incorporates government with private industry such that the two are one and the same. The government becomes a sole producer, investor, and capitalist while the rest of the people work for sustenance. That is what the Nazis intended to do in economic terms. This is of course a far cry from what Marxists desired, where the people own all the means of production.
    George_Horse
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    @piloteer ;
    We could spend hours debating all the little nuances in the differences between the Nazis, capitalists, socialists, and the like, but at the end of the day, the Nazi's were fascists. Sure, there are parallels between these ideas, but that is not sufficient to demonstrate that they were Marxists, because they really weren't. Fascism incorporates government with private industry such that the two are one and the same. The government becomes a sole producer, investor, and capitalist while the rest of the people work for sustenance. That is what the Nazis intended to do in economic terms. This is of course a far cry from what Marxists desired, where the people own all the means of production.
    The Nazis were socialist along with Fascism as a whole...
    Happy_KillbotGeorge_Horse
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    The Nazis were socialist along with Fascism as a whole...
    That's definitionally wrong. Fascism and socialism are polar opposites. Fascism is auth-right and socialism is lib-left. Literally, polar opposites.
    George_Horse
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @Debater123 ;
    The Nazis were socialist along with Fascism as a whole...
    That's definitionally wrong. Fascism and socialism are polar opposites. Fascism is auth-right and socialism is lib-left. Literally, polar opposites.
    Fascism isn't authoritarian right, socialism is also authoritarian left, both are left, as they both want government control over the economy, and they both are authoritarian.

    Furthermore, fascism is a socialist ideology.

    The myth that fascism is somehow on the right is completely idiotic and based on nothing.
    George_Horse
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Fascism isn't authoritarian right, socialism is also authoritarian left, both are left, as they both want government control over the economy, and they both are authoritarian.
    You are conflating socialism with communism. Communism is auth-left, socialism is lib-left. A socialist economy is one where the people own a portion of the place where they work, instead of being wage slaves to someone else's ownership.
    Furthermore, fascism is a socialist ideology.
    This couldn't be further from the truth. Fascism is a corporatists ideology.
    The myth that fascism is somehow on the right is completely idiotic and based on nothing.
    You're funny. Fascicm is and always has been, a far-right nationalistic ideology. You can deny that until the end of time, but you would need to sacrifice what precious little integrity you have remaining.

    Political spectrum - Wikipedia

    George_Horse
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -   edited December 2020
    @Debater123 ;
    Fascism isn't authoritarian right, socialism is also authoritarian left, both are left, as they both want government control over the economy, and they both are authoritarian.
    You are conflating socialism with communism. Communism is auth-left, socialism is lib-left. A socialist economy is one where the people own a portion of the place where they work, instead of being wage slaves to someone else's ownership.
    Furthermore, fascism is a socialist ideology.
    This couldn't be further from the truth. Fascism is a corporatists ideology.
    The myth that fascism is somehow on the right is completely idiotic and based on nothing.
    You're funny. Fascicm is and always has been, a far-right nationalistic ideology. You can deny that until the end of time, but you would need to sacrifice what precious little integrity you have remaining.

    Political spectrum - Wikipedia

    'socialism is lib-left.' How, generic socialism, which is Marxist-socialism, requires a dictatorship of the proletariat.
    'A socialist economy is one where the people own a portion of the place where they work, instead of being wage slaves to someone else's ownership.' Define owning a portion of the place where you work.
    'This couldn't be further from the truth. Fascism is a corporatist ideology.' No, it isn't, it's the opposite, in fascism the government seizes all corporations and nationalizes them for its own interests.
    That axes image you showed is very , firstly, the left to right isn't 'radical' and 'conservative', it's capitalist or socialist, right or the left. You can deny the fact the fascism isn't right-wing, but the facts will be on my side, a monarchy is an authoritarian right, not fascism since fascism is government control over the economy, which is a left-wing doctrine in the definition. Furthermore, liberalism in itself is a right-wing ideology, as economic freedom is basic human freedom, aka rights and liberty, which is what liberalism is designed to preserve, the rights and freedoms of the individual, so it must be on the right, there is no left-wing liberal country.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    How, generic socialism, which is Marxist-socialism, requires a dictatorship of the proletariat.
    No actually, it does not. Unless you consider democracy a dictatorship.
    Define owning a portion of the place where you work.
    Stonks.

