The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Hitler was a Socialist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,623 times Debate No: 18930
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Round 1 acceptance only.
(n) socialist (a political advocate of socialism)
(adj) socialist (advocating or following the socialist principles)
(n) communism (a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership)
(n) nationalism (the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other)
(n) socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry)
(n) socialist economy (an economic system based on state ownership of capital)
(n) state socialism (an economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed)
(n) state capitalism (an economic system that is primarily capitalistic but there is some degree of government ownership of the means of production)
(n) capitalist economy (an economic system based on private ownership of capital)


I accept your challenge. The BoP is on you, as you are the affirmer to a proponent (although i will provide a fiat). I look forward to a good debate on the issue. I'd also like to point out that, for all judges involved, that one of the topics is the quality of sources, not the quantity. So the fact that my opponent provided 10 definitions loosely linked to a word does not constitute as 10 high quality citations.

Also, as per the common usage and per the political compass[1], to seperate anarchistic communism and fascist communism (using two extreme examples), I refer to the oxford dictionary definition[2] which states socialism is:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

and comes with the disclaimer of "The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however , it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy"

Which, in layman's terms, means that it only necessarily requires a restricted market system: that is, it only requires a market dynamic, not a governmental one.;;
Debate Round No. 1


The term Nazi is short for the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which is German for, the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

The Nazi Party was founded in 1920, and was preceded by the German Worker’s party, which was founded in 1919.

Hitler wanted to rename the German worker’s party the Social Revolutionary Party, but Rudolf Jung convinced Hitler to name it the National Socialist Worker’s Party after the Austrian party with the same name.

The German worker’s party had 3 core principles

  1. Nationalism
  2. Socialism
  3. Racial antisemitism

Nationalism is sociocultural while Socialism is socioeconomic; the two do not conflict.

There was also another National Socialist Party the predated the German’s worker’s party, known as the German Socialist Party. The German Socialist Party was founded in 1918 and lasted until 1922 when it merged into the Nazi Party.

The 3 main principles of the German Socialist Party were

  1. Nationalism
  2. Völkisch movement
  3. Socialist economics

In 1920, the Nazi Party published the National Socialist Program, a manifesto that in 25 points demanded:

that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens ... the abolition of all incomes unearned by work ... the ruthless confiscation of all war profits ... the nationalization of all businesses that have been formed into corporations ... profit-sharing in large enterprises ... extensive development of insurance for old-age ... land reform suitable to our national requirements.”

In 1927, Hitler said:

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

In 1933, similar to the Soviet Union, Hitler seized power he replaced the Weimar trade unions with a new national union called the German Labour Front.

German Labour Front <--- Flag of the German Labour Front

There were two components of the German Labour Front
  1. National Socialist Factory Organization
  2. National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization

    National Socialist Factory Cell Organization Hat insignia <-- National Socialist Factory Organization insignia.

    The German Labour Front both gave the Government control of production, as well as providing better representation for the German worker.

There were many subdivisions of the German Labour Front, but some of the most prominent was;

  • Kraft durch Freude (KdF; Strength through Joy)
  • Schönheit der Arbeit (SdA; Beauty of Work)
  • Reichsarbeitsdien (SAD; Reich Labour Service)

The KdF provided the workers with subsidized sporting and leisure facilities, as well as cheap or even free vacations.

The SdA provided better working conditions for the workers, including renovations of outdated factories, new canteens for workers, smoking-free rooms, cleaner working spaces and more.

The SAD provided the unemployed with jobs working on State projects, such as working on the German Autobahns.

German Labour Front building <--- German Labour Front Building

German Labour Front even introduced national holidays for the workers, such as labour day.

Nazi Labor day commemorative medal from 1934 <-- commemorative Labour Day medal

Nazi Germany without a doubt falls into the category of State Socialism.

The term fascism is rooted in socialism. The term fascism was invented by Mussolini in 1919, when Mussolini created the Fasci italiani di combattimento, which is Italian for the Italian League of Combat.

Prior to creating the Italian League of Combat, Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party, from 1901 to 1914, when he was kicked out for supporting WWI.

In 1921 the Italian League of Combat turned into the National Fascist Party, which promoted both Nationalism and State Socialism.

In July of 1943 the National Fascist Party turned into the Republican Fascist Party, which sought to eliminate the Monarchy.

In September of 1943, the Republican Fascist Party turned the Italian Monarchy into the Italian Social Republic.

The Italian Social Republic, like Nazi Germany, controlled production, and had a State Socialist Economy.

So in reality Fascism has its roots in Socialism, and this is why many socialists supported both Hitler and Musolini, one of the most notable of these socialists was the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw, who was one of the founders of the British Labour Party.

To recap;
  • The Nazi Party favors Socialism
  • The Nazi Party is Anti-Capitalist
  • The Nazi Party is Pro-Union
  • Fascism is rooted in Socialism
  • Socialists supported Fascist dictators.



The fact that my opponent did not state that any of my definition changes was a problem, I will assume that he accepts these minor changes.

I firstly wish to point to the video my opponent posted. If he watched the last 30 seconds, then he would realise the massive problem he has in front of him. I shall quote it: "It must be said though that... the left in general fundamentally opposed Nazism. Because Hitler has distorted Marxism beyond recognition. Gassing people because of their nationality was absolutely inesxcusable." And I quote "Hitler got it all wrong". When my opponent cites things that agree with me, then I must assume he is not taking this issue with the serious nature that it deserves.

I feel that I should defend this issue. But I shall not; I shall let hitler speak for himself:

So I’ve went on the web a few months back, and pulled some quotes from a wonderful website – and I don’t want to know who runs it – called “” with every speech the man ever made. I have pulled 2 quotes from him about socialism, a cause I am advocating. Number 1 :
“14 years of Marxism has ruined Germany. 1 year of volschigism (that is, communist socialism) would destroy her. The richest and fairest countries in the world would be turned into smoking heaps of ruin. Even the suffering of the last decade and a half could not compare to the damage caused if we raise the red flag of communism.” Yeah, real socialist there, real go-getter.

He goes on “there are only two possible options left; either to the left, which would spell our destruction, god help us, or the party of the right, who will finally grab the reins of power.” Now, if Hitler was truly a leftist, like some John Goldberg argued that Hitler was a leftist, iff he was anything like a leftist, he would not have said that. Fascism is a right wing ideology. Fascism is a right wing ideology where the workers know their place. Where women know their place. It is where people of different cultures and religions don’t exist.

So what do us socialists seek? We seek something entirely different. We seek a world where everyone is in control and there is total equality of people. Where there isn’t straight men over gay, or men over women, or any of that oppression. Or any nationalism, or white men over black men. We fight for something completely different than fascism. I am going to bring up some research note I did a while ago, about Belarus, the only socialist country left in the soviet block. And during WW2, Belarus was invaded by the Nazis. And the Nazis captured a platoon in the soviet army. They took a platoon, and some of the members were Jewish. And the Nazis told the non-Jewish people, “look, we’ll let you guys live, we’ll let you go free, if you take your Jews and bury them alive”. If you don’t do it, we’re gonna kill you. And do you know what the soldiers did? They denied. Because Marxism and socialism, unlike libertarianism, promotes the equality and promotion of society, of everyone, and everyone is equal. And they would rather die themselves than degrade the members of their socialist idea. Socialism preaches the equality of people. And I do want to point out, y’know, how do you work out if a country is socialist or not. Well, you look at who owns production. You look at Nazi Germany, who owned production? Hitler did. The fascists. Big business. I mean, volksvagen, they made out like bandits in the holocaust. I mean, what were the two political possibilities in Germany? There was communism, volshigism, which would have shook the heart of the most industrialised country in Europe, or fascism, hitler was backed and funded by the big bankers, that frankly run the republicans of America. We are the antithesis of what hitler did. It is one of the most frightening lies that I am told, in all honesty, that fascism and socialism is the same thing. You know, who were shooting at Hitler before he got into power? The German Volschig party. Revolutionaries have always been fighting against Nazis. Who is always leading the protests against the KKK? For the Can the Klan party? It’s us. The socialists. And to say we are one of the same is frankly insulting.

Now, to go over some misconceptions:

The Nazi Part favours socialism sounds identical to is against capitalism, and I have addressed this. Bullock writes of Hitler that:
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." He even says that socialism "itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." Now, remembering Hitler's hatred for Jews, imagine the insult he gives it by comparing it two the Jewish people.[1]

Regarding the anti-nazi group of socialism: "The NSDAP local in Augsburg, with the full knowledge and approval of the executive committee, negotiated an agreement of mutual cooperation with the German Socialist Party organization in the city. From the outset, both parties attached far more than local significance to the agreement. On the surface, a union of the two parties seemed logical and natural. They had largely identical programs. Nevertheless, the old leadership of the NSDAP was not primarily interested in creating a new and potentially stronger party. Its more immediate and overriding aim was to deprive Hitler of much of his political influence in the party. Hitler neither accepted the decision of the executive committee to conclude the treaty with the DBP nor did he attempt to convince the party leadership that its path of action was wrong. Instead he simply resigned from the party. On July 12, he was again an unaffiliated politician."[2]

I also plan to go into depth about how Hitler does not satisfy the characteristics of being a socialist later.
Debate Round No. 2


I did not refute my opponent's definition because it was the same definition, just with a different phrasing.

My opponent said socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

The State, or the Government represents the community, thus State ownership of industry or capital can be an alternative way of explaining what my opponent said, in fewer words.

Further more my opponent obviously can't differentiate between Marxism and Socialism, or Left Wing politics from Socialism.

Socialism is a form of Left wing Politics, but not all Left wingers are Socialists.

Socialism vs Capitalism as I stated before, is socioeconomic, while Left vs Right is sociocultural.

Marxism is a form of Socialism but not all Socialists are Marxists.

There are many types of Socialists, and Marxism is one of many types. Claiming all Socialists are Marxists is like claiming all Fuits are Apples.

The idea of socialism has been around since ancient Greece, but the term term socialism is more attributed to Henri de Saint-Simon. After Henri died his followers used the term "socialism" to refer to his ideals.

Over 20 years Later Socialism would influence the creation of Marxism.

He was neither Right Wing nor Left Wing, he was Third Way. Some Democratic Socialists, like Tony Blair of the British Labour Party, preach Third Way politics.
Third Way Politics is a political thought, that borrows from the right and the left but is different to both.

Hitler was anti-communism, but was also anti-capitalism. The reason why he was anti-communist was because it was his largest political rival. The reason why he was anti-capitalist was because he was a socialist.
Hitler claimed both Capitalism and Communism was Jewish Ideologies, and claimed Jews controlled the economy, and most means of production.
When you hear someone claiming" the Jews control the corporations", remember that they are quoting Hitler.

Nazi Politics was nothing like Capitalism. The Nazi Government did not have a Free Market, they had a State controlled economy.

My opponent even said, "You look at Nazi Germany, who owned production? Hitler did."

When my opponent claimed the soviets did not bury the Jews in their platoon alive, it was not because they was Jews, it was because they was comrades, and they would have been executed for being a coward if they returned to Russia after killing their own comrades.
These same soldiers returned Jews escaping from Germany back to the Nazis, prior Hitler's betrayal of Stalin. Stalin and Hitler was both allies at the start of the war.

Stalin himself killed 7 million Jews. Stalin's policies was extremely antisemitic, while publicly he condemned antisemitism. Stalin specifically targeted ethnic Jews in the soviet purges, because he saw them as a political threat. One of the most infamous antisemiticacts of Stalin was the Doctors' plot.

When my opponent said, "Because Marxism and socialism, unlike libertarianism, promotes the equality and promotion of society, of everyone, and everyone is equal"

He made clear he had no understanding of politics, what so ever. Libertarianism is the direct opposite of fascism. Libertarianism promotes individual liberties, and is against a strong central government. Libertarians favor minarchism, and limited Government. Libertarians are against statists.
Obviously my opponent knew I was libertarian by my profile, and was attempting to call me a Nazi, but he failed utterly in his attempt to distort reality.

To recap;
  • Not all Socialists are Marxists
  • Not all Left Wingers are Socialists
  • Hitler controlled production
  • Stalin was antisemitic.
  • Hitler was Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Communist
  • Fascism is sociopolitical
  • Socialism is socioeconomic
  • Nationalism is sociocultural
  • Hitler was Both Socialist and Nationalist



Firstly, regarding the definition, it was simply to refer to an allowance of theories such as anarchist communism[1], or non-statist socialism. This is why I have a small hatred reserved for those who think that communism requires a state to work. This allows it to fit into the generally accepted political compass, which changes "left and right wing" regarding government to "up and down", and left wing and right wing economics staying as they are. The multi-axis model is more popular in regarding issues such as this, rather than the old model.

"The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain."[2]

On top of this, my opponent confuses the work of Marxist socialism with Christian socialism[3], saying that they are more or less the same. If we mean that they both contain the word "socialism", then I'd agree. In the same way Queen Victoria and Kaiser Wilhelm are the same person because you'd call them "Your Majesty".

My opponent should look up about Henri de Saint-Simon. He should specifically read these excerpts from :

"In his usual astute manner Saint-Simon decided to capitalise on his new found enthusiasm for business and industry by producing a new journal called l’Industrie (Industry), which would be backed by industrialists, bankers and the like. l’Industrie began publication in 1816... he flattered industrialists, describing them as the most moral members of society because they followed the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Although, I don't mind my opposition dropping this argument: I would defend the position he was barely sane, especially since he "begun to think of himself as some sort of saviour".[4]

I do not think I need to address the ludicrous comparison to New Labour and Marxism. One who studies the history of politics can easily see how the parties in England are all becoming more centralised, not more socialist, as one modern subject of debate in England is whether there is a hope for a diversified political system.
(Just so we are all on the same page, an image doesn't make anything more convincing)

Regarding Hitler being anti-capitalist, I would agree, to a point. That point being 1929, when Hitler said that socialism was "an unfortunate word altogether" and that "if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." as well as other... distasteful remarks.[5]

I see you have interpreted what I meant by "Hitler did" in a different way that i meant it. I shall fix this: Hitler controlled production, as Hitler could say whether was a puppetmaster over everyone else. In the same way that in monarchic times, Kings and Queens, when there was a business they didn't like, they could make them close down (usually, as Hitler did, by killing the people who ran the business). This is different to the idea that the community owned the means of production: Hitler could do whatever he wanted. It is not socialist when a man can tell how businesses can be run, this goes against the fundamentals of socialism[6]

"...socialism is not statism, or the collective ownership of the means of production. It is a judgment on the priorities of economic policy. It is for that reason that I believe that... the community takes precedence over the individual in the values that legitimate economic policy. The first lien on the resources of a society therefore should be to establish that 'social minimum' which would allow individuals to lead a life of self-respect, to be members of the community."[6]
Or, in a shorter meaning: "Communal ownership of land and capital."[7]

Stating Stalin was antisemitic is just a blatant attempt at an ad hominem, saying because they were both antisemitic, they were both socialist (or vice versa). So i guess that means Bernard Shaw had a hatred for Jews, or that Pamela Anderson is a socialist?

And I must say, I am stunned by the fact that my opponent took the statement that Marxism promotes equality, or collectivism, means that he is a Nazi.

I shall make one new point here, as it will address numerous points my opponent will doubtless make and has made. It regards Stalin's "communist" rule. I do not think it can be regarded as communist in the natural sense of the word, and definitely not socialist. I subscribe to Trotskyism on this issue, as Stalin's rule was a dictatorship by those who he wanted to be in charge. His "Socialism in one country" idea went against the idea of socialism, and after that it just disintegrated the idea of what Marx-Lenin socialism stood for. Stalinism became a non-capitalist state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, although not owning the means of production and not constituting a social class in its own right, there were benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class.[8]

So, I will conclude my points with quick succession:

Socialism promotes collectivism, Hitler did not / promoted Dictatorships
Hitler hated socialists, socialists hate themselves do not
Hitler condoned at the very least, if not promoted, Capitalism, socialism does not.
Therefore, Hitler was not socialist
(as a sidenote)
Stalin's post-1945 years were seen as non-communistic. & Situationist International
German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (Oxford University Press, 1985)
Bertrand Russell in Roads to Freedom.
Debate Round No. 3


It it obvious my opponent didn't read a word I said, but rather skimmed through my arguement.

In regards to Left and Right, it has no bearing on Socioeconomic views such as this debate, as Left vs Right is sociocultural, as my opponent has reinforced with the origin of the Left-Right Scale.

The origin is from the French National Assembly, where Left wingers was reformists, and Right wingers was Traditionalists.

Secondly, I did not confuse Socialism with Marxism, my opponent did and I was correcting him. This debate is about socialism not marxism.

I never claimed socialism was statism, there are many anarcho-socialists in this world, such as George Orwell who was critical of the British Labour Party, and Soviet Russia. His book 1984 was meant to critisize the Labour Party, with Ingsoc being newspeak for english socialism, and 1984 being a reference to 1948. The horn and hoof flag of Animal farm was meant to represent the Soviet hammer and sickle flag, and animal farm was highly critical of the Soviet Union.

In no way did I intend to say all socialists are antisemitic, merely that socialists can be antisemitic.

I have never once tried to connect marxism with Nazism, as the two are not the same. Not all socialists are marxists.

My opponent seems to think Dictatorships promote indivdualism, he is wrong. Dictatorships promote collectvism.

In regards to sociopolitics, there are two sides, individualism, and collectivism.

Collectivism is the sociopolitical theory favoring giving a group priority over each individual in it
Individualism is the sociopolitical theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.

Nationalism is sociocultural collectivism, while Socialism is socioeconomic collectvism

“The Nazis are well remembered for murdering well over 11 million people in the implementation of their slogan, The public good before the private good,’ the Chinese Communists for murdering 62 million people in the implementation of theirs, Serve the people,’ and the Soviet Communists for murdering more than 60 million people in the implementation of Karl Marx’s slogan, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.‘ Anyone who defends any of these, or any variation of them, on the grounds of their ‘good intentions’ is an immoral (NOT ‘amoral’) enabler of the ACTUAL (not just the proverbial) road to hell.” — Rick Gaber

Left and right as mentioned before, is sociocultural.

Left Wing as stated before, is reformism.
Right Wing as stated before is traditionalism
Thrid way as stated before is a combination of left wing, and right wing beliefs.

Hitler as I mentioned before, was neither Left wing nor right wing, but rather Third way.

Socialism is Left wing socioeconomics, while Nationalism is right wing collectivism.

Fascism is Third way, combining both left and right wing ideals.

Using a Political Chart with Sociopolitics and socioculturalism as it's basis you can see that both Nationalism and State imposed Socialism are both components of Fascism. Anarcho-socialism is more of a anarchist ideal, which is why Anarcho-socialists such as George Orwell are Individualists, and oppose Socialist Parties.
The Blue line is the Sociocultural Axis
The Red line is the Sociopolitical Axis
The Green line is the Socioeconomic Axis

My opponent claims Sovietism wasn't communism... This is false... Sovietism was a variation of Communism.

The Soviets replaced Socioeconomic classes with Sociopolitical classes, and abolished private property.

Because they eliminated Socioeconomic classes, and abolished private property, they were by defintion, Communists.

Stalin did not oppose socialism, he opposed capitalism. The reason he exploitted the lower sociopolitical classes was ,in his mind, in order to benefit the entire community.

This again brings me back to collectivism vs Individualism.

Stalin was a collectivist, thus he did not recognize individual needs, only the needs of society.

To recap;

Hitler was Collectivist
Hitler was third way
Hitler was socialist but not marxist
Stalin was Communist
Stalin was Collectivist
George Orwell as Anarcho-Socialist
Goerge Orwell was Individualist
George Orwell opposed socialist parties
Anarcho-Socialists are individualists
Anarcho-socialists oppose socialist parties
Socialist Parties are collectivist.



"Hitler was Collectivist
Hitler was third way
Hitler was socialist but not marxist
Stalin was Communist
Stalin was Collectivist
George Orwell as Anarcho-Socialist
Goerge Orwell was Individualist
George Orwell opposed socialist parties
Anarcho-Socialists are individualists
Anarcho-socialists oppose socialist parties
Socialist Parties are collectivist. "

I shall do a little work regarding all these claims, firstly I will remove those that do not matter:

"Hitler was Collectivist
Hitler was third way
Hitler was socialist but not marxist
Stalin was Communist
Stalin was Collectivist
George Orwell as Anarcho-Socialist
Goerge Orwell was Individualist
George Orwell opposed socialist parties
Anarcho-Socialists are individualists
Anarcho-socialists oppose socialist parties
Socialist Parties are collectivist.

Next, I will remove the conclusion, and put it at the end:

Hitler was Collectivist
Hitler was third way
Hitler was socialist but not marxist
Socialist Parties are collectivist.

Therefore, Hitler was socialist.

Now, I will remove what I agree with:

Hitler was Collectivist
Hitler was third way
Hitler was not marxist
Socialist Parties are collectivist.

Now, we clearly see the remaining premises after all of this, ignoring those that have been dropped.

Hitler was Collectivist and third way, therefore he was socialist.

Now, i will use the definitions my opponent presented at the beginning of the argument to create a syllogism which would have proved his argument:

Socialism is a political theory advocating the community's ownership of industry.
Hitler advocated the community's ownership of industry, or other socialist policies.
Therefore, Hitler promoted socialism
Therefore, Hitler was socialistic. My opponent has not made a contention that Hitler advocated community ownership, nor any other socialist unique policies. Therefore, the syllogism fails.

My opponent stated in round 2 that "Socialism vs Capitalism as I stated before, is socioeconomic". My opponent then shows a "source" (which is little more than a picture) placing socialism as statist, and refutes the idea that anarcho-socialism is an actual position by stating "Anarcho-socialism is more of a anarchist ideal". I know many "anarcho-socialists" who'd disagree. Very strongly. It is clearly more than an idea, and the idea that it is not is just insulting the position.

Now, to say that Hitler being collectivist means he is socialist is simply a weakness to an argument, not a strength. (practically) Everyone is both*. Do you believe that human beings should take responsibility for themselves? If so, then you're individualist. Do you belong to any community? e.g. the community? Therefore, you're a collectivist. To say this makes a difference is like saying breathing is necessary to be a socialist, or eating is a necessity to be a capitalist.

"The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." "

My opponent's final contentions did not deal with the issue. My opponent's final contentions were majority irrelevant. My opponent's final contentions alone should be enough to let you realise that he has dropped more argument than Bruce Willis drops german terrorists (If there were points for comedy, I'd lose all of them).

*I say practically everyone, there very well may be an exception. I have never met one though, nor is it likely to be a popular position.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
well done. You've looked at the debate, and ignored the "it's socio-economic" and believed its sociocultural. Congrats!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
Fascism isn't right wing. : often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

That is more government control, and conservatives/right wing people want less government.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
lol it is called the Nazi socialist party.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
Socialism does not = Marxism

Marxism is a form of Socialism, but not all socialists are Marxist.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Dammit, the pictures make me look boring.
Posted by DanT 6 years ago
You are a sore loser Mr. Infidel; if you are losing the debate, deal with it, don't reset it.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: socialism and facism are very similar if you look at it from an economic point of view. If you look at it through civil rights and political rights though there are many differences. This argument though was centered exclusively on the economic aspect though, and pro showed how they are similar through an economic view. Arguments go to Pro even though Con is right
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Fascism is far-left, not far-right. Fascism and communism are pretty much the same.