The Instigator
Jonnykelly
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
WorldWar2Debator
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Revisited: Communists and Nazis are polar opposites

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...
Jonnykelly
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 70373
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Jonnykelly

Con

First round for acceptance and clarification.

Definitions provided in WorldWar2Debator's previous debate on the topic.

http://www.debate.org...

Opponent may use first round to clarify or establish if desired.
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

Hello, I'm WorldWar2Debator. I'd like to debate for the fact that Nazis and Communists ARE polar opposites, and there is no way to disprove that. Good luck, have fun. Con will make first move.
Debate Round No. 1
Jonnykelly

Con

To start off, I would like to establish that political parties and economic systems are not arranged in a straight line as supposed by many. In stead, It can more be demonstrated with a circle or an oval. To the far left you have liberalism, and the right, conservatism. The top of the spectrum would represent anarchy, or the lack of government, and the bottom being totalitarianism with absolute rule of one ruler. Communism would fall just to the left of totalitarianism, while Nazism, or extreme socialism, can be found just to the right of totalitarianism. [1]* This model does put communism and Nazism at different sides of the spectrum, but not at polar opposites. Both have shown a strong tendency to collapse into totalitarianism because of the fact that all power within both of these systems is controlled and regulated by the government. In fact, the only things that separate communism and socialism is the presence of a head figure (such as a chancellor) in Nazism, and the presence of a share-all policy in communism. Many people assume the presence of a dictator in communism because their only knowledge of communism is Stalin's fake communism. (A perfect example of communism deteriorating into totalitarianism.) The world has barely seen true communism in its raw form. Pure Nazism has only been experienced by the world for a couple of decades, but like communism was tainted by totalitarianism.

Therefore, while communism and Nazism have key differences, they cannot be considered polar opposites.

Sources:
[1] http://www.thoughtsaloud.com...

* note - the diagram shown within my source is not perfect - it is not specific enough - but I hope it can help visualize what I am saying.
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

To first argue, let's revisit the definitions of the two political powers:

Nazism/National Socialism: A political system which originated in Germany after World War 1 through a small group of nationalists, who seeked revenge using Anti-Semitism and the theory of a supreme Blue Eyes, Blonde haired Aryan Race. Popularised by Adolf Hitler.

Communism: A political system which originated in Russia during World War 1 through a large group of people who seeked war on the Tsars. Popularised by Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

Now, we argue about the political stances and what they stood for.

The Nazi party was a group of nationalists, seeking to better Germany, whose economy and unemployment situations were completely unacceptable. With over 6 million unemployed Germans by 1932, Adolf Hitler accepted the chancellery of Germany on January 30th, 1933.

Meanwhile in Russia, the Communists, led by Lenin, had seeked to overthrow the Tsars, up communism as the new political power in Russia by force, and wanted to drag Russia out of the war the Communist's felt were pushed into by the Tsar, Nicholas II.

So already, the early steps of both totalitarian dictatorships were, at that stage, completely opposite and seemingly never crossed.

On the 23rd of August, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, then German Foreign Minister, flew to the then Soviet Union to make a pact. The pact would mean both sides promised, for the majority, two things:

1. The collaboration of German/Russian forces alike, meaning Russia and Germany would not attack each other, the thing Hitler most sought out.

2. To carve Poland into 2, with the Germans taking the west and Warsaw, the Russians with the East.

So how was the pact seen by the two sides?

German: A success. No longer will there be a Bolshevik chance of attack, and Poland will be ours.

Russian: Confused. We get Poland, but Germany may or may not attack, and we don't get why Hitler wants a pact with us.

Anyways, back to the ideologies.

Hitler had despised Communism, as shown in the book he wrote in 1923, the famous Mein Kampf. Stalin noticed this, and underlined key passages in which Hitler would insult and put down communism, with quotes such as "Never forget the rulers of modern day Russia are barbarians, and they are the scum of humanity."

So clearly, both sides despised each other very much.

The National Socialists had wanted to claw Germany out of depression. The Communists wanted Russia out of the war and power to the people (Oh the irony *cough* Stalin *cough*). Did both sides want different goals? Yes. Did both sides despise each other? Yes. Did both sides have completely different beliefs of how to run their governments? YES!

The evidence is clear, everything from ideals, goals and relations, the National Socialist party and Communists were like chalk and cheese. Completely opposite.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://www.differencebetween.net...
http://www.economist.com...
http://beforeitsnews.com...
http://andersfloderus.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Jonnykelly

Con

My opponent's argument has pointed out a few differences about the beginnings of these two political systems, but he has failed to give enough evidence to support that these two systems are polar opposites, as this is the topic of the debate.

