The Instigator
Kefka
Pro (for)
Losing
90 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Con (against)
Winning
102 Points

Communism > Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 6/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 40,060 times Debate No: 8480
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (63)
Votes (36)

 

Kefka

Pro

Communism vs Capitalism

So, in this world I've set up for the purposes of the debate, both theories exist, but neither has been exploited. We are a group of people trying to decide the fate of our society, and we have two theories to consider: capitalism and communism. I am the half that is arguing for communism, Vi is arguing for capitalism. All we have are the ideas and writings of those like Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

Communism in essence, is far superior to Capitalism. It embodies a system of equality, in terms of money and power. In a communistic society, the idea of government has withered away, as there is no need for a ruling body anymore. Yes, I am saying that 'laws' have been abolished since there is no ruling body to implement them, in terms of a written decree that X is illegal and the consequence is Y punishment. The idea of money has been abolished as well, since every worker is equal and receives the same 'payment'; though I will venture to say that there is no real payment, as much as an availability to the same resources and privileges as everyone else. The idea of class, fiscally, has deteriorated as well. Since monetary superiority is not longer possible, no longer can individuals or groups, who previously had more status or money (they go hand in hand), have influence or power, over anyone else. The superiority of this theory over Capitalism is very visible. Capitalism breeds self sustainment, but also advocates a 'dog eat dog' nature, and relies too much on one's ability to do better than another; as this is wrong, because no matter how much Capitalism says, even if you work hard, if you are inherently less adept (Biologically) at a skill, ability to speak, ability to understand quickly, etc, you will not succeed; as society may value a particular 'intelligence' or skill over another. Capitalism advocates the desire for a 'better than normal life', and to have a better education in order to attain this. This breeds materialism, which is an injustice within itself and is the antithesis of what a society should be; and that is the equality of all, in all regards possible.
Vi_Veri

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to such an interesting debate. Good luck to him in our future arguments.

Pro claims that communism implies equality for its citizens, but never really states why this equality is a good thing. My opponent also hasn't given a reason for why having a lawless society is a positive thing for society. Who would stop individuals from murdering, raping, or stealing? Would these things be allowed?

Having no currency offers problems for communist nations. There is a problem to its growth from there being no incentives for working more or working better. Only Capitalism gives workers incentives for better, more productive work. If a worker is given incentives for their work (example: more money that they can use to on needs and wants) the economy would no doubt rise accordingly. If a hard worker is getting the same pay and same benefits as a worker who is doing the minimum, they will eventually stop working to their best and do what the other guy is. Why not? They are getting the same things. There are no incentives to work harder, invent anything, or progress anything in a communist nation.

Also, workers have better environments in a Capitalistic nation. Where as in a communist nation, workers are not allowed to go on strike. Capitalism allows for workers to negotiate their wages, where in communism, there is a set wage for work - doctors and factory line workers make the same amount of money for completely different work. In Capitalism, the value of your product or service to the buyer effects the price. If the quality of your work is horrible, people wont pay a high price for it - losing you money and allowing your business to fail. In a communist nation, the product or service can be horrible, but there is no real way of getting better product because the supplier can not go out of business. In communism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo.

In a Capitalist government, everyone has the same potential to achieve wealth, but of course this all depends on their personal abilities. Smart and creative people make more money, thus encouraging a social Darwinism that supplies better products and services. People do business with people that are good at what they do. Money is a reward for good, creative, wanted/needed work. The economy and living standard rises, and the progression of society furthers. In a communist government, as my opponent stated, there is no monetary incentive and thus leaving the workers to do minimal work for the same pay they would be getting doing greater work. Capitalism increases labor productivity because of these incentives, and thus trumping in that regard communism.

A large problem with communism is their central planners don't even know who needs what in their society. Capitalism enables more efficient resource allocation. Capitalism also allows for saving and investing, where as communism uses all of its resources (as it only produces a set amount, never more than it needs) each year, leaving them nothing in case of something like a famine. Supply and demand is a forceful mistress, and it will most definitely create a richer economy that will meet all of the citizen's needs (instead of a group of planners giving a list of set services and goods to supply the society without ever really progressing or changing to suite new needs etc).

