The Instigator
Anarcho-Socialist
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Anarcho-Socialism/Communism is possible under certain conditions

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 1 vote the winner is...
Anarcho-Socialist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 70516
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

Hello. First round is acceptance only.
WillRiley

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

Hello con, and welcome to the debate. For this debate, I must bring up some basic information about Anarcho-Socialism for clarity: 1. Anarcho-Socialism is made up of Anarchism, which advocates for the abolition of the state, Socialism, which is an economic system in which the higher classes pay higher taxes to help provide basic government services to the poor for free or cheap, and, if not socialism, then communism, which calls for the elimination of classes when by itself, but combined with anarchism its goal is to eventually eliminate currency, and therefore wages.

The economic basis for Anarcho-Communism is summed up in this statement: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This means that the relationship between the individual and the community is a "give-and-take" relationship. An example would be if someone got injured on the job or sick, then the community would help him out with health care, assuming there is still currency, in the hopes that if the situation is reversed the same result will occur.

The social basis for Anarcho-Socialism is one that tries to satisfy both the need for inequality, and the want of relative equality. One might ask how this is possible. This is possible through the dissolution of nation-states and borders. What Ancoms believe is that the world should be transformed from states, which have organized borders and coercion, to what are called communes. Communes are small, self-governing city-like governments in which there is no government hierarchy. All citizens are equal, and have an equal say in government. But one must obviously notice that there are fundamental differences between different types of humans, so equality cannot work in this scenario alone. For example, a Muslim wants to ban gay marriage, because he claims that allowing gay marriage would establish an anti-Muslim government, which discriminates against his religious beliefs. On the other hand, a gay man believes that gay marriage should be legal, because if not, then the government would take a pro-Muslim view, thus discriminating against him. One can see that there is no good way to go without discriminating against someone in this situation. But that is not what Ancoms propose. Ancoms propose that communes should each give special rights and privileges to a specific group of people. In the gay vs. Muslim example, there would be a commune with privileges for Muslims, and the same for homosexuals. That way everybody would have perfect freedom of association. In an ancom society, there would be no borders, so there is no excuse for why a gay person should complain about being discriminated in a Muslim commune, even though he either made the conscious decision to move to the Muslim commune, or he was born into it and knows about the laws, and still is choosing to stay. The best and most irrefutable part of Anarcho-Communism is that, if the state, currency, and borders are abolished, and each commune benefits a certain people, 100% of the people involved would benefit.
WillRiley

Con

In order for this society to work, everyone in it would have to voluntarily give their possessions to others. Some people are generous, but most people would not want to do this. If a person didn't want to work, then what would happen to them? Would someone punish them? If so, who? Wouldn't that person be higher up than the person being punished?
The main way that this would be impossible is this right here-

"This is possible through the dissolution of nation-states and borders. What Ancoms believe is that the world should be transformed from states, which have organized borders and coercion, to what are called communes. Communes are small, self-governing city-like governments in which there is no government hierarchy. All citizens are equal, and have an equal say in government."

Which is, of course, impossible. You would have every nation just decide to not exist anymore? How would that happen? Even supposing that all of the socialists, communists, and anarchists combined (Even though some people are Anarcho-Capitalist) they would not be able to fight off the governments, combined with all of the other citizens who would be against Anarchy, Communism, or both.

The other problem is that Communism and Socialism, in every real world application, has devolved into an autocratic regime. Stephane Courtois, author of "The Black Book of Communism" considers Communism and Nazism slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis".[1] Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. This claim is backed by his citing of Nazi state official Rudolf Höss who organized the infamous death camp in Auschwitz-

"The Reich Security Head Office issued to the commandants a full collection of reports concerning the Russian concentration camps. These described in great detail the conditions in, and organization of, the Russian camps, as supplied by former prisoners who had managed to escape. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the Russians, by their massive employment of forced labor, had destroyed whole peoples." [2]
Socialism doesn’t work because it does not reflect human nature. This unnatural state of existence, by the way, is what makes socialism an ideology – it doesn’t reflect what’s real; it only reflects what’s imagined.
Volumes have been written about what can be described in one sentence: The imagined benefits of socialism always require government coercion to force changes in human behavior. That effort has never worked in the history of mankind. If socialism’s benefits were real, little government coercion would be necessary to achieve them. Ordered liberty, or freedom, requires some government coercion. The difference between freedom and socialism is that government coercion in a free society conforms to human nature. The same is not true with socialism.
Society is an imperfect thing, because we as humans are imperfect beings. Anarcho-Socialism/Communism will never work.

[1][2] Werth et al. Margolin, p. 15.
Debate Round No. 2
Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

We will now start our first round of rebuttals.
""In order for this society to work, everyone in it would have to voluntarily give their possessions to others. Some people are generous, but most people would not want to do this. If a person didn't want to work, then what would happen to them? Would someone punish them? If so, who? Wouldn't that person be higher up than the person being punished?"