    More generally, a socialist economy is composed of many co-ops, unionized enterprise, and joint ventures. Imagine each business works like it's own little democracy or republic instead of a dictatorship.
    No, it isn't, it's the opposite, in fascism the government seizes all corporations and nationalizes them for its own interests.
    Not exactly. It is more like when corporations give up some autonomy to the government for privilege's and protections.
    That axes image you showed is very , firstly, the left to right isn't 'radical' and 'conservative', it's capitalist or socialist, right or the left.
    Yes, that's another name for the economic left and the economic right. Technically, its the corect name, since "left & right" are slang.
     You can deny the fact the fascism isn't right-wing, but the facts will be on my side, a monarchy is an authoritarian right, not fascism since fascism is government control over the economy, which is a left-wing doctrine in the definition.
    No, the facts are not on your side.

    Never have been.

    Fascism is a far right wing ideology. Also, where monarchism is on the spectrum is irrelevant. Multiple government types can occupy the exact same location.

    Why don't you read from Wikipedia?

    Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-rightauthoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalismdemocracyMarxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5][6]
     Furthermore, liberalism in itself is a right-wing ideology, as economic freedom is basic human freedom, aka rights and liberty, which is what liberalism is designed to preserve, the rights and freedoms of the individual, so it must be on the right, there is no left-wing liberal country.
    That is completely false, liberalism is centrist by definition, because liberalism is the anchor point relative to which we describe other ideologies. Liberalism isn't looking to preserve anything, that is conservatism, hence the name. Also, basically every country in the European Union is a left wing liberal democracy.
    PlaffelvohfenGeorge_Horse
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    How, generic socialism, which is Marxist-socialism, requires a dictatorship of the proletariat.
    No actually, it does not. Unless you consider democracy a dictatorship.
    Define owning a portion of the place where you work.
    Stonks.

    More generally, a socialist economy is composed of many co-ops, unionized enterprise, and joint ventures. Imagine each business works like it's own little democracy or republic instead of a dictatorship.
    No, it isn't, it's the opposite, in fascism the government seizes all corporations and nationalizes them for its own interests.
    Not exactly. It is more like when corporations give up some autonomy to the government for privilege's and protections.
    That axes image you showed is very , firstly, the left to right isn't 'radical' and 'conservative', it's capitalist or socialist, right or the left.
    Yes, that's another name for the economic left and the economic right. Technically, its the corect name, since "left & right" are slang.
     You can deny the fact the fascism isn't right-wing, but the facts will be on my side, a monarchy is an authoritarian right, not fascism since fascism is government control over the economy, which is a left-wing doctrine in the definition.
    No, the facts are not on your side.

    Never have been.

    Fascism is a far right wing ideology. Also, where monarchism is on the spectrum is irrelevant. Multiple government types can occupy the exact same location.

    Why don't you read from Wikipedia?

    Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-rightauthoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalismdemocracyMarxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5][6]
     Furthermore, liberalism in itself is a right-wing ideology, as economic freedom is basic human freedom, aka rights and liberty, which is what liberalism is designed to preserve, the rights and freedoms of the individual, so it must be on the right, there is no left-wing liberal country.
    That is completely false, liberalism is centrist by definition, because liberalism is the anchor point relative to which we describe other ideologies. Liberalism isn't looking to preserve anything, that is conservatism, hence the name. Also, basically every country in the European Union is a left wing liberal democracy.
    'liberalism is centrist by definition' No it isn't. 'Liberalism isn't looking to preserve anything' Apart from individual liberty, hence the name. 'Also, basically, every country in the European Union is a left-wing liberal democracy.' *right-wing, *republic, a few corrections on your statement.

    'Fascism is a far right-wing ideology.' No, it isn't, I don't give a damn what the wiki community says, fascism encourages government control over the economy, which is leftist, not on the right.

