The Instigator
PhilosophicalNoodles
Pro (for)
The Contender
chrisfris
Con (against)

Communism (Marxist) Vs Facism (Ideology is up to Contender)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
chrisfris has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 444 times Debate No: 98381
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

PhilosophicalNoodles

Pro

I will be going for support on Communism in this debate, from the true communist ideological thinking of Marxism. I will be using things straight out of the Communist Manifesto. So first off.

Marxism is a very progressive ideology that would benefit todays societies, as today unemployment is high in most countries and the world economy is getting worse for some while others prosper and the ones that profit no matter what are the corporations and bourgeoisie. So in my debate I say that Marxism is the solution. As Marxism will benefit the poor workers, (proletarians), and help the world become equal.

Communism can make the human race equal, while you may say equally poor, that is something that has only happened because, people have taken up the opportunity of revolution as a way to get to power. Communism is something the poor look up to. Something they can have hope for. And right now in most countries they need a system they can understand and depend on.

The human race will work like this, in a system that is necessary, the farmers provide food for themselves and for the worker and soldier, the worker provides tools and arms for the farmer and soldier, the soldier protects the worker and farmer. In this we can have a triangle of strength in humanity, as long as no one becomes greedy and gets to the top to rule over the country with an iron fist, *cough* *cough* Stalin.

Communism can work.
chrisfris

Con

In your argument you claimingly describe Marxism/Communism (you don't seem to make a difference between the two) as an ideology for the poor.

Firstly, you claim that, somehow, the economical system will automatically improve when the Communism is implemented. However, the most basic economical theories will tell you that, in the market of supply and demand, the highest surplus will be reached (so the best for consumer +producer) and definitely not in a market where the government will control the production, because they will never be able to exactly estimate the amount of production needed. That is why the Soviet Union had so many economical problems, especially in comparison to the capitalist USA (or Europe, what you like).

Secondly, you state that the unemployment will fade when a country gets a Communist government. This is actually true, because everyone will be granted a job, paid by the government and the government will take the produced products. However, (do you already see the problem?) the producers, let's take farmers, will not be motivated to produce at much food as possible, because they will always get paid the same amount, even if they produce very little. So why work hard if you can be lazy and still get paid? It is not you who will suffer. This is the main problem communism has and that is also the reason why North Korea is the only communist country left on this earth.

NB:
Some mistakes in your argumentation I couldn't really point out in the text before:
1) You say Communism didn't work, because "people have taken up the opportunity of revolution as a way to get power". Let me get this straight: The basic idea in Marxism (that inspired the communism) is that indeed people SHOULD take the opportunity of revolution as a way to get power. In fact, the main goal of the Communists is a global revolution.

2) You blame the "iron fist" of Stalin as the reason of the poor conditions of the SU citizens. In fact that is true, because he was the one that founded all the working camps (or punishment camps), where people were severely mistreated. But I dare to state that that iron fist of Staling was the only reason Communism even survived that long in the SU. After all, he created a certain feeling of fear under the citizens, which meant that nobody that the courage to oppose the leading ideology of the Communism.

NB 2:
I took the role of capitalism to oppose the communism, because I think those are more the contrary ideologies, but if you tell me I should defend Fascism, I would happily do that as well.
Debate Round No. 1
PhilosophicalNoodles

Pro

Sure go ahead with capitalism, I'm all for that, and if you have more to say on this topic after round 3 i'm up for another challenge. :D

Gonna take some time to deal with these mistakes first.
Sorry about that difference in Communism and Marxism, Jesus how did I forget that? So anyway Communism is a form of government that is based off of Marxist ideas, while Marxism is the philosophy, so i'm arguing for a positive look on the Marxist philosophy and supporting the Communist form of government.

Now to the idea of the "farmers will not be motivated" thing, your sort of right about that, true if I had to work as a farmer to get paid the same amount I would be fatigued very quick. However you see this happens in the employment industry all the time, take for example an office drone, sitting around doing office drone things while he/she gets paid the same amount, most people in America would be afraid to ask their employer for a higher wage as this is really taboo in America. A communist worker is motivated by nationalist pride, by honor to his fellow proletarian, by the idea that his work can't benefit a corporate bourgeoisie tyrant. That is what motivates a communist like myself, the idea of a bright future.

