The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Communism Is Superior To Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 309 times Debate No: 96186
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I will be Pro and will be representing Communism the Philosophical ideology created by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and stating that it is superior to Capitalism.

The Con will debate the opposite stating that Communism is in no way superior to Capitalism and will argue against my claims.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments
R3: Counter-Arguments
R4: Final Arguments/Points
R5: Conclusion

Let's try to keep this civil and fun.


Ok, comrade lets get it on!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my fellow Comrade for accepting this Debate.

Communism is a economic theory created by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 1800s although Marx's ideas were not popular while he was alive just a few decades later they would change the course of history forever.

Theory: Communism at it's core is a stateless system governed by the working class this is known as Marxism.

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

However due to how unrealistic Marxism is at it's core many have modified it to make it much more realistic most notably Vladimir Lenin's: Leninism/Marxism which is what the Soviet Union was built upon. This version of Communism put more power towards one individual which was the leader of the Communist Party. Most mistake the idea that Communism is a system run by dictators but that is simply false Marxism-Leninism has a form of democratic management within the party that way no one single person can have all the power.

There has been a endless number of forms of Communism throughout the 1900s however Communism has always remained a strong belief because of it's human connections. Marx didn't just create Communism as a economic theory he created it as a personal theory as-well Marx understood human behavior and noted a few things. Marx understood that we as humans hate to be abandoned hence why when we are let go [Fired] we start to get upset, depressed and stressed and Marx viewed this as the Capitalist System simply treating humans as objects rather than actual human beings. He would later make the claim that this is evident within Business Marriage where two children from separate companies would marry each other simply not for love but for financial reasons. One of Marx's biggest issues with Capitalism is how it treated unemployment saying that the Capitalist system labelled the unemployed as "Useless" and "Lazy" where as Marx claimed we should be calling Unemployment as Freedom. Marx stated the reason for this was simply because when you are unemployed you have more time to find who you really are deep down.

"to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic" - Karl Marx

Marx claimed that people actually don't need to work because our economies are so productive as a result we have crises of abundance rather than shortage. We could give everyone a house, access to education and a decent hospital just because of how productive our economy is. He also stated we shouldn't have to work unless we enjoy our work and can see ourselves in the very things we create. Marx claimed the Capitalist System alienates the workers thus cutting them off from their emotions and who they really are making human beings expandable.

Marx always heavily stated that within a Communist Society everyone would have free education, free healthcare, the right to leisure and work.

Here are some of the Pros of Communism

1. It can do away with all class systems.

2. Decreases unemployment.

3. Gives everyone access to their basic needs.

4. Creates a egalitarian society [Less Racism/Sexism]

5. Gives Workers The Power

Now of course Communism has it's Cons just like any economic system but I simply insist the Pros of Communism outweigh the cons.

Real Life Practice: Now many point to the fall of the USSR as the turning point and fall of Communism but this is far from the correct assumption. It is worth noting that after the fall of the USSR many countries still remained Communist let alone a recent surveys point that Russians, East Germans and many others who once lived under Communism still prefer the system today.

Communism also led to the creation of Labor Unions which in turn protect the workers and their rights and are a big key role even in Capitalist Society in voicing the workers.

Also may I point out that Marx viewed 2 main ways Communism would become inevitable both these views are via Revolution but one of them is not what you think. Marx viewed Communism gaining power via Violent Revolution of the working class or via Peaceful Revolution of time. Marx saw that over time Capitalism would grow into a hideous monster that would alienate the workers to the point of revolution no matter the country this is what i mean by peaceful Revolution. Capitalism is destined to fail because of it's treatment to the working class citizens thus they would rebel and form a communist society from the ruins of the old society. Now look at Scandinavia mainly Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland all of these are socialist countries however many would argue that they are heading towards peaceful progressing into Communism. Each of these countries have outstanding healthcare systems, education, employment and most importantly are almost classless society. They is almost no rich and no poor within these countries and by that I mean very little meaning they have peacefully almost ended the class struggle within their countries.

