The Instigator
jrardin12
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Briss
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Democrats, Fascists and Socialists go Hand in Hand

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2018 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 119122
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

jrardin12

Pro

Con starts by letting me know why they are not the same.
Briss

Con

Love your profile pic by the way.

It depends on what you mean by 'hand in hand'. If you are speaking in terms of ideology then already you have lost the argument before you even asked the question. Democrats, Fascists, And Socialists all have different ideologies. That is why there are three groups separately distinguished as being "Democrat, Fascist, And Socialist" on the basis of ideology.

Also if you study their philosophies there are clear differences in political ideology. I won't elaborate as I'm assuming this isn't what you're asking but I can if you'd like me to or if that is what the debate is on.

Now don't get me wrong, (in my opinion) Socialists and Fascists go hand in hand as being bad, Dangerous ideologies. This is fact. We saw this with Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, The Kims, And numerous other dictators over history. No matter what strain of Fascism or Socialism manifests itself in society, They are always destructive and lead to horrible outcomes.

Democrats are a little more complex, Although it's certainly easy (if not tempting) to group them in with Socialists and Fascists because particularly radical forms of ideology have entered the mainstream views of Democrats in our contemporary Western Society. Though that is not to say that all Democratic views are bad or that all Democrats are bad people. Sure there are the man-hating, PC, Radical liberal, Neo-Marxist, Feminist, Trans supporting refuters of scientific fact, And so on who are Democrats. But this isn't how all Democrats act, Or what it means to be a Democrat. I would say the majority of Democrats certainly hold these views or hold relatively less radical versions of these views, But there are also many intelligent Democrats out there that provide society with opinions and views that are incredibly beneficial. Christina Sommers and Yuval Noah Hureri are great examples of this.

For the record, Yeah, I hate CNN, The NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, And etc. As well.

To group in Democrats with the other two is a little naive (no offense) in my opinion because whereas Socialists and Fascists are advocates of specific political ideologies that focus on social structure, Distribution of wealth, And governance (Socialism and Fascism, Surprise surprise), Democrats are advocates for a political party that upholds views of democracy. It's like saying "Senator Graham, Senator Flake, And President Trump"; one simply doesn't belong with the others due to position in accordance to definition.

Now I can understand if what you are getting at is that Democrats, Fascists, And Socialists go hand in hand and your implication is that they are all vessels of bad ideas; To an extant I can agree with you, Although I would point out that it is much much more complicated than that, But I am admittedly a little uncertain as to what you are trying to get at with your topic.
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Pro

Yes, Definitely a Democrat in northern Ohio is probably not a socialist, My point is that the Democratic Party as a whole hold to Socialist, And some even Facist ideologies. They have had these ideologies since the 1930s, And even the 20s.
Briss

Con

Well although you bring a good point and I somewhat agree with what I believe you are trying to say, I do have to disagree with you on some accounts. .

First off, I wouldn't say that mainstream Democrats (speaking generally, Of course) hold on to Socialist views. Rather, They hold onto views and values reminiscent of Socialism. You have to consider that although certain ideas and political systems, Etc. Are often characterised as being "Socialist" or Capitalist", One holding those views doesn't necessarily make them that thing. For example, I live in Canada which is Capitalist. We also have free universal health care, Which is often thought to be a Socialist ideal. Us having free health care does not make us Socialists, It simply means we are a Capitalistic society that holds some ideals that are traits often seen in Socialist societies.

I also wouldn't say Democrats are the ones perpetrating these ideologies. Once again, Democrat is a specific political position in the U. S that upholds Democracy. I would say its more the radical liberals who've become mainstreamed in Western Society, Who are naturally almost always Democratic because the groups parallel in ideology,

But most certainly, The mainstream (run by Democrats/Liberals), And by mainstream I mean media, Views, Philosophical ideology, Academia, Etc. , Has been permeated by these neo-Marxist post-modernist views disguised under the guise of "equality", "fairness", "democracy", And etc. So I'd agree certainly that both Democrats and Socialist ideologies have become ingrained in the mainstream. If you follow Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder or any other right leaning/centrist/conservative political speaker/independent news reporter you know that quite well.

However, Fascism in no way describes Democrats because Fascism is the exact opposite of Socialism, And what Democrats fear. Fascism often plays out similarly to Socialism but is polarized in theory and ideology. Fascism is to the Far Right what Socialism is to the Far Left. The ideology is something like this: The governing system rises to power with its advocation for nationalism and policies that but their country before all others. Fascism functions on nationalism, Pulling its society to work harder for the benefit of the whole society. Often, The dictator (government) will use government run companies and corporations to create the illusion that when you walk into a kmart you are buying a product from that kmart, When in reality you are buying a product from the government who is pretending to be a kmart. Often, Like all totalitarian dictatorships, The government is authoritarian, Militaristic, And establishes a secret police. Fascism is Right Wing, Because it functions on a radicalized version of Conservative values.