Communism doesn't supply the rights that Capitalism does. Capitalism gives individuals the rights of life, liberty, petition and property. The citizen owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and tangible and intellectual property he creates. Communism only supplies theft. Communism takes the hard work of one individual and uses it to aid another individual who is of no use to the society. In this way, it is not moral. It forces people to sacrifice in order for other individuals to survive - encouraging parasite behavior. Countries with a majority of capitalistic standards have higher standards of living for their citizens. Communism does not deal with the human condition.

When communism mostly puts emphasis on equality, capitalism emphasizes freedom and quality. Freedom is, above all, the most moral ideal. Forced equality is not moral. It creates a slave like attitude and forced liking. Underneath it all, people will get jealous that the lazy worker is making the same as them, and this communism can't control.

Communism has no future, where as Capitalism supplies the potential for progression and quality.

Even education in a Capitalist nation is far better than a communist one. The individual pays if the individual wishes to go. The system works better as they don't have the problems of teacher motivation and work quality, and school funding like elementary, middle, and high schools. Private colleges have the best professors, the best education provided (because the professors get incentives for working there… higher pay, help in advancement of their research with better equipment, etc). The list could go on and on about how the system offers better education. If there were more private colleges, there would also be more competition, and lower prices because of this competition.

There is another key word; competition. Competition raises quality and lowers prices, helps specialize fields, leads new developments, a higher demand in research, and pushes toward perfecting goods and services. Communism supplies no competition.

My opponent claims that communism is superior to Capitalism because it gives society equality - and this, he states, is the main ideal of society. Unfortunately, humans get bored, want more out of life, and want to learn, explore, and discover things about reality. Giving a false sense of equality is, actually, the real injustice. A smarter individual is superior over a dumber one. A stronger individual is superior over a weaker one. A more creative individual is far superior over a dull one. Communism breeds stagnation, breeds an "aristocracy of non-value" in which groups claim privileges for disability, poverty, misfortune, incompetence—i.e., for a lack, rather than for achievement. If a person is physically unable to do work, there is mental work he can do (just look at the great Steven Hawking). If he is unable to do either one, then he shouldn't suck up resources of an individual that is striving. That striving individual has the right to his own accomplishments and shouldn't have them taken away from him. Unfortunately, communism tries to trade one supposed "wrong" for another greater wrong -- advocating theft. If self-sacrifice is an ideal—if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action—why not force people to act accordingly? This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, where several generations lived in misery and oppression as a sacrifice to a future workers' paradise. Capitalism makes less people miserable. Communism lets everyone share in that misery.

As Adlai E Stevenson is quoted in saying, "Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." There is no individualism and no creativity.

Citizens of a capitalist nation earn their homes, earn their cars, and earn their glories. No one has the right to anyone else's work, anyone else's sweat, anyone else's time, mind, and energy. To distribute such would be robbery. This is what communism is.

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'" -- Quote Phelps Adams

Capitalism is superior to communism.

Regards,

Vi
Debate Round No. 1
Kefka

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and giving me an earnest argument.

I will organize my rebuttal using my opponents RD 1 order. Look to my tags.

On a lawless society:

The reason I stated that there are no 'laws', is because a ruling body is needed to carry out these 'laws', and since government is abolished, these types of 'laws' cannot exist. Though, there is such a thing as abiding by the laws of nature. Humans are not lawless and don't believe anything they do should go unpunished. Incredibly influential philosopher John Locke properly characterizes the nature of man in the following, from his Second Treatise of Civil Government:

"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..."

In the event that someone were to murder, steal, or rape, he or she would be at the mercy of his or her community in which he or she lives in. Though vigilante justice, in this particular case, is almost democratic, this doesn't negate the fact that Communism cannot exist. It proves a possible flaw in the theory, or even just a spot in the theory that is indeterminate, but no political theory is infallible. However, to say that it can't exist because one piece of it is problematic is silly, and does not give us enough reason to believe Communism can never exist.

Furthermore, keep in mind that Communism is more than just a change in regime or government structure. It is a change in culture. With that change comes a necessary change in natural laws. If people act as John Locke would have them, abiding by the Golden Rule and rationally trying to further their own species (which can be taught if we are diligent), then the capacity for human beings to live without the need for strict legal enforcement increases dramatically. Don't let my opponent limit the potential for humans to grow and evolve, since that potential is limitless.