My Point: My main argument here is that Communism is more human and caring than Capitalism it creates social equality treats people like actual human beings and it's economy is far superior for proof look at how quickly Russia industrialized itself. I always needed to explain Communism to those who don't know what it is if they happen to look at this debate.

Anyhow that is where I will leave my argument I do apologize if it's a bit all over the place I am slightly tired at the moment but no to tired to spread the works of Marx. Anyhow I await my opponents response.


Book Sources:
The Communist Manifesto
Das Kapital


Some say Mao Zedong killed between 250 and 300 million people while others say 70-100 million. But how do you know for sure? Who was keeping score?

What there is no doubt about is that he was the greatest killer in human history.

Stalin follows behind, being estimated to have killed about 30 million.

But those who defend Communism, would say forget that, because China and Russia weren't practicing "True" Communism. To an extent, they are correct.

But this is the problem.

How do you bring about the practice of "True" Communism?

It's pointless to debate the theoretical benefits of Communism when you can't offer a vision of how to make it work in reality.

In the real world, Communism works like this -
During the great famine of the 1990s, between 600,000 and 2.5 million people died of hunger. According to the commission"s report, the North Korean regime, then headed by Kim Jong-il, obstructed the delivery of aid to the hungriest regions until 1997, and punished those who tried to earn, buy, steal or smuggle in enough food to survive.

It doesn't matter, what flowery picture is painted in theory.

It doesn't matter, what the pluses or minuses of Communism vs Capitalism are in theory.

World history tells us that Communism, perhaps started with all the best intentions, ultimately leads to Dictatorships.

Until Pro can forward a vision of how to keep Communism free of Dictators, his best intentions simply chart a path to hell.

This is my challenge to Pro, since there is little point in debating a vision that can never come to pass, first, tell us how do we make this work in the real world?
Debate Round No. 2


First off I love the fact that Con points out the amount of people killed by Communism but simply glimpses over the amount of people killed under Capitalism. Fun Fact Stalin killed maybe thousands not millions the 27 Million last in WWII were soldiers and if your telling me that he used them ruthlessly then please tell me why you want Hitler to have won WII considering it was Stalin's tactics he knew the cost and had no other choice than to face it.

Anyhow Capitalism has killed way more people than Communism here is a small list of things that Capitalism has thrived from/caused.

1. The Slave Trade

2. Imperialism [Which involved countless deaths of native people African, Aboriginal and Indian]

3. The war in the Middle East

4. The Great Depression.

5. The 2008 Bank Crisis.

The list can go on but luckily I have a source that will give us the number of people killed under Capitalism that number is here: 205,000,000 killed


Now Con has told me to point out how we can achieve Communism but clearly did not see my argument or did not read it.

"Now look at Scandinavia mainly Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland all of these are socialist countries however many would argue that they are heading towards peaceful progressing into Communism."

These countries have almost achieved the classless society and are becoming more socialist if anything this is the peaceful revolution I was talking about in my first argument. Plenty of Countries today are still happily Communist and many countries have thriving Communist/Socialist Parties so in the long run we will achieve Communism more likely Leninism-Marxism by peaceful progression of the working classes silent revolution or if everything goes to hell a violent uproar.

I await Con's response.


Wow, that was a strange reply. Apparently, you misunderstood much of what was said. Being new to this site, I may be a little different in that I'm actually open to hearing the opposition's points, rather than griping about where someone put a comma.

Communism may be superior, but how can it work? That's what I asked.

When you concede all power to the state, as communism requires, how do you produce a benevolent dictator to run that state instead of a psycho, which is what we've seen time and again.

You said -
First off I love the fact that Con points out the amount of people killed by Communism
Actually, I didn't say that. I said Dictators killed those people.

Further you said -
"Now look at Scandinavia mainly Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland all of these are socialist countries however many would argue that they are heading towards peaceful progressing into Communism."

