Vote
35 Total Votes
1

Nazism

Nazism, or National Socialism in full, is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. It was also promoted in other European countries with large ethnic German com... munities, such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia. Usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many Germans felt had been left humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles.German Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism; the Germanic peoples—also referred to as the Nordic race—were considered to be the purest representation of Aryanism, and therefore the master race. Opposed to both capitalism and Marxism, Nazism aimed to overcome social divisions, with all parts of a racially homogeneous society cooperating for national unity and regeneration and to secure territorial enlargement at the expense of supposedly inferior neighbouring nations   more
28 votes
9 comments
2

Communism

Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to ... establish this social order. The movement to develop communism, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the states which claimed to follow this ideology and their enemies.Communism is most associated with Marxism, which considers itself the embodiment of scientific socialism. According to Marxism, capitalism is a historically necessary stage of society, which has led to the concentration of social classes into two major groups: proletariat - who must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society - and bourgeoisie - a minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through private ownership of the means of production. The political, social, and economic conflict between both groups, each attempting to push their interests to their logical extreme, will lead into the capture of political power by the proletariat   more
7 votes
3 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-09-04T20:32:51.3472243Z
@komododragon8 You think Communists never did that? Communism always turned out to be Tyranny, never being actual Democracy.
tajshar2k says2015-09-04T20:35:59.7174373Z
Actual Communism isn't supposed to be tyranny.
komododragon8 says2015-09-04T20:42:58.4009725Z
Triangle: By turning into tyrannies these nations cease to be communist. The definition of communism is a society in which there is no state. A nation isn't defined by what they say they are, if that were true than countries such as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea), Democratic Kampuchea (Pol Pot's Cambodia), and the Peoples Republic of China (Mao's China) would all be democracies. So just because a bunch of ruthless dictators want to call themselves communist doesnt actually make them communist.
briantheliberal says2015-09-04T21:09:20.2815325Z
Communism itself isn't bad, it's just how it's been implemented throughout history that causes people to look down on it. Fascism, however, is rooted in tyranny, extreme nationalism, and ethnocentrism.
PericIes says2015-09-04T21:46:28.6799816Z
The idea of communism is great, but it can't be implemented successfully, and the attempts at implementation are what were bad. The idea, though, remains quite good.
stargate says2015-09-04T21:58:11.5652460Z
It is the lesser of two evils.
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:02:08.6698054Z
Except one of them isn't evil.
Discipulus_Didicit says2015-09-04T22:03:37.8572922Z
Billy: Communism is bad. Sally: Really? Why do you say that? Billy: Every time communism has been implemented in reality it turned out totalitarian in nature and caused more harm than good. Sally: Yeah well people just never did it right! Real communism is awesome! Billy: Okay sure but what I was saying was that every time communism actually took power in reality it turned out bad. Sally: Well you shouldn't pay attention to reality. Just look at what communism is in theory instead! Billy: Did you really just say that for communism to look good you have to ignore reality? Sally: Yup! Billy: And you don't see a problem with that? Sally: Nope! Communism is awesome! Billy: Riiiiight...
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:05:33.9060815Z
Except the implementation attempts don't count as communism. :P
psyrus says2015-09-04T22:06:16.4787544Z
Communism just doesn't work, it's not evil and has some logical reason behind it. It's downfall comes from too much structure as it does not work well when something unexpected happens (like tyranny). Also, as someone said, it's not supposed to be Tyranny, so technically when it becomes Tyranny it's no longer communism.
triangle.128k says2015-09-04T22:08:22.2057830Z
I know the utopian society envisioned by Karl Marx was different from the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba and etc. But the thing is, it just doesn't work out and can't be implimented. That's the exact reason why Lenin came up with a more realistic version of communism to transition into original Marxism. But communism in practice has never worked out well. You can't achieve a society violating human nature, innovation, competition and etc. Essentially, an intelligent innovator like Steve Jobs would be paid the same amount as a McDonald's worker. Marxism is too idealistic, so achieving it has lead to disaster and the idea has backfired eventually, turning into a tyranny.