On currency as motivation or materialism as motivation:

There hasn't always been 'money'. Bartering societies have thrived for extremely long periods of time, prior to outside influences. The only reason most of those societies have changed, is because they have been conquered and forced to accept a new way of doing business. Man does not inherently require a monetary supplementation to quench a genetic thirst to buy things with 'money'. Extrinsic incentives are not the only incentives that can motivate an individual to want to succeed and provide for his/her community. Intrinsic motivators are arguably more effective, as they pierce the conscious and are more understandable than flimsy green paper, or a record of wealth in a bank account. Communism thrives on intrinsic motivators, because a desire to provide according to one's ability, in order to sustain a society, can be great motivation.

Where exactly in Communist theory, are workers not given the right to strike? Freedom is the main proponent of Communism, this confuses me... It's becoming apparent that Con's arguments seem to be relying largely on the idea of currency. There is no set wage for workers in a Communism; because there is no money. I understand this might be hard idea to conceptualize, but it is necessary if you are to truly understand Marx's vision. The incentive to produce is provided by the community. If the writer needs ink and a book to write in, the positions are filled by those who can fill them, in order for the writer to be able to spread knowledge. Or the butcher needs a knife, the knife maker plays his part, and he and his community are provided with meat. My opponent's criticisms of Communism seem to originate from criticisms of Socialism, which is where most of our preconceived notions about Communism come from, rather than actual Communist theory.

On supply & demand, as well as citizenry needs.

There is nothing in Communist theory that says production is controlled and surplus is non existent. The only thing that it does do is prevent any surplus from being controlled by a single party and possibly be exploited by withholding the surplus in exchange for greater payment. In regards to a time of famine; any producer of food would be largely motivated by self interest and altruism alike to provide even greater for the community. In a Capitalistic society, the poorer citizens would starve in a time of famine because of their inability to pay for food. Take for example, the Great Depression. The lower and middle class suffered the most, as they could not pay for the most necessary things (i.e. food, housing, electricity etc). The rich also suffered, but were still able to afford necessities. A poor man deserves to live just as much as rich man.

On equality & rights

How does Communism take away the rights of body, life, mind, and actions? And where does it strip one of their intellectual property? This isn't Big Brother. Also, the problem of some individuals working harder than others will arise, there is no doubt of that. But the idea of all contributing equally in their society would spread quickly through education, as it is a learned altruistic behavior. Though, in round one, I asked that we skip the idea of the long enduring learning process.

How is a Communistic society a forced equality? It is the people themselves who strove for the system. Also, to believe that a 'lazy worker' would thrive in a Communism, is quite naive. Communist need to survive as well, they will not just sit idle if this were to occur.

On education

It is not true to assert that Capitalistic education systems would surpass a Communistic counterpart. Many of the education systems in self proclaimed Capitalist nations aren't working out so well. The U.S. is a perfect example. To look at it from a Capitalistic perspective, how motivated is a teacher in a society where in a public system they make 50,000 a year even after 10 years of service, while a professional athlete will make 10 million in a single contract. Good system eh? Also, in the nations with the most successful school systems, education has taken a Communistic approach.

On competition

Just because there is no one company attempting to monopolize a product doesn't mean there won't be incentive to go far and beyond. The incentive would be community driven. The desire to serve the community does not logically hinder individualism or creativity. Human beings are naturally ingenuitive, and will be so under any political system, be it Capitalism or Communism. People innovate even in the most oppressive environments, like totalitarian dictatorships. My opponent has yet to prove conclusively that Communism will hinder the human capacity to innovate.

Now, my opponent uses Biological Determinism and Social Darwinism to flaw Communism. Some people will, without doubt, inherently be smarter, faster, and stronger than others; does this also mean that they should have a more luxurious life? Everyone has a skill, and everyone can contribute to society in some way. Maybe not entirely as effectively as someone else, but does this mean they should be punished for it? The rewards of a successful and striving individual will be intrinsic, rather than materialistic and hollow. My opponent uses the Soviet Union to attack Communism. I hope that voters will see that this is a terrible example of anything similar to Communism. The USSR was a totalitarian government lead by a demagogue who made his citizens believe they were all being treat
Vi_Veri

Con

My opponent advocates for no justice system and for punishments exercised by the common people. My opponent is advocating anarchism.