In fact, some of his own evidence can be used to refute his claims. He goes over a brief history of both Nazism and communism in order to show their differences, but in reality, he has shown how similar they are. Both started from the ashes of a near-totalitarian government, both were formed with a total reformation of government ideology, and both were formed to combat a recent injustice. (The treaty of Versailles for Germany, the tyranny of the Czars for Russia.

My opponent has used the dislike between the Russian Communists and the German Nazis as evidence that these parties are opposites. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant to how different the parties are. At the time of the Chinese Communist Revolution, Russia had no interest in supporting Communist forces. [1] The Chinese communists and the Russian communists were only slightly different, and yet they could not get along. Thus, stating that two parties do not like each other has nothing to do with how different they are.

The evidence in history still supports that, though different, communism and Nazism are not polar opposites.

Sources:
[1] https://www.marxists.org...
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

Both sides actually were pretty much chalk and cheese, aside from those obligatory statements posted by Con. What revolutionary political advancements have been made wait hot being aimed at frustration at something? Or risen from a time of apocalypse and need? These are necessary components, for which Communism and National Socialism would not be born without either.

I'm going to focus on power. In communism, there was generally supposed to be power to the people, the peasants to the farmers to the proletariats and bourgeoise, the power was to the people.

National Socialism, on the other hand, revolved around one man, a leader, an iron fist: Adolf Hitler.

Also, one thing to remember: What previous political power did National Socialism build on? From the raised hand with, "Viva Il Duce" being shouted? That's right. Italian Fascism. And if Communism and Fascism aren't polar opposites, I don't know what is.

Communism in Lenin's eyes were also not like that of Stalin. Stalin sought to make himself supreme leader of the Soviet Union, EXACTLY what Lenin wanted to avoid. LENIN wanted power toe people.
Debate Round No. 3
Jonnykelly

Con

My opponent points to the fact that power is (seemingly) in opposite places with these two systems. It is true that in Nazism, power is centralized, usually lying with a chancellor, but with communism, it is a little bit more complicated. The power appears to be with the people, but that is not really the case. In communism, the government forcibly distributes land, power, and money to all citizens, thus meaning that the land and profit is not actually owned by the people, it is owned by the government and loaned to the people. In both systems, power is just a centralized.

In both communism and Nazism, the main group of citizens has no say in their own government. Since the government unilaterally controls all of it's assets, there is no participation in the election or government process by the people. There isn't free market either, since markets are all controlled by the government.

Fascism also, is not the polar opposite of communism, but that is getting off topic.

Since this is the last round, I will finish everything up.

Communism and extreme nationalized socialism do have several key differences, but there are not enough differences to consider them polar opposites. In fact, they can even be considered closer to the same thing than many other systems.

Thank you to WorldWar2Debator for accepting this. It was a pleasure debating, and I look forward to our future encounters.
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

Con is correct in saying that Communism does have the government loan land, money and other items to the people, so that it IS technically the government. But this is kind of like when a teacher gives a group of students a project, and then walks out the door and the students do whatever they want, isn't it?

Fascism is the polar opposite of communism. I don't think it's off topic because clearly Hitler believed and supported a fascist government. And if Fascism is opposite to Communism, so would Nazism. The principles are same, aside from beliefs, such as Anti-Semitism and the master race.

If the Communist governments are kind enough to loan people land, money and other items, then what would Nazism be? They grip wealth with an iron fist, and to be honest, only the rich can buy their way into the land.

Any way you look at it, any angle, any direction, any side, the message is clear. Communism is like chalk and cheese to Nazism. No way would you ever have a world where BOTH could exist, with strong power, at the same time. One will and did kill off the other. Thank you to JonnyKelly for this rematch, I wish him luck in the result of this and his future debates. VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
I wish I could have done this debate. I could have easily used political theory to show that both are polar opposites in the social regard...
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
I wish I could have done this debate. I could have easily used political theory to show that both are polar opposites in the social regard...
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 2 years ago
WorldWar2Debator
Let's go
Posted by Jonnykelly 2 years ago
Jonnykelly
Assuming that that is still your standpoint, then yes.
Posted by Jonnykelly 2 years ago
Jonnykelly
Apologies, I posted the wrong link.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 2 years ago
WorldWar2Debator
I'm supposed to be pro, as I was last time?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
JonnykellyWorldWar2DebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: con easily refuted pro's statements
Vote Placed by CASmnl42 2 years ago
CASmnl42
JonnykellyWorldWar2DebatorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was unprovable, so Pro was at a bit of a disadvantage. Both parties had good conduct and grammar. Nether party had a particularly good argument, but points to Con, because Pro's arguments didn't really address the resolution. Both parties used a mix of good and bad sources, but points to Pro because of Con's use of that stupid oval. The oval, like the diamond before it, isn't a model used by any political scientists or sociologists -- it was invented by and is solely used by libertarians, who were in bad need of some chart that could make them look good. Pro's sin of citing Wikipedia is a lesser offense.