The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
25 Points

Are communist governments better than other forms of government

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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,775 times Debate No: 28694
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)




Seeing your profile I would like to challenge you on a debate that is communism better than other forms of government. I would like to raise objections on this form of government because I am a strong objector of this government


My opponent challenged me to this debate. I don't see how we can debate in 2 rounds... but here goes...


1)Con must give an alternative government as well as rejecting Pro's gov.
2) Pro must attack Con's gov. and support a Communist government.
3) No semantics, plagiarism is an automatic forfeiture with all 7 points going to the other side.
4) The comments section may not be used for sources.
5) All sources must be cited in the text.
6) Extentions are concessions, and can be viewed as automatic Voters.


1) Pro's Case will center around the IDEA of a Communist Government, there is no need for implementation.
2) Pro's Case will be labeled under different Premises. Each Premise represents an individual argument that is not connected to the former or latter Premise.

Premise 1) A Utopian Society, an Equal Society

A Communist State has no social Hierarchy, and no Class-Based Structure. This over time evolves into a truly equal establishment based on the reformation of social order. The idea behind a Communist Government is simple, work in the best interest of the working class, those that work recieve the benefits of such a government, as they put in their own input to better the state. A government's primary obligation is to it's people, and the collective State. There is no wrong done in diminishing barriers, and bringing about equal input from everyone. This in turn generates extended benefit to the country that are reflected upon the working class. Note- The government does not force the disabled, elderly, or adolescents to work. [1]

Premise 2) A Communist State with a Mixed Economy

China, [2] is currently a Communist State, but rather than having the typically thought of "Command" Economy, in which each and every part of the Economy is Government controlled, the Chinese have a Mixed Economy, in which the Private Sector is still controlled by the citizens. While this crude example may appear faulty, the idea behind the economic behavior of a Communist State can be better represented by China. The overall idea, and the premise presupposed from this, would be that Communism is not just 100% government controlled, and does in fact work with the people's interests. The Chinese classify their Economy as "Market Socialism". China's economy is currently 3rd in the world, and the unemployment rate is one of the lowest of the world powers. [3] Clearly Market Socialism is effective in today's society, but going even further than that, the idea behind it hasn't been implemented to it's fullest extent. In the world today, such implementation would not see perfection (Due to outside factors), but the idea behind it is flawless.

Premise 3) Capitalism breeds War

Capitalism is cause of all war. Communism and Capitalism are self proclaimed polar opposites. Everything Communism stands for is seen to be threatened by Capitalism. This is a pre-emptive Premise, but the entire idea stands, Capitalism, the opposite of Communism, breeds war. [4] Throughout History, Capitalists have been trying to achieve Economic growth, at the cost of other's lives. Capitalism breeds war in the name of the Economy, as many Capitalists try to reduce unemployment and debt. According to the Capitalists of the early 1900's, war is completely justified if the Economy benefits from it. This premise in turn justifies World War 1 and especially World War 2. [4]

Premise 4) Capitalism breeds Anthro

Capitalism breeds Anthropocentrism, which is the idea that human beings are the dominant species, and completely disregards the well-being of any other life forms. [5] The reason for this being, Societal Structure is extremely faulty in a Capitalist society, in which people view each other not as human beings, but as a different being altogether. The rich view the poor much like the poor may view an ant, such radical thoughts only bring worse outlooks upon the world. So why should we care that Capitalism breeds Anthropocentric views? Anthro leads to a faster rate of extinction, [6] not only does disregard for nature hurt human beings due to starvation and disease, but it also effects us morally, in that each and every human being's total disregard for other life breeds more war and justifies slaughter in the name of a dominant species. This in turn leads to extinction, as the world turns inward upon itself, Capitalists waste the resources they possess, and soon when the need rises to it's highest point, the world will die, and life on Earth will be no different from life on Mars.

