Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you want to make a decision between the "Communism vs Nazism" you have to have a clear definition of the terms. Communism and Socialism have similarities and the same can be said when referring to Nazis of Fascists. A true Democracy and our Republican type system is another example where poor definition confuses the discussion. Words have meanings and it is difficult to discuss issues when there is no clear definition of the terms.
Every time I hear some one say that the republican party is similar to the NAZI party, I realize how little people actually know.
Since the NAZI party is The National Socialist party in Germany comparing of the NAZI party to Berny Sanders would be close.
This is a conservative fallacy that ignores the fact that most modern governments are partially socialist, meaning that the differentiating factors are much less than conservatives would like to admit. Social Security, Medicare, even things like publicly funded fire departments are all socialist constructs, and not seriously under attack by the vast majority of Americans.
The red herring you provide ignores or attempts to distract people from the truth that the aspects of the Nazi ethos that get compared to the Republican party are not governmental policy comparisons, but social ideology. The Nationalism and the racially motivated Southern strategy that the Republican party has come to represent are what is being compared to Nazi's. Obviously, as racist as the Southern strategy was, it was nowhere near as extreme as how Nazi policies were implemented in Nazi Germany - but it was still racist and still played on white Southerners feelings of superiority and fears about race in their homeland.
Republicans are not Nazis. But to ignore the truth about why the comparison gets made is to pretend that the Republican Party's leadership over the past 50+ years has not deliberately aimed to use racism for their own goals.
Apples to oranges. Nazism and Communism are not even similar, so should not be compared. Communism gets such a bad rap, and it's undeserved, in my opinion. It's a flawed economic system, but capitalism obviously doesn't work either, otherwise we wouldn't have such enormous wealth inequality and inequality of opportunity among our citizens. I think people have a negative view of communism because they don't understand the meaning of the term. Communism advocates class warfare and leads to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
People are on more equal financial footing, instead of the majority working their behinds off, and having little to show for it at the end of their life while the minority is insanely wealthy and living in the lap of luxury. Considering the threads in which hard working Americans legitimately feel like their lifetime of labor is underpaid and underrecognized, it might actually be an economic system with some merit. (Not that that matters, since our economic system will never change).
Nazism is a racist and antisemitic ideology, rather than economic system, in which the government feels Caucasians are superior to all other races, and they have the right to take active measures to promote the continued existence and well being of whites, up to and including the practice of eugenics. It doesn't necessarily include taking economic steps; it's more a matter of enacting racist civil and political policies. So while communism might have some merit since it seeks to improve the lives of all citizens, Nazism doesn't, since it actively seeks to improve the lives of one group at the expense of others.
Republicans are not Nazis. But to ignore the truth about why the comparison gets made...
The comparison gets made because Nazi is a powerful word that shuts down debate and democrats are convinced that people are idiots. They may even be right about that part.
Nazism was a variation of fascism. The fascism of Nazi Germany was not the same as the fascism of Mussolini or Franco, or Peron or a number of other variations that arose in South America. Leninist Socialism which never approached a state of Marxist Communism was just one variation of socialism that spans the utopian socialism of such as Robert Owen, the social democracy of Clement Attlee or Eugene Debs, to "scientific socialism," the Marxist orthodoxy pursued by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, which again was was different from Maoism. None of which should be confused with welfare capitalism.
The same goes for determining dictatorships from democracies all of which come in their own formulations. While Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were ruled under a dictatorship, the Soviet Union was from time to time a quasi-representative democracy. Certainly European versions of even pseudo Marxist leanings have been governed by electoral democracy of some sort over the years.
Unfortunately the Heinz 57 flavors or political ideology has escaped most of American academia where economist pass all of these variations to political science, political scientist pass them off as sociological theories, leaving only historians to piece the puzzle together only to explain what happened but rarely the underlying political economy of any.
....the racially motivated Southern strategy that the Republican party has come to represent are what is being compared to Nazi's. .
Really, the old southern Democratic party was pro racialism, meaning they were of a mindset blacks were inferior and should be segregated. The Republican party has always been the business party, or capitalist expansion party, since Lincoln.
The South changed much as more southerns came to value their private material interest over the old notions of social order. This came to be after the 1960s and matured in the 1980s.
Democratic Governor Ernest Vandiver pledged, "No, not one," meaning not one black child in a white school"
Democratic Georgia Governor Lester Maddox was a segregationist, and defeated Bo Callaway because segregationist policy was popular and he was endorsed by previous Governor Sanders, who was less a segregationist, yet businessman Callaway was seen by many as too progressive and too pro white-collar business class, even though he was not motivated by racialism.
Many believe Callaway should have won, as he received the most votes, and some feel the wrong decision had been made in favor of Maddox.
In defeat, Callaway said that the GOP had "a long way to go to achieve a competitive force. Let us pledge to work twice as hard to make Georgia a shining example of opportunity."
Today, I believe Callaway would win easily over Maddox. The value of materialism greatly outweighs the social structural caste system so popular among past southern Democrats.
Racism, comes in many guises, but for me, it does not include, "because you are inferior", rather it obstructs equality in the name of self-gain and this is what one often finds with Republicans.
Really, the old southern Democratic party was pro racialism, meaning they were of a mindset blacks were inferior and should be segregated. The Republican party has always been the business party, or capitalist expansion party, since Lincoln.
...
Racism, comes in many guises, but for me, it does not include, "because you are inferior", rather it obstructs equality in the name of self-gain and this is what one often finds with Republicans.
I never said that Democrats had never been, nor even still aren't, racist. Dixiecrats were, almost by definition, racists.
However, the Republicans intentionally, cynically exploited racism for the Southern Strategy. To believe that they have only been a business party or capitalist expansion party is, well, nothing personal to you, but absolutely, completely, naively, unequivocally stupid.
If the American people somehow nominated as candidates for president, a Nazi as the Republican and a Communist as the Democrat, which of them would be preferable, and which would win?
Neither, that's why people come here from around the world. Unless fools vote our rights away because they "think" it will be able to sit on their duffs.
If the American people somehow nominated as candidates for president, a Nazi as the Republican and a Communist as the Democrat, which of them would be preferable, and which would win?
This is a purely hypothetical debate, and should not be construed to be about Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump is obviously not a Nazi, and Bernie Sanders is obviously not a Communist. So please keep them out of this debate. It's completely hypothetical, about a real Nazi vs a real Communist.
Consider such issues as one of them appointing new Supreme Court judges, and what it would do to our system of government. And what countries we might go to war against depending on which of them was elected. Etc.
I think Communist would be a lesser evil, but the Nazi would win in USA. Much more Americans supported Hitler in 30s, than Stalin you know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
