The Instigator
WaximusMaximus
Con (against)
Tied
43 Points
The Contender
Lacan
Pro (for)
Tied
43 Points

Can Communism really work?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,410 times Debate No: 1020
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (28)

 

WaximusMaximus

Con

Lucan, while communism is very appealing on paper I fail to see how it could work in reality without the existence of a group of morally perfect people.

1. Greed will undermine the system.
While I believe that most people are to a greater or lesser degree good what does a communist government do with those few greedy people who refuse to cooperate? If we force them to cooperate then we abridge their rights. If we do not then the system begins to come apart as we have looters taking from what should be the community pot.

2. Violence.
While I am far from being a pacifist unnecessary violence is just that, unnecessary. The idea of violent class warfare to bring about political change is distressing. First, how will the new communist government rebuild and restore authority? Second, to what degree will this violence sponsor wanton murder and looting? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I introduce those two points as being my primary concerns.
Lacan

Pro

1. This argument fails to understand a basic fact, people change.

In a....

fascist system you work to live.

monarchy you work to pay taxes.

capitalism you work to get rich.

Commune you work to support you community.

Guess what? In Venezuela a group of factory workers bought out their factory's and run them as a communist country would be run. They share the work, make the same wages and donate the extra money to the people in the community. They could get rich, but they chose to help because they work in a communist mind set. They earn honor and respect instead of money. This is a more fulfilling life then is offered in a capitalist system.

In Isrial the Kabutz are a set of communes run exactly like a communist contruy would be. these people all work as hard as they can, because to let your commintiy down would be the same as going bankrupt in a capitalist society.You live communally, you can escape the community and the pressure would break the laziest slimiest person down.

Children would be brought up understand "Work, so that all around you can live, slack and you are worthless to us" this indoctrination would be as hard to escape as the competition in capitalism.

Also, these slackers, even if left alone may not be a threat to stability. Lets be honest, thier is soooo much corruption in capitalism and yet it dosen't fall down around us. We would need less then 70% of people to work for the community in order to sustain the civilization.

Also, you act as if rights are god given, in communism there is no god. In order for one to access their rights, even in a social democracy, they must first be a "comrade". If they can not complete the task they are asked to do there is no reason they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of other labors. Work is the pathway to rights, do what is asked of you (basic tasks that all are sure you have the ability to do) and the rest is your freedom to dictate. There is no reason to respect the rights of one who choses to hurt the commune, exile would be an option even. In order to enjoy the labor of others, it is key you one must labor.

You have to realize, to a capitalist it sounds crazy, but in a communal world it is the only way to live.

I am no Marxist. Revolution is not necessarily.

1. A Coup da Ta (Stroke of state) is one option. A quick one strike take over, with little or no violence. The French Revolution started off non-violent, the bastile was stormed with little resistance. things have changed even further, the military are no longer lords and knights. The military of the united states of America is 90% minority of the lower class. Little violence is possible in a world where the US military turns its guns on the 20% that comprise the highest class, they would cower and surrender(Nite I am rather upper middle class) .

2. By challenging idology we can realize what is happening is wrong. This is what Zizek rights about, when people are forced to take what we now consider inevitable, and turn it into something that is our responsibility (Ie we realize the poor don't HAVE to starve) we strike back against our government in an Uber Mencian way. This would be political and non-violent.

3. This is the social democratic way, I am a member of this train of thought. We can pass laws to create a communist state! Chavez did, there is no reason the USFG can not do the same.

4. The transition wars are not a part of the communist state, and have nothing to do with if communism would work when implemented.
Debate Round No. 1
WaximusMaximus

Con

I certainly agree with you people can change, they are always changing. Our views and outlooks are effected everyday in at least some minor way. By forcing people to knuckle-under in a commune to the communal order we are setting a precedent of simply complying with the established order. This could have serious consequences in the future of the commune. Either certain members with less than noble goals could rise to totalitarian power or if the community remains supreme then you could have rule-of-the-mob on your hands. Either path results in less freedoms than were enjoyed before the commune. Freedom is the principle I hold most dear.

Now we come to the question of rights. My belief or disbelief in God is not really material at this point. If we look to the natural state of man every individual had the ability to do whatever they wanted. Humans entered into government to provide protection for their collective or personal work, persons, loved-ones, and so forth. Being bound to a community by more than your own personal choice goes further than is necessary for government to go. Suffering exile and destitution on the basis of failure to comply with the community versus infringing on another person's rights is more than liberty demands. It is a less than equal government. Hence we return to the point that only a community of entirely virtuous people could enter into a commune, make it function, and remain there without infringing on their rights.