Though Communism vs. Capitalism is an Economic debate, communism also holds a reign over governing of the country - so I will address the problem of justice to further show communism's flaws even though Capitalism doesn't go into the area of governing.

What my opponent does not understand is that if there is no justice system, most crimes will go unpunished (without a properly trained investigation team, most crimes will go under the radar). A court system gives an accused person the the ever needed ability to hear out their case and dismiss them if they are in fact not guilty. Further more, a court system helps the punishment of crimes go along faster. Would there need to be a public vote every time someone did something that irked another person? The amount of "bad things" that could happen are numerous, and a justice system (a fair one at that) helps keep the public in check and helps move things along faster so that everyone else could go on with their day. I should also ask my opponent: who exactly in the community gets to vote on the punishment? Would it be fair to execute a punishment if not everyone in the "country" got to vote if such a thing was immoral or not? Wouldn't that be "unjust"? Isn't it more fair to have a system where people know what is wrong and what is right, instead of having everyone's heads in the hands of the citizens who live in that town? How would people go about their day if they in one area of the "country" doing drugs is just fine, but when they shoot up in another area the community wants off with their head? Laws don't just come into being without vote in a Democracy (and of course they can be ammended). A citizen vote for a law, then a constant execution of that law which everyone knows is in the books sounds a lot more sane to me then a flighty public vote by the people (with multiple problems this can present). A Democracy trumps a communism in this regard. And because Capitalism is an economic system, it can team up with such a governing body as a Democracy (leaving it in the win in this situation).

A couple of things that are needed to be enforced by a police system which, according to what my opponent has presented, doesn't exist in a communism:

1. Traffic (parking, speeding, crash investigation, etc)

2. Theft (location of stolen item, location of thief)

3. Riot control

4. Witness Protection

5. Murder investigations, rape investigations

Etc.

My opponent presents that to say communism shouldn't exist because of a flaw in the system is silly. My opponent is clearly mistaken, because justice is a huge issue that effects every single country. In countries where the government doesn't have a properly working justice system, we can see that the community doesn't really work very well in demonstrating fair punishment (we can look Darfur for a quick example).

So, I can safely say that my opponent advocates unfairness in his system, and that opposition to it is just "silly".

My opponent goes on to attack currency by saying that bartering came before it and people were just fine. What my opponent doesn't seem to get is that currency is far more superior to bartering. Money can be used to buy just about anything. It is more compact, it is accepted by everyone, and it wont leave you starving if someone doesn't want to trade with you. Bartering and currency are essentially the same concept, except that currency can be transported easier and can show value easier, amongst many other things.

My opponent claims that intrinsic motivators are far better than extrinsic. Well, no one says that in a Capitalism people can not be motivated by both. What Capitalism has that outshines communism is a way for people to make money if other people don't feel giving. No one says that in a Capitalism people will not donate, or people will not have fund raisers or charities for the poor. People will just get rewarded better in a Capitalism, both through the power of currency (meeting a value) and through public love (the person who finds the cure to cancer will not only get a nice dent in his bank account, but will probably be loved by much of his country). Communism doesn't offer extrinsic but only intrinsic, making it inferior in this position.

My opponent states how American schools are failing, but doesn't realize that American schools are not "capitalistic." The most Capitalistic schools in the U.S. are probably the private schools (both universities and grammar schools). My opponent using the U.S. as an example is void. My opponent then goes on to critique the pay of teachers by showing the pay of a professional athlete. Athlete's get their money because people want to watch them. People pay to go to games, people pay to see them on television, people pay for merchandise etc. Also, being a professional athlete is not an easy job, if this is what my opponent is implying. Not many people get to be Michael Jordan, but there are far more teachers. Teachers are paid by the school, whom is paid by the students who wish to go there. I'd like for my opponent to do the math.

My opponent is also ruining his own argument here because the U.S. is not a purely Capitalistic economy (it's a Socio-Capitalistic economy). Schools in the U.S. are paid for by the government (thus, teachers also being paid by the government). There is no purely Capitalistic state, so my opponents critique fails.