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:09:25.0285938Z
Communism is supposed to be a classless society. If you look at a society, and it has classes (as all implementations of "communism" have), then it is not communism. Claiming that the attempted implementations of communism represent the actual idea is like saying that Hitler wasn't a fascist dictator because his party name technically incorporated the idea of socialism.
triangle.128k says2015-09-04T22:15:51.4037006Z
@Pericles A classless society is impossible, Leninism was the closest we could so far get as to Karl Marx's Utopian world. The idea is just too idealistic and unrealistic, eventually having the idea backfire.
Discipulus_Didicit says2015-09-04T22:19:53.2531901Z
My previous post was not supposed to look like a run-on sentence. It was supposed to start a new line each time it switched between Billy and Sally. Apologies to everyone whose eyes were hurt looking at how it turned out, I know mine were.
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:22:48.5047135Z
@triangle1.28k The impossibility of an idea does not make it morally worse than Nazism.
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:23:03.8084116Z
*triangle.128k
triangle.128k says2015-09-04T22:24:54.0075180Z
@Pericles But the core of National Socialism was achieving a master race, Hitler never wrote anything about genocide in his book. Genocide and social darwinism were just the ways he attempted to achieve his master race, the same way how genocide and all were used to achieve Marxism.
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:26:57.7943115Z
Genocide was used to achieve Leninism, not Marxism.
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:30:07.4912510Z
Well, I guess it would be more accurate so say Stalinism. People were massacred for Leninism, but that was less by government authority than individual acts.
Discipulus_Didicit says2015-09-04T22:44:29.8182552Z
"Well, I guess it would be more accurate so say Stalinism. People were massacred for Leninism, but that was less by government authority than individual acts." Not really sure the people being massacred noticed much of a difference, or cared. Just saying.
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:48:14.4128949Z
That's cool, but neither are actual communism. That's my point.
Discipulus_Didicit says2015-09-04T22:57:44.6745504Z
Sure thing Sally.
PericIes says2015-09-05T04:23:39.1449893Z
I can't tell if you're attempting to resuscitate your argument or if you're just being weird.
Wylted says2015-09-06T13:03:28.8345442Z
Wow, communism literally murders 100 million people, but the guy who killed 10 million is worse? You guys are dim witted
Wylted says2015-09-06T13:06:38.3289589Z
Wow, some genius thinks Leninism and Stalinism isn't communism. What an absurd notion. For one it's the no true Scotsman fallacy, and for another communism is the final stage in the transition according to communist philosophers, so communism would always first start off as a tyrannical regime, before moving into it's final stage. I mean seriously, am I the only one here who actually took the time to read the communist manifesto and Men Kampf?
PericIes says2015-09-06T17:38:07.3648811Z
It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy if the definition of communism does not apply to those concepts, pleb.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-11T14:54:33.5109787Z
Well then youre talking about a specific set of ideals that is never completely adhered to. And when every variation close to it has failed, too. Communism lies on the same trendline as those others. If the ones on either side of it didnt work its safe to assume that they didnt come crumbling down because of this one tiny little difference they had from true communism. They dont work because of literally every other ideal they actually do share with communism.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-11T14:59:02.9871061Z
Not talking about the differences between Communism and Lenninism or Stalinism. You can make a sound judgement about communism based on the overwhelming similarities they possess with one another. To make an overall judgement based on the lesser of the factors (the minute differences) would be dumb. It'd be reverse generalization? Or something like that. Just completely backwards and wrong.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-11T15:05:36.9676316Z
Thats the basis, really, for it being a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. You cant judge something differently by saying it has this small factor that is different ... And no one has had every single factor in line all at the same time ... So the theory that it works must stand (or at least we can't say that it doesn't). I think its safe to say that we can call it a failure before it even happens. We dont need to try every single variable in a trend to prove something. Progress was never made by doing that. Trends and generalizations work perfectly fine. Any more social experimentation in the communist area is a waste of time really.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.