This is why Democrats hate Trump so much and call him a Fascist, Is because he holds nationalistic views that they see as being the start of a dictatorship.

Socialism is the exact opposite, Though it also almost always leads to authoritarian dictatorships. Socialism is also built on Marxism, Which holds specific philosophical perspectives on how the world functions (ie. Intersectionality, The Oppressor vs. Oppressed mindset, Etc. ).

Good day Pro, And hope to hear your rebuttal soon :)
Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Pro

"Fascism in no way describes Democrats because Fascism is the exact opposite of Socialism, And what Democrats fear. Fascism often plays out similarly to Socialism but is polarized in theory and ideology. Fascism is to the Far Right what Socialism is to the Far Left. The ideology is something like this: The governing system rises to power with its advocation for nationalism and policies that but their country before all others. Fascism functions on nationalism, Pulling its society to work harder for the benefit of the whole society. Often, The dictator (government) will use government run companies and corporations to create the illusion that when you walk into a kmart you are buying a product from that kmart, When in reality you are buying a product from the government who is pretending to be a kmart. Often, Like all totalitarian dictatorships, The government is authoritarian, Militaristic, And establishes a secret police. Fascism is Right Wing, Because it functions on a radicalized version of Conservative values. "

This, My friend is where you have swallowed what Dinesh D`Souza calls "The Big Lie". The political Left-backed by the mainstream of the Democratic Party-insist that Donald Trump is an American version of Hitler and Mussolini. The GOP, They say, Is the new incarnation of the Nazi Party. These charges become the basis and rationalization for seeking to destroy Trump and his allies by any means necessary. The "fascism card" is also used to intimidate conservatives and Republicans into renouncing Trump for fear themselves of being branded and smeared. Nazism, After all, Is the ultimate form of hate, And association with it, The ultimate hate crime.
The Democratic Left-not Trump-are the real fascists. They are the ones who use Nazi bullying and intimidation tactics and subscribe to a full-blown fascist ideology. The charges that they make against Trump and the GOP are actually applicable to them. The self-styled opponents of hate are the actual practitioners of the politics of hate. In a sick inversion, The real fascists in American politics masquerade as anti-fascists and accuse anti-fascists of being fascists.

Friedrich Hayek made the startling claim that Western welfare-state democracies, Having defeated fascism, Were themselves moving inexorably in the fascist direction. He said, "The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. "

The Left identified fascism with amorphous tendencies that could just as easily be applied to numerous other political doctrines: authoritarianism, Militarism, Nationalism, And so on.

Statism and collectivism are at the core of fascism and national socialism adds another explosive ingredient-anti-Semitism. This much is well known. What the progressives have carefully disguised, However, Is the degree to which Nazi anti-Semitism grew out of Hitler's hatred for capitalism. Hitler draws crucial distinction between productive capitalism, Which he can abide, And finance capitalism, Which he associates with Jews. For Hitler, The Jew is the unproductive moneygrubber at the center of finance capitalism, The entrepreneurial swindler par excellence. This hardly sounds "right-wing"; in fact, With some slight modification, It echos progressive rhetoric about greedy Wall Street investment bankers.

FDR and JFK praised Mussolini and Hitler.

All the Fascist founders were socialist.
Briss

Con

Oh boy. I was going to try and keep this to 4k characters but it looks like I'll be needing more than that

I feel like you were sitting there waiting for me to make what you believe to be a slip up in political philosophy.

I understand what the political Left believes Trump to be, And what they propagate. I'm well aware of their moronic, Often irrational portrayals of Trump. I didn't say whether or not I believe that Trump is a fascist (which, For the record, I obviously believe he is not), And I made no implication that I've been deluded into believing any of the lies you just explained to me, And all of which I'm quite familiar with. I simply (and this is all I did) provided several reasons for why Democrats often portray Trump as being a fascist; please actually read what I've said before you jump to radical conclusions as to what I do or don't personally believe. And believe me, I'm well aware of De Souza and his "Big Lie". I'm quite a fan of his lectures.

"Friedrich Hayek made the startling claim that Western welfare-state democracies, Having defeated fascism, Were themselves moving inexorably in the fascist direction. He said, "The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. " Yup. I've already poured through Hayek's works. You're not impressing me in throwing random quotes from people you think I've never heard of into the mix. The utility of this particular quote rests in what your definition of Fascism is, And so you are going to have to explicitly define it in your words in order for me to refute it.