    'Imagine each business works like it's own little democracy or republic instead of a dictatorship.' That isn't socialism, that's democratic socialism, which isn't socialism at all, also, businesses can't work like democracies where everyone is equal, they require hierarchies to survive.
    'Yes, that's another name for the economic left and the economic right.' Never heard of it, I doubt anyone else has apart from you and your pals.

    'No actually, it does not. Unless you consider democracy a dictatorship.' Yes, it is, this is from Marx you know, he said that socialism can only work under a dictatorship, socialism isn't even supposed to last, it's just supposed to be a transition between capitalism and communism. And in a way, democracy is a dictatorship of the majority, where the mob rules.

    'Not exactly. It is more like when corporations give up some autonomy to the government for privileges and protections.' No, it isn't, they gain no privileges or protections, and lose all most all their autonomy, under a fascist system there is no free market, and you cant make businesses that are not approved by the government to further the nation, so, therefore, it is not right-wing by definition. Furthermore, Benito Mussolini, one of the founders of Fascism, and the leader of facist Italy (the 1920s-1940s) redistributed land and wealth, a key act made by left-wing governments.
    George_Horse
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Yet again, we come to our typical crossroads, where you quite clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
    'liberalism is centrist by definition' No it isn't.
    The neo-liberal status quo is centrism defined, because in order to be a centrist you have political opinions which are in line with the current economic and social order. Since Liberalism is the main game in town, liberalism is centrism, by definition.
    *right-wing, *republic, a few corrections on your statement.
    No, they are liberal democracies. The US, is also considered a Liberal Democracy, because it espouses the liberal and democratic ideas put forth in the constitution.
     No, it isn't, I don't give a damn what the wiki community says, fascism encourages government control over the economy, which is leftist, not on the right.
    Getting a little angry now aren't we?

    Sorry kid, facts and feelings or something like that. The fact is Fascisms is very right wing, the most right wing in fact.
    That isn't socialism, that's democratic socialism, which isn't socialism at all, also, businesses can't work like democracies where everyone is equal, they require hierarchies to survive.
    Did you forget or are you unaware that many energy companies function as co-ops in the US? Kind of deals a fatal blow to your theory.
    Never heard of it, I doubt anyone else has apart from you and your pals.
    Your ignorance is not indicative of public consensus, nor of truth.
     Yes, it is, this is from Marx you know, he said that socialism can only work under a dictatorship, socialism isn't even supposed to last, it's just supposed to be a transition between capitalism and communism. And in a way, democracy is a dictatorship of the majority, where the mob rules.
    No, that is not what he said at all. What he did say is that the people would become the government. Since you are opposed to democratic ideals, why should we allow you to vote?
    No, it isn't, they gain no privileges or protections, and lose all most all their autonomy, under a fascist system there is no free market, and you cant make businesses that are not approved by the government to further the nation, so, therefore, it is not right-wing by definition. Furthermore, Benito Mussolini, one of the founders of Fascism, and the leader of facist Italy (the 1920s-1940s) redistributed land and wealth, a key act made by left-wing governments.
    There is still a market under a fascist system, it isn't a free market, but that's only because the government protects corporations by halting the rise of other businesses giving the existing companies a virtual monopoly. You can still start a business, but unless it has some higher purpose for the state it receives no protection such that large businesses that are intertwined with the government can bully them around.

    Redistribution of wealth is not unique to the economic left. Mussolini redistributed land in order to maximize production of grain, at the end of the day this wasn't about equality of wealth or opportunity, it was a calculated political move carried out by an authoritarian government.
    Debater123George_Horse
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 297 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Yet again, we come to our typical crossroads, where you quite clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
    'liberalism is centrist by definition' No it isn't.
    The neo-liberal status quo is centrism defined, because in order to be a centrist you have political opinions which are in line with the current economic and social order. Since Liberalism is the main game in town, liberalism is centrism, by definition.
    *right-wing, *republic, a few corrections on your statement.
    No, they are liberal democracies. The US, is also considered a Liberal Democracy, because it espouses the liberal and democratic ideas put forth in the constitution.
     No, it isn't, I don't give a damn what the wiki community says, fascism encourages government control over the economy, which is leftist, not on the right.
    Getting a little angry now aren't we?