OK lets ask someone who actually lives there instead of relying on what "many would argue" quote -

the taxes are the highest in the world, the cost of living is similarly ridiculous, the languages are impenetrable, the food is (still) awful for the most part and, increasingly, these countries are making it very clear they would prefer foreigners to stay away.

in Denmark, the quality of the free education and health care is substandard: They are way down on the PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] educational rankings, have the lowest life expectancy in the region, and the highest rates of death from cancer. And there is broad consensus that the economic model of a public sector and welfare state on this scale is unsustainable. The Danes" dirty secret is that its public sector has been propped up by " now dwindling " oil revenues. In Norway"s case, of course, it"s no secret...

Yes, many economists have specifically warned of the Danes" private debt levels. Perhaps more seriously, productivity has been somewhat stagnant and there is a dire skills shortage...

we should not overlook the fact that the majority of Danes either work for, or receive benefits from, the welfare state....

Again, I think we've all been guilty of projecting some kind of utopian fantasy on them. The Nordic countries are, for example, depicted as paragons of political correctness, yet you still see racial stereotypes in the media here " the kind of thing which would be unthinkable in the U.S....

they also record the highest rates of violence towards women ....

Denmark, meanwhile, promotes itself as a "green pioneer" and finger wags at the world about CO2 emissions, and yet it regularly beats the U.S. and virtually every other country on earth in terms of its per capita ecological footprint...
For all their wind turbines, the Danes still burn a lot of coal and drive a lot of cars...

when it comes to immigration and integration: there is the Swedish model (open door) and the Danish model (close the door and put up a "Go Away" sign), which the Norwegians and Finns are copying.

The economy of many of these countries is oil based. Norway, particularly when you consider it on per capita basis, is one of the world's largest producers. Sweden is one of the worlds largest arms producers.

The point being, what is occurring there isn't applicable to vast majority of the world.

And by citing these countries you aren't making a case for communism, you are making a case for socialism.

My case is supposed to be for Capitalism, which is something I can see functioning all over the world.

Whether you like it or not, Capitalism is real. It is in effect and it's working.

Whereas, the Theoretical Communism you want to compare it to - is not.

Comparing "Real World" Communism to the rest of the world paints a bleak picture.

In terms of Standard of Living - Only 2 of the world's top 61 countries are communist (No.51 and No.61)

Thus, when Capitalism is compared to Communism as it exists, in the real world, and fictional Communism which obviously exists only in theory. Capitalism emerges as the clear winner.
Debate Round No. 3


"Communism may be superior, but how can it work? That's what I asked" - The title of this debate is which is superior not how things can work however I will still explain how it can work.

My opponent pointed out the Debt that Denmark are in yet there is no mention of the debt America is in which is a far bigger country and way more in debt let alone it is in debt to a "Communist" Country. However with this being the final argument and such I will explain how Communism can work. Also quick note I do not hate Capitalism in fact I see many of it's benefits and understand that it is a great economic theory and idea the same goes for Fascism however the issues with them is that they are very much easier to corrupt than Communism and before people start shouting "STALIN" keep in mind Stalin was actual a great genius and only now in this age are people uncovering how smart Stalin truly was although I still think he was a Tyrant.

Firstly, I would like to point out that Socialism and Communism theories and ideas are becoming more and more accepted in society today a good example of this is Bernie Sanders who had a ridiculous amounts of support mainly from younger voters if anything this is a clear sign that the next generations are turning towards Socialism and Communism as the answers to all of Capitalism's problems.

Secondly, Con only makes points towards Denmark yet he does not touch Norway, Sweden or Finland, Finland has the best education system in the world along with one of the greatest healthcare systems. However Sweden and Norway do not even come close to Norway which is ranked as the No.1 Socialist country. I stated that Communism will happen as a result of peaceful/violent revolution depending on the country in places like Syria/Kurdistan you have groups like the Lions Of Rojava and outside of warzones and such you have Norway and people like Bernie Sanders who can rally the young people.

Thirdly, Alright I think that's enough banter from me now let me explain how it can work. Firstly we need to learn from our mistakes.