My opponent's stance on laws and equality and rights are those of anarchism and not communism, so I have yet the need to rebuttal those claims (this can actually also be extended to his arguments on the justice system).

My opponent says that if someone needs an item, it will be supplied to them. Well, who gets priority over what? What if there are only a set amount of product X (let's say 5), and 11 people need product x. Who will get it? What if the need is the same? Will it go down to a democratic vote, or will something like currency show who has given more to the society in order to obtain such a product in said case?

My opponent's arguments on competition can be followed up on by my former arguments about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators.

I already argued that everyone can provide for a society in some way (Steven Hawking being physically impaired but providing intellectually, etc), so I don't see where my opponent thinks he has an upper hand there. And also, my opponent fails in his critique, again, that Capitalism doesn't supply a channel for intrinsic rewards. Also, my opponent is advocating that successful people's resources be taken from them - I hope he doesn't think he can trade one "wrong" for another one, as I presented in my former round and he didn't answer.

Also, i never used the USSR to attack the governing process of Communism. I was suing it as an example of giving things up for the community (which I can also use Nazi Germany as an example for, which was not a communism).

Concluding, I'd like to ask my opponent if he is advocating Communism or Anarchism? His rounds are confusing the governing of the political systems immensely...

Also... sure John Locke says there are "natural" laws, but that doesn't mean people naturally follow them. Let's have a reality check here, seriously....
Debate Round No. 2
Kefka

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for her response.

Now...

What if I am advocating Anarchism?

On justice systems

People, inherently, are not immoral and won't break natural laws for the purpose of breaking them. People are fully capable of operating under the Golden Rule. My opponent seems to ignore the most important part of my advocacy. At the time when Communism would be seriously considered, a major shift in cultural thinking would happen, which as I said before, comes from education, both in school and at home. My opponent dwells largely on the idea that I present no "official" judicial system. These negative assumptions come from our current system of "justice," probably originating from living in the system of a developing Democracy/Republic. This is turning into a debate of first world judicial systems vs the infinite capabilities of a judicial system in a time of socially evolved ideologies. The argument "people aren't good right now, so they can never in the future socially evolve" isn't very viable or well backed up. Just because people, in this day and age, couldn't handle a Communistic judicial system, doesn't mean that we couldn't in the future.

On Currency

Communism isn't bartering, I was just using this as an example to point out that money hasn't always been there, meaning people inherently don't need it to thrive. I'll explain the theory of services and goods one last time, to make sure I am clear. The farmer doesn't go to the tailor and say "I have this much grain, I will trade for [X] amount of clothes". The farmer simply produces crops, with the needs of the entire community in mind, while the tailor produces clothes. They both contribute necessities that they produce, without need of 'payment'. It's a collective contribution.

On motivation

The wrongly named 'intrinsic' motivators in a Capitalist society are still out of self love, and cannot be compared with a motivator seen in Communism. A person could discover a cure for AIDS for the sole purpose of relieving the suffering of millions in a Communistic society. In a Capitalist society, the founder of this culture changing cure would immediately be able to market this cure, and to turn a profit would most likely set a high price, hence preventing millions from being cured. In Communism, this person's reward would be an unrivaled sense of accomplishment, charity, and the life changing knowledge that countless will be saved.

On education

First of all, look to all neo-Capitalist societies in the world right now. All of them include some socialist policies, and you yourself said that Capitalism is an economic theory, not a political one. Most schools in the first world are public and private. This is because Capitalist nations have conceded, in order to educate the masses, education cannot have a Capitalist model; something much closer to Socialism is required. Education systems are right now, in the most Capitalistic nations in the world, much closer to a Communist model, and would be failing much worse than at the present if it were hindered by the need for private funding. But, that wasn't actually the important part of the analysis; and too much focus on it, misses the point.

On Athlete/Teacher reference

I understand that being a professional athlete isn't THAT easy, but to argue that their far superior income is well deserved because they are more televised, popular, and have merchandise is seriously flawed. Should teachers increase their ability to be televised? Popularity should play no role in the evaluation of a profession. This is a flawed system. It is a system in which whatever is popular makes more money (Supply and Demand). Communism is universally a much greater model for equality than Capitalism.