I would argue that how communism comes about is very important in relation to this debate. If the establishment of true communism is very important. Every attempt to do so on a national basis has been less than successful. By this argument I mean full-fledged true-blue communism, not in the process of getting there. Is the concept of forcefully redistributing wealth moral? I would argue not because some measure of work, mental or physical, went into creating it in the first place.

As far as the factory you mentioned in Venezuela, it sounds like a co-op to me. Living rurally I am very familiar with the concept, in fact I'm a member of three co-ops myself (the local electric company, the local telephone company, and the propane retail company). I would argue that the co-op system combines the best of socialism and capitalism. With each consumer and/or employee holding a partial share in the company you can maintain local control and distribute the fruits of labor relatively evenly. While a monopoly can and often does occur prices remain in manageable limits due to both community ownership and competition provided by the capitalist system. Hyvee Grocery Stores are a great example of a co-op that competes favorably with more traditional corporations. Personally speaking, I'd like to see more co-ops competing with one another for my business.
Lacan

Pro

I really think this debate was started with the belief that the communism today is still held up in cold war era idology.

First on the way the system would work.
In order of opponents warrants to his arguments.

1 The only way one is "bound" to the community is in that one is forced to live among them. When examining impacts, even rights it is clear that one is sacrificing little, a loss of personal property and in exchange all are guaranteed to have homes and no one would be forced to live in crime filled slums. The projects that so many are forced to live in today are among the worst human rights abuses,for these people to enjoy life in real homes, a small sacrifice of liberty is nothing to pay.

2. Do you think capitalism isn't equally oppressive? In capitalism most are forced to knuckle in 10 hour work days to feed their families. Many children grow up seeing their parents sparingly as both parents need to work to support the household. Under capitalism those who lack the funds or intelligence to attend collage will grow up working hard labors jobs for up to 12 hours to feed their families. Rather then working 10 hours to ensure ones personal survival they work 5 hours (Lenin) for the good of everyone around them.

3. I was tired and used the wrong term, I am a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is where everyone has a voice in government and its the mark of a true communism. The rise of a total ruler is possible in any government, and just as their are checks in place now, so would there be in a different system. Rule of the mod is inevitable, only in the SQO we call them "parties". In a world where everyone actively participates in decisions mob rule would be lesser then it is in a world where we simply sign a paper with the lier we want to represent and repress us.

4. Socialism or Communism guarantees many more freedoms. True communism is socially libertarian. Do your 5 hours of work and the rest is your call. This is more free then I feel in todays society, where even when doing something perfectly legal, I can count on being sent home if a cop decides to be a jerk.

5. "If we look to the natural state of man every individual had the ability to do whatever they wanted." This is only true so long as they chose to gather food at some point, other wise their freedom would be cut short. Even in nature we are not free of the obligation to, at some point to work to sustain ourselves. The only call from the commune is the call to do ones appointed work and in this to get the food and such needed to live. other then the rich, this call is the same in capitalism, you must work or you will die. students are subject to do what they are told, clearly having a job assigned is not new to out people. Hopefully you would be doing what you request to be doing, but if not it is still a negligible loss of rights. The increase in social rights would check back this loss. In our system if one choses to break societal laws (Drugs, ect) they are locked up even though they hurt no one. Rather then these pointless laws one is allowed to live their own life and asked to do a task they can do to keep society running. This is how we lives back in the stone age, its the most basic order of life, keep the world stable, then live your life.

On the transition wars...

1. You ignore the kibbutz, while the country is not, this section is true blue communism. They achieved this with no war, just the moral ideal that no one should starve and all deserve a chance.

2. The factory workers in Venezuela archived a communist way of life as well, with no warfare involved.

CONCLUSION: These two imperial examples show that it is possible to achieve communism without war or redistributing wealth. If the question is "Can Communism work?" Then this is proof it can and an independed reason to vote for Pro.

3. "is the concept of forcefully redistributing wealth moral?" One would, at this point recognize that this is not key in the debate. In any case I would argue that while it may not be fully moral when compared to poverty, the WORST form of structural violence it is more moral to equalize then to allow poverty. Poverty is the root cause of crime, hate and many ills of society to destroy poverty would be to make the most moral possible choice.

4. "As far as the factory you mentioned in Venezuela, it sounds like a co-op to me." First let me say how much I respect the ideals of Co-ops in general, and do think that they are a step in the right direction. Section, these factories are true blue communism, prices don't change, and they don't fight for profits. Each member makes the exact same amount (which is set) and every other cent goes to the community. There are no raises and no boss, and no one more powerful then anyone else. There is no aspect of capitalism other then the fact that the factors use currency.