    Sorry kid, facts and feelings or something like that. The fact is Fascisms is very right wing, the most right wing in fact.
    That isn't socialism, that's democratic socialism, which isn't socialism at all, also, businesses can't work like democracies where everyone is equal, they require hierarchies to survive.
    Did you forget or are you unaware that many energy companies function as co-ops in the US? Kind of deals a fatal blow to your theory.
    Never heard of it, I doubt anyone else has apart from you and your pals.
    Your ignorance is not indicative of public consensus, nor of truth.
     Yes, it is, this is from Marx you know, he said that socialism can only work under a dictatorship, socialism isn't even supposed to last, it's just supposed to be a transition between capitalism and communism. And in a way, democracy is a dictatorship of the majority, where the mob rules.
    No, that is not what he said at all. What he did say is that the people would become the government. Since you are opposed to democratic ideals, why should we allow you to vote?
    No, it isn't, they gain no privileges or protections, and lose all most all their autonomy, under a fascist system there is no free market, and you cant make businesses that are not approved by the government to further the nation, so, therefore, it is not right-wing by definition. Furthermore, Benito Mussolini, one of the founders of Fascism, and the leader of facist Italy (the 1920s-1940s) redistributed land and wealth, a key act made by left-wing governments.
    There is still a market under a fascist system, it isn't a free market, but that's only because the government protects corporations by halting the rise of other businesses giving the existing companies a virtual monopoly. You can still start a business, but unless it has some higher purpose for the state it receives no protection such that large businesses that are intertwined with the government can bully them around.

    Redistribution of wealth is not unique to the economic left. Mussolini redistributed land in order to maximize production of grain, at the end of the day this wasn't about equality of wealth or opportunity, it was a calculated political move carried out by an authoritarian government.
    'Yet again, we come to our typical crossroads, where you quite clearly have no idea what you are talking about.' The same could be said to you with more compelling reasons.

    'The fact is Fascism is very right-wing, the most right-wing in fact.' You have not given any reason as to why it is.

    'No, that is not what he said at all. What he did say is that the people would become the government. Since you are opposed to democratic ideals, why should we allow you to vote?' You obviously do not know what he said, what he stood for, and what his works said, he said that a socialist system can only function under a dictatorship of the proletariat so that we may then move to communism.

    'There is still a market under a fascist system, it isn't a free market,' By definition, the right is economic freedom, which dissproves the myth that facism is right-wing.

    ' You can still start a business' Only when it is allowed and controlled by the state.

    'Redistribution of wealth is not unique to the economic left.' Yes it is.

    'it was a calculated political move' How?

    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3902 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    The same could be said to you with more compelling reasons.
    Yeah right. You need to stop smelling your farts so much.
    You have not given any reason as to why it is.
    Oh yeah? What about all the reasons above?
    You obviously do not know what he said, what he stood for, and what his works said, he said that a socialist system can only function under a dictatorship of the proletariat so that we may then move to communism.
    Speak for yourself, and don't move the goalposts.

    You are incredibly disingenuous.
    By definition, the right is economic freedom, which dissproves the myth that facism is right-wing.
    You are confusing libertarianism for the right-wing. Libertarianism is for economic freedom, and free market economics. Keep in mind, that the free market is not incompatible with having a sole owner of all land and resource in society. Fascism is what happens when the rich have effectively accomplished this goal and own most if not everything, and everyone else works for sustenance.

    You don't seem to understand this, so let me just ask this question: What happens to a society when one person or entity owns everything and got there through the free market?
    Only when it is allowed and controlled by the state.
    That's not exactly true. You could still start a business in Nazi Germany, unless you were a Jew. Or gay. Or Black.
    Yes it is.
    Donald Trump signed a stimulus check to Americans in April.

    Game, set, match.
    How?
    It's self evident isn't it? Land which is privately owned but not productive doesn't help produce food. So, by giving the land to people who will use it for production, you can produce more food. Get it?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2163 Pts   -  
    Calling yourself a Marxist is only as bad as calling yourself a Capitalist...
    Calling yourself a Nazi is only as bad as calling yourself a Christian (Baptists in particular are really effed'up...).
    Happy_KillbotDeeDebater123mickyg
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2020 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch