Is National Socialism better than Communism?
Debate Round Forfeited
rockerlinda15 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||4 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||402 times||Debate No:||97123|
Debate Rounds (3)
Sure, in Communism you get the same amount of money as everyone else, but you're treated as a homologous of the community by everyone, including the government. It come from the Latin word communis -meaning "common" and "universal". That symbolizes that Communism is a government for the community. It was an egalitarian government, with no higher or lower classes in the economy.
National Socialism is a government for the volksgemeinschaft -a German expression meaning "peoples community". But in this government, it is stated that the Nordic and Aryan races were the highest in an assumed racial hierarchy. All others were thought to be inferior compared to them. This started World War Two, because of the Nazi Germans believing they were the superior race and believed they were entitled to expand territorially.
The Jews and Gypsies, the overwhelming majority of Slavs that were defined as being non-Aryan, were -according the secret Nazi Hunger Plan- to be removed from east-central Europe by extermination. The Slavs were considered a threat to the Nordic and Aryan races. Except for a small few deemed non-Slavic descendants of German settlers, -and suited for Germanisation- were to be exterminated, starved and enslaved.
Compared to National Socialism, Communism is a far more volksgemeinschaft government, as the Germans would say. Now, since these governments are both ideas of equality, I find the Nazi's governmental idea of equality unbelievable. Both governments are supposedly for the community, but Communism it undoubtedly better.
This video shows why Nazism had to respond to the threat of Stalinist Russia and Communism. Stalin had the same views as the Nazis in terms of racial purity. Stalin and Hitler were initially allies. The Nazis acted as a bulwark in the west against the red threat. So we are supposed to believe Communism created greater equality in both Truly, what's this double standard about? We have Nazis hated, because their ideology was superior but the commies are free of any guilt despite killing several times that. some estimates place communist murders to well over 80 million! And yet, we have the youth wing of the communist party recruiting. Imagine the reactions if the Nazi party did the same! Wearing a swastika is likely to get you arrested and assaulted but wearing a red t-shirt with a hammer and sickle is just likely to give you a few "hey man, you're so brave for standing up against the system man! down with the bourgeoisie!" even though more murders have been committed under that symbol.
I seriously cannot understand this! And then there's the people who try to negate that communism is a crime against humanity by saying something like "oh, but they had a good purpose". Good purpose they were total murderersI In modern times, people can walk around with Stalin or Mao merchandise and people wouldn't think twice about it. But if someone were to wear Hitler merchandise, he would get the crap kicked out of him or her. A large part of that has to do with ignorance about the atrocities of the communists, because there are very few anti-communist movies about them. Hollywood mainly puts out anti-Nazi movies when targeting a specific ideology, yet rarely addresses the atrocities of communism even though communist leaders killed millions more people than the Nazis. There are many who were adversely affected by communism and many more people have relatives killed by commies than Nazis, and I think they deserve more recognition from the media.
Mao killed about 60 million
Stalin killed about 20 million
Hitler killed about 12 million
Commies have 68,000,0000 more kills than the Nazis at the very least.
So why do you think there are so few anti-communist movies I'd say that the problem lies in the fact that Russia and China did a far better job than Nazi Germany in terms of staying sovereign without having any foreign military forces on their soil like Germany did at the end of WWII.
Keep in mind that while the concentration camps were discovered by Allied forces as they advanced into Germany towards the end of WWII, the rest of the world hasn't really had any sort of definitive presence of force in Russia or China to discover anything similar on their lands. So they still have the ability to hide their crimes from the world and sadly, potentially even clean up all trace of them.
There will always be definitive written accounts for crimes that have been committed in Russia and China, but we may never have as many visceral images of those places like we do of concentration camps unless one day some large force in another part of the world decides to invade either of those two countries and make light of those facilities in which the crimes have taken place if they choose to and if they still actually exist. The Nazis are honest about their ideology without creating an illusion of social and economic equality while murdering 'their own' citizens.
This, I think, is the root of the evil of Nazism and Communism. It is the same in both.
... After I wrote most of the above, I found this interesting essay by the neo-Marxist philosopher, Slavoj Zizek. After a thoughtful and probing comparison of Communism and Fascism (including Nazism) in which Fascism appears in important ways the less evil of the two, he suddenly lurches into the following bizarre non-sequitur:
It is here that one has to make a choice. The "pure" liberal attitude towards Leftist and Rightist "totalitarianism" " that they are both bad, based on the intolerance of political and other differences, the rejection of democratic and humanist values etc " is a priori false. It is necessary to take sides and proclaim Fascism fundamentally "worse" than Communism. The alternative, the notion that it is even possible to compare rationally the two totalitarianisms, tends to produce the conclusion " explicit or implicit " that Fascism was the lesser evil, an understandable reaction to the Communist threat. When, in September 2003, Silvio Berlusconi provoked a violent outcry with his observation that Mussolini, unlike Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein, never killed anyone ... his statement was part of an ongoing project to change the terms of a postwar European identity hitherto based on anti-Fascist unity. That is the proper context in which to understand the European conservatives" call for the prohibition of Communist symbols.
In other words, if we compared them rationally, Fascism would actually be less evil than Communism. Therefore, don't compare them rationally: just declare it to be the greater evil, for political reasons. In this way it makes it easier to identify Nazism as the greater evil when it is blatantly not. It is an ideology that is ethically cultural. In such circumstances Nazism creates and promotes a more culturally coherent form of government for it's citizens.
I think this tells us something about the motivation behind the current relative silence about the collapse of Communism. The correct answer is Communism. And this is a matter of fact. But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention.
The way it works in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet... So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them.
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the mainstream right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seen as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.) Rightist Nazis reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever. To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
"In a perfect world, everyone would have food and shelter, and a true Utopian society would be devoid of sexism, racism and other forms of oppression. But for most of the world's population, this perfect society just isn't possible. Communism is one proposed solution to these problems." (http://people.howstuffworks.com...) That's how Communism works, everyone has a chance to live a decent life and no none is left to fend for themselves.
National Socialism, however, the Nordic and Aryan races are the master race. There is no a sense of equality, except for the master race, which, is were treated very extortionately compared to the other races. So -as you disagreed with earlier- these two governments are not alike at all.
Finally, -from the point of which this debate started- I've asked twelve people what government they think is better: National Socialism or Communism. All twelve of those of those people said that Communism is the better choice, and two of those people are my Social Studies teacher and Government teacher. As you see, Communism is the popular choice, and the better one.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.