Premise 5) Capitalist Economies Vs Communist Economies

Capitalist Economies have less business, and far higher unemployment rates. Private Sector investors hurt capitalist economies because they do not create new jobs, and lack the efficiency that a Labor-Run company may have. In a Communist economy, the Private sector is run by the working class, those that work at the company own it, increasing both efficiency due to their extended knowledge of their work, and of course, the employment rates. [7]

Premise 6) Karl Marx and Fredrick Engles are Geniuses

The entirerety of the typical Communist Government lies in Marxist-Engles Ideology. These two men are the gods of Communism and Socialism, the two geniuses who invented a revolutionary idea, that unfortunately has not been implemented to it's finest degree. The Communist Manifesto is the bible of a Communist Government, and is treasured as such. An ACTUAL Communist Government would be fully obliged to follow such a holy doctrine, and the one would easily see there are no flaws to a Utopian Society. The world we live in today is far worse than the world that could be if Communism were implemented according to the Communist Manifesto. [8]


[6] ttp://;

Sorry I rushed this, been very busy recently. From this I urge a Pro vote.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting I would like to lay down my following objections against Communism.

Businesses under communist system have very strict limitations as to what they can and cannot do.

"The government owns all the businesses and properties (the means of production
"In a communist system, the central authority dictates the means and quantity of production, and place strict rules on businesses.
"The economic and political system of communism effectively dictates what can and cannot be done in the realm of business. There are defined limitations for the amount a business can produce and how much money they can earn.
"In addition to directly controlling the means of production, communism places strict rules on the way businesses operate in such a way that a classless society is born.
"Large or geographically broad populations tend to be diverse, making it difficult to maintain a common goal or set of rules for shared effort and resources.
"Consumer"s needs are not taken into consideration.
"Productivity and efficiency is difficult to achieve without profit motive for the workers.
"It is difficult to achieve internal balances between supply and demand without a price mechanism.
"Central planning is difficult to achieve.

Communism makes fears in the minds of people.

Communism makes you fear to even speak to your neighbor. The only way to keep Communism alive is to make the citizens afraid to ever organize and protest. Hence, the government rewards snitches. If you mention something in passing to your neighbor that is against Communism, you very well might get arrested. This is one reason Czechs loved to go to their small summer cottages. They didn't have to worry that someone could hear their conversations (thin walls in the city, you know), and they could be with people they trusted. Hence, Communism made you mistrust everyone. You became paranoid, just to survive. Even today, older Czechs don't speak to their neighbors. Old habits die hard. Under Communism, the great majority of people live boring, unfulfilled lives. They can't reach the levels in life they could in a free society. It's like putting a full grown trout in a 10 gallon aquarium, and expecting it to live its life there.

People are not allowed to fulfill their wishes and are not free to live.

Life under Communism is bland and boring. Culture has to support the system, so forget about modern music; it would be considered a threat to the Communist order. Forget about fashion. You're going to wear nightmarishly ugly and ill-fitting clothes. Forget about comfort, style, and individual expression. There are about five styles of shoes to choose from. That's it. You were required to work, and the government would assign you a job. Great, except your job was often a soul-sucking nightmare. Example: a journalist once wrote about how she would visit Russia during Communism. In the States, she'd pick up a dozen bagels in about 30 seconds and be on her way. Not under communism! He employees know they are literally wasting their lives. They aren't doing anything productive. One person could do the job of four. It's like the torture they give prisoners, where you have to take a pile of bricks from one end of the jail yard to the other. Once you've finished, you have to haul that same pile back to the original location, and so forth. It's torture because you realize you have accomplished nothing. That's how these people felt. It sucked their souls dry. It made them bitter and resentful.

Communism is a system that perpetually has no discretionary funds

You'd be surprised how fast buildings and infrastructure decay and collapse without private ownership. Just look at Cuba. They have a "free" and young work force, but the buildings are literally collapsing around them. Communism just can't sustain itself in the long run. Things get old and decay, and the amount of money and effort needed to keep things running smooth always far exceeds government income.