"The Left identified fascism with amorphous tendencies that could just as easily be applied to numerous other political doctrines: authoritarianism, Militarism, Nationalism, And so on. "

No sorry, But you're wrong again. "The Left identifies fascism with amorphous tendencies that could just as easily be applied to numerous other political doctrines" is true. What is also true is that everyone identifies every political ideology with amorphous tendencies that are most relevant to the political ideology they are speaking of when they are speaking of those ideologies more colloquially. Take you for example. You literally just said "They are the ones who use Nazi bullying and intimidation tactics and subscribe to a full-blown fascist ideology. The charges that they make against Trump and the GOP are actually applicable to them. The self-styled opponents of hate are the actual practitioners of the politics of hate. In a sick inversion, The real fascists in American politics masquerade as anti-fascists and accuse anti-fascists of being fascists". You literally just used tons of traits reminiscent of political ideologies to describe what you believe to be Fascists. And there are at least five other quotes I could pull from the argument you just made that make you a hypocrite. People often use examples like authoritarianism to describe certain traits often found with certain doctrines. That isn't to say that these traits can't be applied to numerous doctrines. Taking your example of Nationalism, Of course Nationalism isn't only unique to Fascism. Nationalism exists in every country that holds itself to higher esteem than not (generally speaking), Which means virtually every nation on earth holds Nationalistic views to an extent. The same goes with Authoritarianism. One might describe Communism, Socialism, And Fascism as all being authoritarian. But certain political ideologies are often notable for specific ideals. Fascism is often described as being Nationalistic because Fascist dictatorships put a strong emphasis on Nationalism. That's why I used that to describe Fascism.

I'm not leftist by the way, So I'd hope you don't make the mistake of making that assumption again in your next rebuttal.

"Statism and collectivism are at the core of fascism and national socialism adds another explosive ingredient-anti-Semitism. This much is well known.

Socialism does not necessarily have to be Anti-Semitic to be Socialism. Specific social biases do not define political ideologies, Just as Anti-black does not define premodern capitalism, Which is something I specified in my earlier arguments when I described what a political ideology is. By definition, Socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" and Fascism is "a political philosophy, Movement, Or regime (such 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". (Marriam - Webster). Indeed both are Statistic and Collectivist. That doesn't make them both the same thing. Also, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Stalin, And numerous other Socialist dictatorships were not Anti-Semitic, And therefore Socialism is not defined as being Anti-Semitic.

"What the progressives have carefully disguised, However, Is the degree to which Nazi anti-Semitism grew out of Hitler's hatred for capitalism. Hitler draws crucial distinction between productive capitalism, Which he can abide, And finance capitalism, Which he associates with Jews. For Hitler, The Jew is the unproductive moneygrubber at the center of finance capitalism, The entrepreneurial swindler par excellence. "

Yes this is likely true of how Hitler saw the Jews. After all, Socialists often despise Capitalism; In Russia the Socialist parties who overthrew the Tsar were loved by the public because they had grown resentful of Capitalism, While the Tsar supported capitalist nations like the U. S during WW1, And the leverage given for Socialists to overthrow the Cambodian government was a series of air raids performed by the U. S during the Vietnam War, Which hit assets in Cambodia and swayed the general public in opposing capitalist views, For example.

What progressives are you here referring to? The Progressive Left? The Progressive Right? Because here I thought we were talking about, In Dave Rubin's words (because I'm assuming you watch a lot of YouTube lecturers), The "Regressive Left".

Also, Don't mean any offense, But that whole segment sounds suspiciously like a copy paste quote.

"This hardly sounds "right-wing"; in fact, With some slight modification, It echos progressive rhetoric about greedy Wall Street investment bankers. "
That's because it isn't Right-wing. Here's a real shocker for you: Nazism is Socialist, Not Fascist. Hitler's political party that won and gave birth to Nazism was called the National Socialist German Worker's Party for god's sake. Sorry, But I'm pretty sure that that fact alone pretty much undermines everything you've said about Nazism thus far.

Furthermore, The party's ideas, Such as eugenics and the Aryan race, Come straight out of Marx's theories on dominant and oppresses relationships in social structures, And Darwin's theories of evolution, Both of which fueled the Socialist movement.

FDR and JFK praised Mussolini and Hitler. And your point is? JFK had incredibly controversial views during his presidency, And in no way reflects on the mainstream views of Democrats. In a way JFK was what Trump or Lincoln was to Republicans. Of course FDR praised Mussolini and Hitler. Many world leaders and figures of the time period were praising Hitler right up until the wars started. After all it was an impressive spectacle. The Nazi party had literally jumped from 14% popularity in Germany to winning by a landslide. And foreign nation had had no idea of what was to come at that point. Https://www. Thedailybeast. Com/the-american-papers-that-praised-hitler. I can't find any historical evidence to prove or disprove, , But guarantee you FDR wasn't praising Hitler after he invaded Paris.