Now for the argument against this I say this: Communism is built on the principle that equal work is for equal pay, if a farmer or worker produces a low amount of product, then he/she will be given low pay, if he/she makes moderate product, they get moderate pay, (see what i'm saying?). The same thing happens in capitalist society, if you don't make enough sales in something, your employer might lower your pay as a way of telling you to step up your game, this is what drives us to produce so much. The communist idea of this is to benefit not the employer or the company but, to benefit yourself and your fellow proletarian, as the food you produce is given to the workers, that depend on you to make that food, it's all about a basic trust system here.

Next:
The idea of the economy getting better is because, the constant production of produce is necessary so that there is a large amount of supply for the demand, the demand coming from foreign countries not just people in your country, take for example China, you have a majority of your things made in China, you see it everywhere, they make up some of the richest people on the planet, all because they sell their products to foreign countries this is what makes a communist society money. If you sell your products to foreign countries that need those products you can make quite a bit of money. Sadly, China is one of those countries that love to exploit their workers, they have basically just a communist economy on the idea of the whole foreign trade thing.

Alright NB 1: The global revolution is a term for the revolution of communism that, "Soon the nations of the world will join the communist party." This is where entire countries rise up and become communist. What I said was if a single person such as, Fidel Castro, Mao, or Stalin become leader and take all the wealth and income from the other countries. If they alone control the country and the industry. When all the industry and all the land is supposed to belong to everyone and that the people are to work together and produce their food and tools for each-other.

2: Yeah it's sad that Stalin had to enforce such fear on the SU, and I know Stalin was brutal. I can't argue against him, he was a tyrant and the worst example of a communist. The fact that he helped the Soviet Union survive with military strength and fear is scary to think about. He was a brutal dictator and a backstabbing ally of Lenin. Out of all the leaders of SU the only leader of the Soviets that was really scary and was mad with military takeover. But, Stalin didn't necessarily have to have been what kept the Soviet Union running. Lenin was a jerk too, but, he wasn't as bad as Stalin. He never wanted to support his personal gain in the Soviet Union, and was even working on making sure Stalin couldn't take over. So Stalin was a horrible dictator, but the question of him being a necessary evil has a mixed answer.

There are no good examples of Communism, there are just examples and bad examples, Stalin is one of them.
chrisfris

Con

Let me first go over your solution of the so called "motivation-problem'. You throw up the solution of people (farmers) being paid according to their production. However, this goes straight against the ideas of communism and your own ideas of a perfect economy, because only in a NON-COMMUNIST economy, people will be rewarded more if they produce more. That is the idea of communism regarding the economy and that is the view you should be defending, not opposing.

Second solution you quickly point out: people will be motivated by "nationalist pride, by honor to his fellow proletarian, by the idea that his work can't benefit a corporate bourgeoisie tyrant".

-Nationalist pride: will probably only work with a strong government (like Stalin's), where there is enough national propaganda. And besides that, in the rest of the world, there is nationalism as well.
-Honor to his fellow proletarian: a bit vague, but I don't think the regular citizen will really be motivated to work hard, so he/she can help the government with his work. People are, in the end (it might be more of an opinion, but shared with a big part of the humanity), mostly egoistic and working hard will not lead to an improvement of their situation, they will not work hard.
-The idea that his work can't benefit a corporate bourgeoisie tyrant: quite a weird description for a businessman (I do like the word use, though), but personally I don't care if my boss makes money from me working. On the contrary, if I work at a company, I would like to see it make a lot of profit, so I can be sure to keep my job. What I really care about is my own wage, which one does not have control of in a communist economy.

Your next point I can counter really quickly. Although China is politically a communist country, leaded by the communist party (that rhymes :D), the economy is mostly capitalist, so with a market of supply and demand, you know how it goes (you already kind of said that by mentioning that China has a lot of rich businessmen). This is also the reason why China is so successful on the world market.

Revolution point: most revolutions, if not all, have had a strong leader to actually lead the revolution. Without some leadership, a group can never form enough unity to overthrow the present government. This also leads to the second point, because the communism could never be grounded without the leadership of Lenin.

Besides that, don't forget that Stalin was a part of the communist party. His reign might have had some tyrannical aspects, but a big part of his power and therefore the reason of the cruel treatment of the population has been caused by the communist party itself, because they also saw that communism would fail without the fear under the citizens. Communism is an ideology that needs fear to work. For example, when Gorbatsjov implemented his glasnost and perestrojka to stimulate the economy by adding CAPITALIST elements to it, the citizens had the hope to escape communism, which lead to the fall of the Eastern bloc and, in the end, the fall of the Soviet Union itself.
Debate Round No. 2
PhilosophicalNoodles

Pro

Alright then, (Just woke up like 13 minutes ago). Alright last round but, I want to drag this on to another debate because, I haven't pointed out anything for the capitalist. Also, I don't expect to win, as people would rather favor capitalism. But, then again, people can be educated.