[e.g. How Stalin took control of Russia]

Keep in mind Communism has never failed it still worked under Stalin and Industrialized all of Russia under his control in mere years. However in order to ensure a peaceful reign of Communism we must ensure that Marxism-Leninsim stays in power. Keep in mind no one in the Bolshevik party had heard of Lenin's warnings about Stalin however in this day and age it is much easier to see these things about to happen and even easier to prevent them. Keep in mind the idea of Marxism-Leninism is the idea of a single person people can rally behind and has power however still must listen to his fellow Communist Party. Yes Capitalism is the main power today but for how much longer? With people starting to learn from the past and realize the mistakes the younger populations are starting to turn to Socialism/Communism as a superior answer who sees it's Pros outweigh the cons.

Sorry for such a short post I am currently in school and enjoying this debate.


Quote -The title of this debate is which is superior not how things can work

Sorry, but that is exactly why Capitalism is superior -

That undeniable Pro of Capitalism is that it has worked. The undeniable Con of Communism is that it has not.

As we debate, the Communists of North Korea are turning to cannibalism as a food source.

You simply cannot sell any positive point about Communism, until you can explain how to get around the problem that has caused Communism to fail in the real world.

Communism looks great on paper. That's why so many nations have fallen for its Utopian promises, but those promises are quickly broken and the nations who have fallen victim suffer horribly.

I understand that Pro wants this debate to focus on how Communism COULD work, but until Pro has a realistic solution to fix how Communism HAS worked, that just amounts to, "What would I do if I won the Lottery" daydreaming.
Step 1- Win the lottery
Step 2- End hunger
Step 3- Cure cancer...
I'm sure that makes you feel good, but it isn't real.

This is where Pro errors. Hoping for the grandiose promises of Communism and failing to account for the reality of human nature.
It wasn't Communism that killed all those people in China it was a human.
It wasn't Communism that killed all those people in Russia it was a human.

Capitalism not only accounts for the "Me First" aspect of human nature, It exploits it.

Planes, Trains, Automobiles, Electricity, Light Bulbs, Telephones, Television, Computers, Antibiotics etc. were all were the product of Capitalism. In fact, almost everything that matters comes from a Capitalist nation.

Is it possible to name an accomplishment of Communism?

Sputnik? Sorry, but that was just captured Nazi technology, which had been slightly modified.
Communism could never produce such a thing.

The scoreboard of accomplishment reads
Capitalism - Everything ............. Communism - Nothing

Communism just doesn't work in the real world.
Debate Round No. 4


Con points out that North Korea is Communist which is a complete and utter lie first of all.

Countries have used the idea of Communism to rally people but are quick to abandon the idea once seizing power.

"It wasn't Communism that killed all those people in China it was a human."
"It wasn't Communism that killed all those people in Russia it was a human"

It wasn't Communism that killed all those people you are correct those countries have never truly been Communist.

[ Russia was until the death of Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov aka Lenin]

Also you seem to mistake Human Nature with Human Behavior when we first descended and formed tribes everyone banded together and everyone ate equally meaning Communism is the closet thing to human nature however it wasn't until someone killed someone that our greed truly began this is Human Behavior.

Back to the main point Communism has never killed that many people but as I stated in an earlier argument Capitalism has killed twice/triple as many people and yet there could be even more people on that list. Communism has worked in places like Cuba and Vietnam and while yes they are not luxuries they are better off where they would have been under Capitalism. Before the Con points at the people fleeing Cuba thing it wasn't a result of Castro or Che the people just were not ready for such a drastic change which is one reason peaceful Communist progression is a better option.

Con keeps asking me to explain how Communism would work and I keep pointing to Scandinavia and it's socialist government. Here are some of the huge benefits of Norway.

"Step 2- End hunger"

Communism has solved this plenty of times before look at Lenin and his idea with bread.

"Sputnik? Sorry, but that was just captured Nazi technology, which had been slightly modified.
Communism could never produce such a thing."

