The Instigator
derplington
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
BEASTxKNIGHTx12
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Communism Doesn't Work

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
derplington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 53739
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

derplington

Pro

Communism has tried, but will never work. When Karl Marx created the idea of communism it may have seemed brilliant to some people, but many would realize that would be a lie.

First Round is for stating your argument.
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

"First I will define communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Capitalism has only been around properly for a little over 200 years, whereas humans have been around for 200,000 years. For comparison in scale, if humans had been around for 24 hours then capitalism has existed for less than two minutes. It is a blip, and it would be naive to think it would last forever just as most people before us were naive in thinking that feudalism and the divine right of kings was the natural state of things and would last forever.
Ultimately the power of governments and employers is based on them being able to hire some workers to kill for them. As the American businessmen Jay Gould said: "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."
And while unfortunately it will always be the case that governments will be able to find people to kill for them the number who are prepared to do so has plummeted, particularly in the West, and seems unlikely to recover.
In World War I millions of workers went to their deaths reasonably happily at first to kill their fellow workers who just happened to be German or French or English or what have you. But it ended with mutinies on the English side and full-blown revolutions in Germany and Russia.
Even in World War II which had a high degree of ideological support from much of the population, only 15-20% of soldiers actually fired at the enemy.5
And after the mass mutinies of GIs in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s there has not been nearly as significant a ground invasion by any Western power, nor do I think there is likely to be.
Of course this doesn't mean that war will end, unfortunately it has just meant that governments have had to change their tactics from major ground invasions to more remote aerial and artillery bombardment, which also has the effect of massively increasing civilian casualties compared with military ones.6 But air and artillery power is not that helpful in maintaining social order at home, as Colonel Gaddafi recently discovered.
As technology continues to improve, the possibilities for ending human suffering and the reality of that continuing suffering become even more ridiculously extreme.
Even now despite massive technological and production increases, we continue to work longer and longer hours. And the annual income of the world's 100 richest people alone would be enough to end extreme poverty worldwide.7 And nearly 1 billion people go hungry while half of the world's food is wasted.8
On top of this, other technological developments, such as the fact that there is now the technology to allow everyone to have an instant voting device mean that representative government where we elect (usually who we think are "the least worst") people to vote on policies for us for four or five years is almost laughably outdated. These discrepancies will continue to get bigger and even more unjustifiable".
Now back to you!!!
Debate Round No. 1
derplington

Pro

Communism cannot work for many reasons. One of the largest being, people want power. As long as there is a power hungry tyrant, or people who want to remain above all others it could never work. People who say that Russia or China were ever truly Communist are wrong. They had similar characteristics to the definition of Communism, but as you can see there are still the people at the top. Even if those Tyrants were destroyed though, people don't like being told what to do, and living similarly as everyone else. People want to be above others, which ties back into my other point. Every nation that is supposedly Communist is only an attempt at the government type, yet a failure to capture the entire idea. Lastly, you don't need a huge post, to prove your point.
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

"First I will define communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Capitalism has only been around properly for a little over 200 years, whereas humans have been around for 200,000 years. For comparison in scale, if humans had been around for 24 hours then capitalism has existed for less than two minutes. It is a blip, and it would be naive to think it would last forever just as most people before us were naive in thinking that feudalism and the divine right of kings was the natural state of things and would last forever.
Ultimately the power of governments and employers is based on them being able to hire some workers to kill for them. As the American businessmen Jay Gould said: "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."
And while unfortunately it will always be the case that governments will be able to find people to kill for them the number who are prepared to do so has plummeted, particularly in the West, and seems unlikely to recover.
In World War I millions of workers went to their deaths reasonably happily at first to kill their fellow workers who just happened to be German or French or English or what have you. But it ended with mutinies on the English side and full-blown revolutions in Germany and Russia.
Even in World War II which had a high degree of ideological support from much of the population, only 15-20% of soldiers actually fired at the enemy.5
And after the mass mutinies of GIs in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s there has not been nearly as significant a ground invasion by any Western power, nor do I think there is likely to be.
Of course this doesn't mean that war will end, unfortunately it has just meant that governments have had to change their tactics from major ground invasions to more remote aerial and artillery bombardment, which also has the effect of massively increasing civilian casualties compared with military ones.6 But air and artillery power is not that helpful in maintaining social order at home, as Colonel Gaddafi recently discovered.
As technology continues to improve, the possibilities for ending human suffering and the reality of that continuing suffering become even more ridiculously extreme.
Even now despite massive technological and production increases, we continue to work longer and longer hours. And the annual income of the world's 100 richest people alone would be enough to end extreme poverty worldwide.7 And nearly 1 billion people go hungry while half of the world's food is wasted.8
On top of this, other technological developments, such as the fact that there is now the technology to allow everyone to have an instant voting device mean that representative government where we elect (usually who we think are "the least worst") people to vote on policies for us for four or five years is almost laughably outdated. These discrepancies will continue to get bigger and even more unjustifiable".
Now back to you!!!
Debate Round No. 2
derplington

Pro

Is it just me everyone, or did the contender use the exact same argument twice! If you would try to look it up,and find out, there has never been a national based entirely off of Communist society and government. China was the closest everyone but it still had its hierarchy with the citizens at the bottom and the government officials at the top. Communism can't work, and never has. Based off of human ignorance or not it has never worked. Also, what does how long the human race existed have to do with all this. Why would Communism being a blink in our time have to do with anything. You almost sucked me into a whole new argument with that.
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

"Communism (at least how I see it) fights corruption, apathetic behavior, and encourages work ethic to increase. I know that Communism has failed in the past several times, but I still believe it to be the best government for a Society. Now people, Vote now! I want to hear your opinions".
And sorry for using same argument I forgot to change it so, HAHA.
Debate Round No. 3
derplington

Pro

I know your "sorry" but how did you end up using the same argument? Wouldn't that mean you would have had to copied and pasted it. If my theory is true your argument, wasn't even your argument. Even then though, for Communism to work, you would need an entire nation of "brainwashed" or compliant people. With rebellious people Communism will always fail. Someone is always looking for power, and corruption.
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

First I will say any type of government can fail, and any person in any nation always wants power. The only way the USA became a nation was by brainwashing the citizens to believe that monarchies are stupid because all they do is tax us. Also any government can be corrupt. So when can stop saying the same thing tell me and ill listen to you, but for now all you say is the same thing that is my argument. Thankyou for listening.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Comrade_Silly_Otter 3 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Don't disrespect Marx, he is quite the respectable person.

Not to mention he predicted things such as the depressions.
Posted by derplington 3 years ago
derplington
I made this voting period way to long...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
derplingtonBEASTxKNIGHTx12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con went off on a tangent and most of his enormous paragraph was irrelevant. Pro's argument was stronger.