Now on the whole motivation thing here is a quote from Mao about the ideal Communist worker, sure people can't just work non-stop they will need breaks, the will need propaganda, they will need to be motivated, "At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while ... working with all one"s energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect."

A communist should remove his personal interests first, this doesn't mean he can't feed himself, he just needs to think of his fellow countrymen and the government first. The problem with communism today is, people like material things, they like feeling comfortable knowing that their work is what helps them survive, to afford all the neat things besides their food and shelter and water. People can't just accept a communist government, they worry about themselves more, if everyone actually co-operated then things could be done, and then the specialization of labor will come in handy as some people will be needed to do more complicated tasks, become scientists, become engineers, become leaders.

But, in reality a communist government, or a the Marxist idea of a Marxist society is one where there are no leaders, or government, because, they would get in the way and get greedy, and then abuse their power.

I would also like to point out something you said, "On the contrary, if I work at a company, I would like to see it make a lot of profit, so I can be sure to keep my job. What I really care about is my own wage, which one does not have control of in a communist economy.

What I really care about is my own wage, the reason communism has failed. Not that the government itself is flawed. It's the people that keep the government together. If a ton of workers and farmers go on strike, the whole government crumbles. The thing is you worry about your own wage. Think of this, if everyone in the company thinks the same as you, how do you profit? In communism, there are ways, to make the working man happy. For example, in a study conducted in the former USSR, over 50% of the work force admitted to drinking alcohol while on the job. Furthermore, unbeknownst to the communist party, nearly 40% chose to work a second job privately to attain more wealth. The question is why they needed more wealth, did they WANT or NEED. If they WANTED more wealth then they are horrible communists. If they NEEDED the wealth well that is okay. Now about that booze thing. It's not like your humanity and soul is stripped from you in a communist government, go ahead eat, drink, get hammered, who cares? Just as long as you don't start a fight in the communist world everything is fine. BTW, people can work on like wineries and breweries. Come on communists want booze too. All about that propaganda, and a good way to motivate people, get them drunk XD

Now finally, god I type so much more than you do. We talk about the fall of the Soviet Union and one giant thing to talk about. The fact that no communist government is perfect. No capitalist government is perfect either. Sure you can say that capitalist governments can at least provide a strong economy. Well in most communist governments that have and still exist there are some groundbreaking things going on. First, in the Soviet Union under Lenin, and Cuba people have the ability to put food on the plate for everyday, and almost everyone has a roof over their heads. Which some countries can't do. In America we have had the Hobo, and the bum in our culture forever, people that can't find jobs and can't feed themselves or even have a roof over their heads. The thing is communism could at least, give people jobs, give them food, and give them shelter. We also gave more women rights, we gave them the right to divorce their husbands in China and Soviet Russia, we gave them the right to do more democratic things, such as: voting in local elections (Yes democracy in a communist government, i'm talking pre-Stalin here) there is also the fact that they were seen as strong independent workers and farmers, not weak women that should be in the kitchen, or looking after the children.

Final argument for communism, the thing is for those that vote, you can't just say that the capitalist government you live in is comfortable enough to ignore a communist society. A communist society with co-operation, specialization of labor, massive industry, can become a worlds superpower just like the Soviet Union. Sure that was under Stalin, but sometimes necessary evil shows us things that help us think of things differently. We know Stalin was bad but, his leadership made the Soviet Union a super power. The thing is we don't need a military superpower to make the Soviet Union survive, we need a industrial superpower and a agricultural superpower, to feed people everywhere in the world. To supply people with tools and strong materials. This massive trade of food and materials would surely keep the economy going. Now you may think it is all hopes and dreams, but communism will thrive in the world we dream about, a world of peace, where the bourgeoisie (Capitalist, corporations etc.) don't control the worlds wealth, where they don't control if you have a job or not, or if you really need this or that. The people are to shape communism for the better.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tom-The-Hypocrit 1 year ago
Tom-The-Hypocrit
A perfect solution for an imperfect species? Communism denies individuality, competition and lacks the incentive to make people want to strive to better themselves.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.