No civil rights. No free press. Travel abroad only permitted after rigorous investigation into you and your family. No right to privacy. If you are gay, you will be ostracized. If you are handicapped, you will be removed from sight (even in the more compassionate Czech Republic, they followed this standard Communist practice, that non-productive people had to be sent somewhere out of sight. My friends here said they never saw anyone handicapped until the Berlin Wall fell.)
Medicine: look at the conditions under communism of any clinic or hospital. They were third-worldish. Hospitals are expensive to maintain, and under Communism everything was always in short supply. A lot of treatments are never given because it's too expensive. Medicine is rationed; fact of life.

I would like to solve the dilemma by a government that is for the people by the people-Democracy
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally"either directly or through elected representatives"in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

Safeguards the interests of the people:

Chief merit of democracy lies in that it safeguards the interests of the people. Real power lies in the hands of the people who exercise it by the representatives elected by them and who are responsible to them. It is said that social, economic and political interests of the individuals are served better under this system.

Based on the principle of equality:

Democracy is based on the principle of equality. All members of the State are equal in the eyes of law. All enjoy equal social, political and economic rights and state cannot discriminate among citizens on the basis of caste, religion, sex, or property. All have equal right to choose their government.

Stability and responsibility in administration:

Democracy is known for its stability, firmness and efficiency. These days tenure of the elected representatives is fixed. They form a stable government because it is based on public support. The administration is conducted with a sense of responsibility. In representative democracy, people's representatives discuss matters more thoroughly and take reasonable decision.

Under monarchy the Monarch takes decisions as he pleases. Under dictatorship, the dictators do not involve people at all in decision making; people have no right to criticize the decisions of the dictator even when they are bad and against people's welfare.

Political education to the people:

Another argument given in favor of democracy is that it serves as a training school for citizens. People get impetus to take part in the affairs of the state. At the time of elections political parties propose their policy and programme in support of their candidates. All means of propaganda-public meetings, posters, radio, television and speeches by important leaders of the parties- are used to win public favor. It creates political consciousness among the people.

(v) Little chance of revolution:

Since democracy is based on public will, there is no chance of public revolt. Representatives elected by the people conduct the affairs of the state with public support. If they don't work efficiently or don't come up to the expectations of their masters i.e., the public, they are thrown in the dustbin of history when elections are held again. Gilchrist opines that democracy or popular governments always function with consensus and therefore question of revolt or revolution does not arise.

Stable government:

Democracy is based on public will. It conducts state business with public support. It is, therefore, more stable than other forms of Government.


I thank my opponent for my first real debate on this website. Let's go over the analysis for the round before we begin. I'd like to draw the reader's attention to the 6th point.

6) Extentions are concessions, and can be viewed as automatic Voters.

My opponent fails to create direct clash. Voting off of anything he said and then cross applying it to my case is detrimental to debate, as he simply undermines everything I've written.

FIRST- Extensions/Voters off of the Pro Case


Premise 1
Impact- Equal Societies are better than societies with a class based structure. Communism solves.

Premise 2
Impact- Market Socialism is clearly an efficient and stable foundation for an economy. Communist Gov solves.

Premise 3
Impact- Capitalism breeds war. Upholding Capitalism upholds killing millions of innocent people. Communist Gov solves, no social structure or economic downturn that leads to nuclear proliferation.

Premise 4
Impact- Capitalism breeds Anthropocentrism. Extinction will occur far faster for the human race due to our misuse and wasteful attitude towards the earth. As all animals go extinct and resources are depleted, humans will die off from lack of resources. Communist Gov solves.

Premise 5
Impact- Communist Economies are far greater than Capitalist economies.

Premise 6
Impact- Marxist-Engles Ideology is the only way to ensure a perfect Utopian society. Communist gov solves, Capitalist gov's lead to our downfall.

Now onto Con's case.