On...anarchy?

My advocacy may be defined as Anarcho-Communism, as I've seen in comments, but this really doesn't change anything. Marx directly called for an overthrow and abolition of government, which is Anarchy.

------
"My opponent says that if someone needs an item, it will be supplied to them. Well, who gets priority over what? What if there are only a set amount of product X (let's say 5), and 11 people need product x. Who will get it? What if the need is the same? Will it go down to a democratic vote, or will something like currency show who has given more to the society in order to obtain such a product in said case?"
---------
The idea being that enough of product x is produced in order to satisfy the needs of the community. I realize that the concept of selfless production is completely antithetical to neo-capitalists, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored entirely in the debate. Communists have the community's best interest in mind. They understand and can calculate the need of a community. What person makes 5 of what the community needs, when 11 is needed, and can still claim he is acting to equally benefit his fellow community members?

------
"My opponent's arguments on competition can be followed up on by my former arguments about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators."
-----

Please don't cross apply arguments.

On societal contribution -
------
"I already argued that everyone can provide for a society in some way (Steven Hawking being physically impaired but providing intellectually, etc), so I don't see where my opponent thinks he has an upper hand there. And also, my opponent fails in his critique, again, that Capitalism doesn't supply a channel for intrinsic rewards. Also, my opponent is advocating that successful people's resources be taken from them - I hope he doesn't think he can trade one "wrong" for another one, as I presented in my former round and he didn't answer."
----------
Nothing is taken from anyone. I can't actually repeat this enough. The culture is one of giving: resources are entirely shared, so no particular person is more "successful" than another. My opponent is only demonstrating her inability to work outside of current economic rhetoric, and to fairly examine the prospect of Communism. I must refer you, again, to the RD 1 posting in which I established a specific philosophical world for our consideration. My opponent accepted this world. There are plenty of ways to argue against that world, but she chooses not to.

------
"Also... sure John Locke says there are "natural" laws, but that doesn't mean people naturally follow them. Let's have a reality check here, seriously....
------
As I appreciate the reality check, and am sure it was in good spirit, Locke gives us a reminder of humanities potential to operate under a natural law. Lock and I can't claim that humans act perfectly as robots, but perfection isn't necessary for Communism to work. And with using our tools that are the gifts of logic and love, we can realize a world where people are truly equal and free, and resources are truly communal. Con has given no real argument to prove that Locke's state of nature cannot be lived by. People surpass imposed ideological barriers with no end. Christians and other religions maintain that God and religion are required for lawlessness to be transcended. Atheists prove this wrong on a regular basis, showing that human beings, free of dogmatic checks, can act morally. The same thing is true of the population in general with regards to resources. Free of the current strictures of a Capitalist society, which is currently the dominant model of the world, people can easily be seen as transcending it to something different.

Humans cannot be limited by their current state of affairs.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx

I would like to express my thanks to my opponent for partaking in a debate about a subject I dearly enjoy.
Vi_Veri

Con

Judicial System

Kefka's refute to my Justice System argument relies on no hard evidence (nor any period of history in the world) that could give his conclusion a shred of legitimacy. All it is looking to me is like a good, old ideological shout, "Some day in the future we will be smart enough to be peaceful with one another." Well, my opponent is relying on humanity to take a shift into perfect, and, well, he doesn't have hard facts that it will. Under the grounds that my opponent can't predict the future, and including that his communist system can't be implemented on current day citizens and still work (which, I am advocating that humanity from now and until perfection can use Capitalism - giving it a one up, I'm afraid), he fails this premise.

Currency

I never related Communism to bartering - I related currency to bartering. My opponent miss read my above argument. His re-issuing of the trading technique can be re-argued against with my former statements to it.

Motivation

A person does not blow up the price of something like an AIDs cure, because the profits from selling low would out do the profits of selling high - the demand would be strong enough in whole continents like Africa. Obviously the communists don't make very good businessmen. And if my opponent is ruling selfishness as a wrong doing, that is a far greater ethical debate that can't possibly be fit here for me. In other words, he can not argue that selfishness is a down bringer without providing statistics on such a claim.