Droped argumnents

1. Communist change does not necessarily cause war.

2.Also, these slackers, even if left alone may not be a threat to stability. Lets be honest, thier is soooo much corruption in capitalism and yet it dosen't fall down around us. We would need less then 70% of people to work for the community in order to sustain the civilization.

In response to the questions.

1. The individual is not lost in a communist system your Sir, are caught in the red scare. It may be ECONOMICALLY controlling but the social libertarianism and direct assess to government preserves the individual. Also, identity is no linked to government. (gack1224 this is in responce to the comment above yours)

2. The change needs to come from the ground up to work, and for this to happen people NEED TO REALIZE POVERTY IS THEIR FAULT. I think it is hard but POSSIBLE to have a true communism. One people realize there is the real potential for change the chance to eliminate poverty and make the world equal this change will occur. I think this is not only possible, but inevitable.
Debate Round No. 2
WaximusMaximus

Con

Lacan,
With your assent I would like to restart this debate on the basis of the ability of communism to work versus Communism. While the only distinction is the capital letter there is a substantial difference. Communism, with the capital letter, is a supporter of the Communist Party. I have noted you are a supporter of the Socialist Party, an important distinction. A supporter of communism, with the lower case, you are simply and advocate for one of the many varieties of communism. From what I can tell you are a libertarian communist which is entirely different from a Marxist, or a Maoist, or a Stalinist, ect. With this in mind I would suggest that you challenge me, begin with an opening argument specifying your views. I would be more than happy to debate you again but in the interests of fairness I would suggest that we encourage no one to vote on this round as with this statement I have effectively thrown away my rebuttal in favor have opening a higher quality debate instead of this one which has become very confused in focus.

If you would agree to a rematch on more specific terms than I would suggest in you final post to list in caps, "DO NOT VOTE" for the sake of fairness.
Lacan

Pro

Drones - Commie? or Anti-commie?

Sir - The useless indites of what comes after are what allows and worsens the status quo harms. To think benign goals are "impossible" is to take the responsibility off oneself to change things, off of humanity in general and to allow the status quo harms to remain. This apathy is murder in all but name.

DO NOT VOTE

Thanks :)
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Felix_Karloff 9 years ago
Felix_Karloff
Communism is not a clear cut, black or white ideology. It represents all currents of revolutionary socialism belonging to the third international and after. We cannot talk about communism in general if we do not specify the brand of communism in particular.

Furthermore, communism is not simply a national concept. It is a national answer to an international problem. If you follow the works of Marx and Lenin, it is clear that communism is not simply a national movement, nor can it be confined to national boundaries. The victory of communism is intimately intertwined with the global seizure of power by the proletariat. Examples such as the USSR therefore only serve the function of explaining how communist governments might come into power or transform their respective national economies into sources of power for the international seizure of power by communists.
To talk about "True blue" communism and refer to it as a simply a national concept illustrates a clear ignorance of communist ideology.
Posted by cailinalainn 9 years ago
cailinalainn
Great debate.
Well Lacan,
I debate for Concord.
In fact, I have a tournament tomorrow.
:]
Posted by WaximusMaximus 9 years ago
WaximusMaximus
Would somebody please tie this up again?
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
omg FOOLZ. DO NOT VOTE >(
Posted by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
Dax has the most damming argument in favor of free market.
Posted by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
comunism works at first but never lasts. the natural man all ways wins
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
The real reason communism, or democratic socialism, won't work is because centrally controlled prices and quantities of goods produced results in very "sticky" prices that can't adjust to changes in demand, leading to a drop off in production and an increase in unemployment. That's why in the soviet union you had to wait in line a day to get bread, and in America and Wester Europe you could choose from dozens of different types of soaps.
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
JD what are you even talking about?
Posted by SirJDKnightCroix 9 years ago
SirJDKnightCroix
You wanna talk about Murder Lacan? Murder is when you take the responsibility of a man, and leave it to the government, that's murder.

- J.D.
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
Oops, I voted. Sorry. Really.
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie.
Vote Placed by Renzzy 7 years ago
Renzzy
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by MrBunny 8 years ago
MrBunny
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DragonReborn 9 years ago
DragonReborn
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kasemei 9 years ago
Kasemei
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by aaeap2 9 years ago
aaeap2
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Kozakism 9 years ago
Kozakism
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
WaximusMaximusLacanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03