"Businesses under communist system have very strict limitations as to what they can and cannot do."
1) No warrant given for such a broad claim.
2) Cross apply Premise 2. Market Socialism solves. Private sector still exists, which the public controls, and is free of government interference. So this unwarranted claim is false.

"Communism makes fears in the minds of people."
Another unwarranted claim. No source given, no empirics, and nothing past a simple KGB argument my opponent makes. I'm arguing for the idea of a COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT NOT A USSR GOVERNMENT. He then brings up the Czechs. This is simply untrue, and no source has been given justifying this.

"People are not allowed to fulfill their wishes and are not free to live."
1) Unwarranted Claim once again.
2) Cross apply Market Socialism, Private Sector in a Communist gov solves.
3) Extinction outweighs individual wants and needs. If you are alive you can still attain your appointed ends. So if you don't buy points 1 and 2, I'm still giving you a weighing mechanism.

"Communism is a system that perpetually has no discretionary funds"

"You'd be surprised how fast buildings and infrastructure decay and collapse without private ownership."

1) Premise 2- Market Socialism SOLVES FOR THIS. The fact that my opponent fails to read a single part of my case is sad in itself, but I already proved the private sector exists, and private ownership exists in a Communist government, or CAN exist.

"No civil rights. No free press."

1) Premise 6, Communist Manifesto, says nothing about denying civil rights or freedom of the press. The government only obligation is to ensure the well being of it's people.
2) My opponent fails to realize I'm talking about the Idea of a Communist government, not any actual government right now. This was made clear in my Analysis.

HIS SOLVENCY- Democracy (Democratic Capitalism)

1) Premise 3- War. I've already said war is bad, my opponent never contested this. Therefore it stands.
2) Premise 4- Anthro leads to a faster extinction, which is ALWAYS bad.
3) Premise 5- Communist Economies are better, plain and simple.
4) Premise 1- Equality due to no Social Hierarchy or class structure, outweighs Democracy, which has a class structure.

Now to his points on Democracy.

"Safeguards the interests of the people:"
1) Extinction is not in the best interest of the people.
2) Premise 3 says Democratic Capitalists only care about the Economy moreso than the people.

"Based on the principle of equality:"
1) Not True, social structure exists
2) There can be no equality if different people are on a different level in society.

"Stability and responsibility in administration:"
1) War
2) Anthro
3) Not true
4) Empirics

" Political education to the people:"
1) Premise 6, the people have the Communist Manifesto, the very text that defines their government.
2) My opponent doesn't prove there is no political education given to the people in a Communist regime.

"Little chance of revolution:"
1) War
2) Anthro
3) Extinction
All 3 of these outweigh, also, once again my opponent fails to give reasons to why if PERFECT communism were achived there would be a revolution.

Stable government:
1) Premises showing this to be untrue (Simply cross apply 1-5)
2) No evidence given.



Analysis- Con fails to give any sources, and fails to attack pro in any way shape or form. Indirect clash isn't attacking my points, it's attacking the resolution. As such, Extend ALL OF THE PRO CASE. This alone means con CONCEDES to every single point made. Therefore these 6 premises are easy voters.

Con Case- Rooted in Assumption, completely unwaranted and refuted. No sources were given, and con fails to attack Pro's case.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
Ah, another debate on "My preposterous gushing fantasy is better than any reality." To be remotely plausible, at least some elements of the communist fantasy must be shown to work in the real world. How about showing a successful industrial company in which management decisions are made by a democratic vote of the workers? Gee, there aren't any. Even employee-owned companies with a high-paid professional management have a miserable track record.

the history of the 20th century gives dozens of examples of experiments with various types of socialism. The new African nations formed in the 60s all started with democratic socialism and all failed miserably, with most ending with horrible dictatorships. Africa is now starting to try capitalism, and for the first time they have a chance at success.

North and south Korea are good examples, as are East and West Germany, as both had cultural homogeneity. Only the political systems differed. Someone said, "The most amazing achievement of communism was to make bad workers out of Germans." Communism cannot survive without a totalitarian state.