Education

My opponent's argument against this is empty. He knows nothing of the motivations for the countries to use socialist ideals in their education system. He claims that it was behind their motivation, but has zero hard evidence to prove this. He is just blowing smoke and making up motivations. I could say their motivation was garlic, and have just as much proof. If my opponent insists on comparing current day Capitalist and Communist (at their purest form that can be presented in this day and age), he can look to the economies and education systems of Hong Kong (for Capitalism) and North Korea (for communism). He also can't say it is Capitalism bringing down these schools, because the reason the schools are preforming low is because they are run socialistic (your taxes paid for them here in America, and the idea that the government supplies and distributes the money to all of them). He can't present a hard fact that Capitalism is the doubt, because both systems are mixed into the wielding. (But, as we can see with the money distribution aspect, the socialist half is sinking the system).

My opponent gave no reasons why supply and demand should not be the system. All my opponent said was that it shouldn't.... Without reasons, it's a pretty empty argument...

Also, this is not a battle for which system is more equal (a miss wording that favors my opponent. I could say that Capitalism is a much greater system for quality in this debate, and still not prove that it is best over all-- as the debate requests - but, it seems, this is the only thing my opponent has been able to say all debate).

---

I can cross apply arguments if they apply to your redundant statements, thank you very much.

---

But, that is quite the thing that is taken away -- a person being able to be greater than another. How do communists view bad actors, or bad painters? Can they provide paintings even though no one will buy them? Can a horrible producer of light bulbs keep producing them and receive exactly what everyone else is receiving, even though he is contributing nothing productive to society? I don't see any real progression in this.

Also, atheists prove that humans can act justly when it comes to social contract being implemented -- they are still afraid of punishments -- my opponent has proved nothing here. My opponent has no lawless society that has thrived to point out it's capacity to work. Human beings must transcend their current emotions and humanity in order to act in the perfect way (and produce goods in such a perfect way) for communism to work. Because communism can't be implemented in any other society but a perfect one, it is less than Capitalism.

"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him." -- Ayn Rand

Regards,

Vi
Debate Round No. 3
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nick11 7 years ago
Nick11
Considering this was supposed to be a debate on the theory of Capitalism vs. Communism, I'd say it went off the rails pretty quickly. By round two the main argument seemed to be about justice and not economics.

The case for "theoretical communism" is stronger than that for "theoretical capitalism".
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Hmm...let's see. If I had a choice between the two I would go for communism any day.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
Or maybe someone likes to copy Lwerd and mirror her vote choice, either way ;)
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHH!

I love how you can now see voting. HAHAHAH. WTB more vote bombing? Lwerd with two accounts? Priceless. Such epic failure hasn't been seen in such a long time.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
"During the cold war capitalism represented by the U.S showed that it was a better system then communism represented by Russia was driven bankrupt."

Ellipses would be the best response here :)
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
A) Russia has never actually had a truly communistic government. Not even close.

B) Motivation is a mute point. Educational conditioning is what indicates reward. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about higher pay except that we have been trained to believe that materialistic wealth is a good thing. Though most of communism's ideas are speculative since truly communistic societies have rarely been documented past the tribal stages, the point is that, with a clean slate and the right kind of education, it is more than possible (given what we know about human genetic and biological nature) to suppose that a world without extrinsic motivators like the amassing of capital could exist.
Posted by vern 7 years ago
vern
capitalism is the more obvious choice over communism. in the system of communism there is no stride for people to work hard because there is no reward. Also people in the country have to give so much for the greater good of the country but many of them don't get rewarded. During the cold war capitalism represented by the U.S showed that it was a better system then communism represented by Russia was driven bankrupt. Capitalism is the better system and has proven it time and time again.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
@ Nags: eugenicist :)
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
I <3 social darwinism.
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
I second that motion.
36 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheRobocrat 1 year ago
TheRobocrat
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate and so hard to choose! Pro had better debates and both had good conduct. My vote is split.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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 Studious_Christian 6 years ago
Studious_Christian
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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 
Vote Placed by uhclem 6 years ago
uhclem
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Nick11 7 years ago
Nick11
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by JuanBueno 7 years ago
JuanBueno
KefkaVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 7 years ago
kristoffersayshi
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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 
Vote Placed by The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
KefkaVi_VeriTied
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