• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism and National Socialism

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't understand what you mean here. Could you clarify it?

Capitalism, socialism - democracy, monarchy.

None of these systems of economics or government *require* the use of force or duress on a people in order for these systems to be enacted and to because *the* thing that everyone follows. But with *all* of these things being *forced* on people the leaders or militants in control *chose* to use violence or duress to instill them.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,205
Reaction score
33,751
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Capitalism has given us a great boost but it's time has come and gone. What you have now is an obscuring of the ways that others have control over your life.

:lol: and others have control over my life when i get to choose my own path how?

I'm saying racism runs contrary to the goals of Socialism and it's methodology.

well there are plenty of socialists throughout history who have disagreed with that claim. i fear you are adopting the JD3 methodology wherein you simply ignore any negative connotations of your preferred ideology.

Where else did National Socialism appear?

Italy, Germany, Britain, France, America, Argentina, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, arguably Venezuela, and a few others. National Socialism is actually quite popular; which is why it has to be historically redefined by those who wish to ignore its' history.

They are related but distinct ideologies.

in the sense that a square is a distinct form of a quadrilateral, yes; however, Communism is firmly within the larger Socialist Movement of the late 19th and early 20th Century. as is National Socialism.

National Socialism is not Socialism in almost all respects. The tennents of the different ideologies are almost polar opposite.

National Socialism is not other kinds of Socialism in all respects; that's rather a tautology. however, that doesn't make it not socialism.

That has nothing to do with my point.

because it refutes your point; namely, that since Fascists targeted other Socialists (to include Communists), they must not themselves have been Socialists.

How on Earth is that even possible? Socialism and National Socialism are inherently conflicting ideologies.

so you claim, but the National Socialists themselves disagreed; and you have yet to provide any evidence other than some kind of odd-ball claim that "real" socialism is antithetical to racism, which is hardly one of the key components of National Socialism to begin with. It's like claiming that social conservatives can't vote republican because libertarians favor legalization of marijuana.

Care to elaborate?
see the example of other nations that have worked with National Socialism. oh, and the bit below :D

Mussolini was a Fascist, not a National Socialist.

:lamo

Unity is perfectly achievable with the "other" of poverty, disease, starvation etc etc.

completely incorrect. unity isn't even perfectly achievable with an actual human enemy; and the use of non-corporeal 'others' such as poverty or disease is a vastly inferior 'other' as far as 'unification' efforts are concerned.

go poll Americans to find out how many think the government should stop fighting the war on terror.

go poll Americans to find out how many think the government should stop fighting the war on drugs.

What on earth does Francis Galton have to do with this?

Galton was only one of the early pioneers of the eugenics movement; which was huge (and now conveniently largely forgotten); and there is a strong historical connection between Eugenics and Socialism.

That's Socialism, son :)

on the contrary. socialism, by definition, is utilizing the coercive power of the state to force people to work together in certain, centrally determined manners. that is rather the opposite of freedom.

Against force? We're plenty for the use of force against marginal elements of our society, see the Civil Rights movement, Native Americans, Kent State, etc etc.

interesting use of examples; you support the use of force against the individuals involved in those instances?

Not true at all. Look at many European countries and systems such as Social Security and Medicare in this country, public health in Canada, etc etc.

Europe is sending herself into spasms' right now trying to divest itself of it's socialism, Canada's Supreme Court recently struck down key provisions of its' healthcare system because too many people were dying on waiting lists, and Social Security / Medicare seem doomed to send American into bankruptcy. you may way want to pick different examples
 
Top Bottom