Mainland China is not an example of communist success. Dictatorships do much better when they allow free markets, there is no question of that. We have good examples with South Korea and Taiwan, which both started as free market dictatorships. However, once people got a taste of freedom they moved towards democracy. That's what's happening in Russia and China.

For economic progress, there must be an accumulation of capital that is invested. Communist states put a miserable ideological elite in charge of that, and it always fails. There is no possibility of a communism without totalitarian control. That's why the dozens of experiments have all failed.
Posted by Imagination 3 years ago
I don't think Con knows what Communism is free of the authoritarian bastardization of it that the Soviet Union adopted, which was so terrible because they were being led by a psychopath who committed mass genocide on his own people -- NOT because they were Communist. If Communism makes you live in fear of free speech, you're doing it wrong. Pro was correct in using Marx's ideology; so far in history, when Communism was implemented as a government, it was done so by an individual dictator and his cronies with no regard for human life and rights.

Just imagine if Stalin had been leading and warping a Capitalist country.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
RFD: One sided debate from the word go. Cpm didn't exactly help himself out by making it only a two round debate. Especially considering how he didn't even use the first round for a case. Pro made a fairly well constructed case, even if rushed, on the merits of Communism and the downsides of Capitalism. Con's case.....was not as well made. No sources, no warrants, nada. Doesn't respond to a single argument of Pro's. Just makes a skimpy case and peaces out for the debate. An unrefuted case as opposed to even a slightly refuted case is an easy vote. Compared to the massive dumping on Pro gave con's case? I didn't have to think a long time about this one.
Posted by shubhamc18 3 years ago
well people if you think communism is life then better think on this because once St Augustine that "an unjust law is not an law" and chicken for you the info i didn't take it from net I took it from my school book the name is "Democratic politics" and wrote maximum by myself without anyone's life. I forget to mention that's my apology
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
I question whether Pro's premise, issued AFTER already accepting the debate as originally written, was fair (though it doesn't seem to have been questioned by Con):

1) Pro's Case will center around the IDEA of a Communist Government, there is no need for implementation.

Ignoring implementation ignores the purpose of government; any government CAN be idealized to the point that it addresses all issues, but if it has never actually WORKED when actually implemented, to try to force the argument to ignore that is to hobble the argument from the get-go. It would be akin to talking about laissez-faire economics, but establishing the rule that neither monopolies nor safety regulations may be brought up.

While Pro "Won" based on the rules Pro issued after accepting the debate, I find it hard to vote anything but "Tie" on the voting criteria, so I haven't voted.
Posted by Chicken 3 years ago
Chuz this proves you don't read a debate, please look at the Analysis on Round 1 which explains how to vote.
Posted by errya 3 years ago
Therefore, I fear communism
Posted by errya 3 years ago
I fear someone who tries to create a utopia on earth.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 3 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I really hope I don't have to actually justify it, but if I do, and I really shouldn't, then look to the comments for my RFD.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As an objectivist, I'm strongly against communism. Chicken needs to realize that any society in which communism works wouldn't need communism. However, despite being wrong, she won the debate. And yet another example of why debate is not effective.
Vote Placed by Topiarey 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It is plainly obvious to me that Con has no legitimate understanding of the topic, therefore he did not debate it well. All of his points, bias aside, did not sway me as all of them were created from unsupported derived opinion with no real knowledge of the topic. Chicken did a great job of showing that.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I give S/G to Pro for the clearer formatting and objective language. I give arguments to Pro for defending communism against the attacks of the Pro and I give sources to Pro for... well providing any. The biggest problem with this debate however, and what I would suggest both debaters work on for future discussions on this matter are to conform arguments to the Toulmin Method. Both debaters make clear claims but neither explains why the claims are true, they simply reference external evidence. Without a warrant there is nothing to link the claim to the evidence.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Great exchange. I wish this had been a 4-5 rounder and Con would have done much better had he used some sources for his allegations.