Remember now, that this is a communal society with full direct democracy, as all citizens have equal voting rights, as long as they are in the privileged group. Also remember that this privileged style society would be the only rational way for an ancom commune to function. So, remembering that ancom is a society where "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is the founding statement, so if someone was unwilling to work, which means that he will not contribute his ability, and had no physical disabilities, which would be considered a need, he would not mathematically fit into the equation, because he has neither ability nor need. So, he would simply not fulfill any needs until an ability is produced.
The commune as a whole would have already put laws into place so that not just one individual punishes him, but the commune, and the laws apply to everyone.

""Even supposing that all of the socialists, communists, and anarchists combined (Even though some people are Anarcho-Capitalist) they would not be able to fight off the governments, combined with all of the other citizens who would be against Anarchy, Communism, or both."

This argument is irrelevant, because we are not debating on how an anarchist society would start, but rather, could it be sustainable, or at least possible for a prolonged period of time, under certain conditions.

"The other problem is that Communism and Socialism, in every real world application, has devolved into an autocratic regime. Stephane Courtois, author of "The Black Book of Communism" considers Communism and Nazism slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis".[1] Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. This claim is backed by his citing of Nazi state official Rudolf H"ss who organized the infamous death camp in Auschwitz-"

This argument is based on the traditional, flawed, left-to-right design, with anarchists on the furthest possible left, progressing right, to communists, socialists, social democrats, liberals, centrists, conservatives, nationalism, fascism, national socialism, and lastly monarchism. What this scale fails to achieve is that politics are divided into an economic scale, and a social scale. On the economic scale we have communism at the far-left, and pure capitalism at the far-right. Neither of these implies a moral position. One lacks currency, while one supports it fully. The social scale is the "up-down" scale, where anarchism is on the bottom, near libertarianism, and at the top is totalitarianism, near statism. Now, both communism and capitalism can be twisted and manipulated when combined with totalitarianism, such as Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union.

"The other problem is that Communism and Socialism, in every real world application, has devolved into an autocratic regime."

This is not true. Again, when combined with totalitarianism, communism and socialism become twisted and take away more rights than not. However, when combined with anarchism, socialism and communism is a very good thing. It's just communes helping their citizens. It would work best without currency entirely. Also, there are at least 2 examples of an ancom society that functions well: The Free Territory/ies of Ukraine, and certain parts of Spain during the Spanish Revolution.

"Socialism doesn"t work because it does not reflect human nature. This unnatural state of existence, by the way, is what makes socialism an ideology " it doesn"t reflect what"s real; it only reflects what"s imagined.
Volumes have been written about what can be described in one sentence: The imagined benefits of socialism always require government coercion to force changes in human behavior. That effort has never worked in the history of mankind. If socialism"s benefits were real, little government coercion would be necessary to achieve them. Ordered liberty, or freedom, requires some government coercion. The difference between freedom and socialism is that government coercion in a free society conforms to human nature. The same is not true with socialism.
Society is an imperfect thing, because we as humans are imperfect beings. Anarcho-Socialism/Communism will never work."

As I stated earlier in this debate,
"The social basis for Anarcho-Socialism is one that tries to satisfy both the need for inequality, and the want of relative equality." Socialism is just the human expression of common decency. However, ancoms realize that some hierarchies are necessary.
Socialism does not require government coercion. The Free territory/ies and Spain prove this. Socialism and communism, combined with some necessary hierarchies, anarchism, and the freedom of association/open borders, are the essence of human nature. Humans tend to self-segregate, which is why for some seemingly odd reason we want both equality and hierarchy. So what I stated above actually conforms to human nature, good and bad, moreso than any form of capitalism, "anarcho"capitalism, or any other kind of system, because it benefits 100% of the people involved if they will just do their fair share.

Thank you for giving me a challenging debate so far. Back to you, con!
WillRiley

Con

WillRiley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

Rebuttals extended.
WillRiley

Con

WillRiley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Anarcho-Socialist

Pro

Vote pro!
WillRiley

Con

WillRiley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Anarcho-Socialist 1 year ago
Anarcho-Socialist
Actually, according to YouTuber Libertarian Socialist, a study was done on the brain the proved that if a human did a kind act, he felt better, so he wanted to do more, like an addiction. So actually, human nature IS altruistic.
Posted by TommyB12 1 year ago
TommyB12
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism is not possible without a government exercising force against a populous to get them to share wealth. Human nature is not altruistic
Posted by TommyB12 2 years ago
TommyB12
could you define certain conditions?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ATHOS 1 year ago
ATHOS
Anarcho-SocialistWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 forfeited