"All the Fascist founders were socialist. " First off, You've made a philosophical fallacy here in making a universal rather than a general statement. "Many Fascist founders, Including the more well known ones (ie. Mussolini) were socialist" would be more accurate. Second off, No. Many founders of Fascism, Including Mussolini, Were historical advocates for Socialism until they became Fascists. Fascism was strongly influenced by Socialism and came out of Socialism, But that doesn't make it a Socialist ideology. It also evolved quite rapidly to become something distinctly different and separate (as all ideologies do) from what it started as.

Forgive me if I come across as being irritated. There's nothing more annoying to me than when my opponent assumes my political perspective, Writes me off as a Trump hater and portrays me as having all these beliefs that I don't actually hold and never in any way implied, Insinuates that I've been deluded by Leftist ideology when I am in fact anything but Leftist, Proves himself to be a hypocrite in making a completely false point, And describes an argument that I never made.

And let me just clarify. I'm not a Democrat. I'm Canadian so I can't actually register as either but my views certainly don't coincide with that of Democrats. I simply don't stand for political parties, Views, Etc. Being misrepresented.
Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Pro

If you are on my side what is you beef? Because my purpose was to debate a leftist.
Briss

Con

I urge you to read the following carefully:

This isn't a "beef" and I am not on your "side"

To call this a beef insinuates that I am emotionally inclined to dispute you out of anger, Hatred, Or similar. I am not; I am here to debate. My intention is to dispute something I believe to be technically wrong. That is my only intention of this debate.

To say that I'm on your side tells me that (and correct me if I'm wrong) you think of political ideology in strictly binary terms (ie. You're either Left and a Democrat or you're Right and a Republican). However, This is untrue. One can identify in a political party and hold views that are dominant in various other areas on the political spectrum. For example, I support Trumps move to ban Transgender people from joining the military (a common right wing stance), And I often identify myself as right leaning (progressive right) with many centrist values, But at the same time I am in support of having gay marriages legal (a common leftist stance). What I'm trying to say is that I don't decide on all my political stances, Opinions, And views based on the mere fact that I consider myself to be right wing alone; I decide all these things on what I believe to be true, Based on research, Personal experience, Studies in political theory, And etc.

And to answer your question, The reason I chose to debate you is this. The one thing I can not stand for is a misrepresentation of my opposition. I may disagree with something, But I do not stand for people who misrepresent those who I disagree with, Even if it supports my views.

In my eyes you have here misrepresented Democrats in pitting them with Socialists and Fascists, And although I disagree with most Democrats on most things I do not like seeing them being represented that way.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
jrardin12

Pro

Well I am sorry, But it is true. From healthcare to Occupy Wall Street to evicerating the Constitution, To persecuting conservatives shows that the Democrats not only support Fascist tactics and Socialist ideology, But also ecourage it. I also understand what you say aboout the right being Republican and the left being Democrats. I will partly agree with what you said about that by saying that all Democrats and many Republicans are Socialist in their ideology.

I will not discuss this with a Canadian because I am talking about American politics. If you want to read some good books try 'The Big Lie' and 'Death of a Nation'.
Briss

Con

"From healthcare to Occupy Wall Street to eviscerating the Constitution, To persecuting conservatives shows that the Democrats not only support Fascist tactics and Socialist ideology, But also encourage it. " I am not arguing whether or not Democrats (and some Republicans) are Socialist in their ideology. Surely that is a good debate prompt for another time, But the debate prompt here is "Democrats, Fascists, And Socialists go Hand in Hand. " So you can say all you want that all Democrats are Socialist in ideology (and I will agree with you BUT ONLY for the sake of carrying on the argument, As I believe the statement untrue and much more complicated then that), But unless you can prove Fascism to also go hand in hand with Democratic ideology you have, Unfortunately, Lost by conventions of the debate. All the examples you have provided above are examples of Democrats trying to initiate Socialist (not Fascist) ideology, And there is no such thing as "Fascist tactics". There are specific tactics that can be attributed to Fascists because they are often used by Fascists, But that doesn't make the perpetrators Fascists even if they utilize them (and you haven't given any examples of such tactics at all by the way. You've provided stances held by some Democrats on some issues, Not "tactics" as you put it)

"I will not discuss this with a Canadian because I am talking about American politics. " That is a fallacy of reasoning, "appeal to authority". To assume that my argument is irrelevant or invalid or not the one you are looking for simply because I am not American implies that you believe I do not understand American politics as well as an American. I have proven to be a worthy adversary that you've been unable to out logic or outdebate me thus far, So why would you assume the argument to be undiscussable because I'm Canadian? That just seems like a convenient way to invalidate an argument that you haven't proven yourself victor in.

"If you want to read some good books try 'The Big Lie' and 'Death of a Nation'. " Thank you but I already have, And I've pored through hours of De Souza's lectures. Though by your arguments I was half expecting you to recommend Chomsky or some other conspiracy bs. I recommend the Communist and Fascist Manifestos, So that you may better understand the differences between Socialism and Fascism.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.