That is a point blank slander and lies after Stalin's reign of terror [The Cold war] The Russians were the first to send a ship into space with a living animal. They also manged to keep a dog alive with nothing else but a machine and the dogs head which on it's own is outstanding although very inhumane with the way they went about doing it. I'm sorry but I'm here to debate facts not obvious lies and slander.

There is a source listing a huge amount of "Communist" achievements.

In order for Communism to work we need to revert to Marxism-Leninism the incident with Stalin will never happen again if we learn from the past which we clearly did. However the best way to achieve Communism is Marx's idea of a peaceful revolution similar to Scandinavia you can point out any flaws of Communism and I can point out Capitalism's flaws however the pros of Communism easily crush the Pros of Capitalism and the Cons of Communism.


Book Sources:
Das Kapital
The Communist Manifesto
Che Guevara: Life of a Revolutionary


At it's heart, Communism fails on it's central premise.

That being, communism punishes those who work, to reward those who won't.

The few who work, tire of having the fruits of their labor stolen, to reward the masses.

Eventually, they quit working as well. Logically, they think, "Let some other sucker work to feed me for a change."

Ultimately, all people strive for the least the state requires of them.

There is no carrot, only the stick of starvation to motivate.

As that plays out, people grow unhappy and their leaders get restless. Those who complain must be punished.

The scapegoat class, whatever race, color or religion they may be, must be eliminated once and for all.

But the silencing of the lambs does little to improve the everyday life of ordinary citizens.

And so begin the purges. If the scapegoat class wasn't at fault, then some other group surely is...

The Iron Fist of Power falls on the very people it purported to protect.

Again and again we've watched it play out.

Those who refuse to study history are condemned to repeat it.

Today's youth are clueless to the reality of the past and not the least bit motivated to study it.

It's scary to think that Pro - or anyone for that matter, could believe the same failed promises and rhetoric that have led to so much pain and suffering in the past.

I joined this debate in the hope that someone had thought of a new way, a better idea, an improvement...

But no, it's the same old arguments, wrapped in a layer of revisionist history.

Communism is dead, and the world is a better place.

Capitalism is the only functional solution the world has devised yet and therefore is superior.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Surgeon 6 days ago
The single greatest poverty elimination machine in history is Capitalism. The gap between rich and poor may grow, but the poor under Capitalism one can expect a higher standard of living of the poor, than under a Communist/Marxist/Socialist state.

The problem with Communism is it over-simplifies human relationships, and frames them as a class struggle between the haves and the have nots. All people act firstly in accordance with their own self interest and secondly with community interest (even Communists). The system which best represents that is the one where people are free to trade value with each other, and not when where they are told they cannot becuase of a Politburo edict. To compound this, Communism proposes generalised solutions that do not work because of 1) the information problem, 2) the price problem and 3) the incentive problem.

Everywhere it has been tried Communism has bought states to their economic knees as they waste away their accumulated stock of Capital, and fail to create any new Capital as they fail to create any new wealth. Once the Capital has gone, the state collapses (eg Venezeula).

Capitalism on the other hand, if left alone, adapts to a natural business cycle where it innovates, produces efficiently and creates wealth for everyone. The problem is governments (in particular leftist ones) cannot leave Capitalism alone and constantly tinker with prices, money and taxation leading to economic collapses like we saw in 2008. Here we saw a huge housing bubble created due to the preceeding years of lax government interest rate policies (making credit cheap and distorting the capital stock).
Posted by Knaveslayer99 1 week ago
You understand Mercantilism is just another fancy word and type of Capitalism just like Communism there are many different types of Capitalism and I would label the Slave Trade under mercantile capitalism. However History is nothing more than a debate thanks though for leaving a comment.
Posted by furryburrito666 1 week ago
I'd just like to fact check the Communist's facts and basic understanding of history and economics. The Slave trade really existed under Mercantilism economic policies- which if you don't know what that is, I recommend you keep on educating yourself!

Id also like to make sure you don't think I condone the Slave Trade. Obviously it was a disgrace to mankind, but it was not a result of capitalism
No votes have been placed for this debate.