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

Communism can successfully and with stability establish a nation based on its ideology

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 317 times Debate No: 78791
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Communism has conclusively shown that it cannot actually be used to form the basis for a stable society. It's very way of life fosters the antithesis of what it strives for, creating empathetic and docile masses whilst being unable to prevent itself from falling apart due to corruption from within the ruling party. I would argue that it is in fact not possible for a nation to find any lasting governance that is based upon the base ideals that a communist society represents.


(Before I begin, I'd like to note that I wholly disagree with the argument I'm about to present, I simply wish to have a good debate, so I'm willing to play Devil's Advocate)

In the past, Communism has failed to work. However, this was more do to the shortcomings of a few specific people than to the system itself. I propose that, it is indeed possible to create a working (though obviously not perfect, as humans aren't perfect) communist society. The evidence for my proposition lies in three points as of now:

1. Communism creates equality:
Under an ideal communist society (in which no dictator siezes power) everyone is equal, shares equal posessions, and each has a place within the community. This eliminates totally problems like income inequality, governments wasing money, and poverty. Also, when everyone has an equal place in society, and has equal posessions, there is no cause for jealousy, so it ceases to exist.

2. Communism aids the economy:
Throughout history, communism has shown a definite impact on the economies of the countries that use it. For instance, it prevents the unnecessary spending of money. In fact, Soviet Russia was completely independent from 1917 to 1981, a remarkable period of time for a massive country to be self-sufficient. Also, at one point in time (under Joseph Stalin) the Russian economy grew by 20% in under seven years.

3. A more modern issue is that in America alone, millions of people can't afford healthcare (and other services). This is a problem that will be completely abolished with the proper implementation of Communism. If such a system were to come into being, all services would suddenly become affordable, as everyone would share the same income, thus the same ability to pay for these services.

To wrap up my argument, I'd again like to state that while I oppose communism, I enjoy a good debate and it's never a bad skill to argue for ideas you don't support.
Debate Round No. 1


(solid, looking for a good debate m8)

I'll address your points in the order they are written.

1) While the ideology of communism is indeed that people are all equal, history has conclusively shown us that it cannot actually function in this manner. While people like Mao had their own private compounds, the poor were forced to work in communes. In any communist country the party had ultimate power and exercised it in ways that were clearly done for political and personal reasons, such as when Stalin took all the food away from Ukraine that caused a mass famine, showing that there isn't a sense of equality between those in positions of power and the masses they lead

2) True, a single power that controls a country's funds is going to be more powerful economically than one that has all of its assets divided into the hands of individual corporations, however it doesn't necessarily mean that it spends it more wisely. for example towards the end of the cold war the soviet union was spending around 30% of it's GDP on weapons manufacturing, much, much higher than any other major power was at the time.

3) While the ideal that healthcare is free to all is nice and very achievable it's not a concept that requires communism in order to come to fruition, as can be seen by a multitude of social-democratic countries throughout Europe. And while it may be true that communist countries did often have relatively stable and functions healthcare systems, this was in turn hindered by the fact that the communist society did not foster growth within itself, a fact that meant many if not all communist countries were severely under equipped and outdated when it came to medicine.


I will address your rebuttal with one of my own:

1. In a Communist society, the government is comprised of a group of citizens, who have no real benefits for taking part in government businesses. Thus, regardless of one's status, they're still equal and treated equally. Take, for example, Stalin. Yes, he was the Mouthpiece for Soviet Russia, and in many ways failed to live up to Communist ideals, but he still worked in a small room, given few, if any, privelages that weren't afforded to other citizens.

2. In the same vein, when the government is comprised of normal citizens, they're a lot less likely to spend money unwisely. Soviet Russia's Cold War spending was, in my opinion, very well spent. Why not spend large amounts of money to arm oneself under threat of war? Today, Russia remains one of the largest superpowers in the world, and you're telling me that Communism (which took them out of a dictatorship, mind you) doesn't work?

3. Most current universal health-care plans instituted by governments are flimsy at best and regularly fail to meet demand. Take Fance, for example: Citizens spend approximately 15% of their wages on healthcare costs, yet over 90% purchase complimentary private insurance. Some time ago, their government instituted a policy that stipulated that hospitals had to admit a patient within four hours. Clearly, there are some problems here. These appear to be mostly due to bureaucrats' inability to create an efficient system. Not so with Communism, however. In a Communist society, the government is efficient because the citizens who take part in it are tied to the wellbeing of the country they shape, thus have great incentive to ensure that every system and service they provide is as efficient as possible.

Debate Round No. 2


1) But the issue is with Stalin not living up to the communist ideals is that it means the country he has power over is no longer a communist nation. By failing to live up to the communist ideals he is showing that, at least in the case of communist Russia, that he could not create a communist nation.

2) The military spending is what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union though, the bankruptcy that resulted from the incompetent and selfish spending of the party destroying everything. In the end it turned the the country into a pseudo- democratic one, suggesting that a perceived democracy is much more stable and successful than the communist ideals before it.

3) But bureaucrats in communist countries are more likely to be corrupt and uncaring as because there are no elections or way to get rid of corrupt officials there is no system that can be used to "clean house". Dictators such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot found the communist system extremely easy to control as there were no checks to keep them true to the communist ideals. In a democracy the people can keep check of their leaders, making sure that if they are shown to be corrupt then there is an easy way in which they can be removed from office to make sure the democratic ideals are upheld, a concept that cannot be enforced in communist nation.


1. While the country Stalin (and his kin) fostered throughout their reigns was far from an ideal Communist society (they had central figures of power, after all), they still shared many of the tenants of one, along with many of the benefits. However, as it was also a Dictatorship, it suffered the consequences as such. Communism didn't fail because someone was in central power. The central figure failed the system.

2. This is another case of a single man ruining everything. Preceding the fall of the Soviet Union, the leader of Russia created multiple reforms, which the other states found detestable and so declared independence. This issue had nothing to do with Communism, rather the moronic actions of one.

3. In a true Communist country there would be no bureaucrats, every government member would be an average citizen. The issue of corruption would be virtually non-existent, because general agreement would be necessary to create any corrupt policies, and as this body would consist of a multitude of citizens, this would be nigh-impossible.

As for the Dictators, this issue can be easily resolved by a transparent government. If everything the government does is noted and publicly available, they will be infinitely accountable to the citizenry, which will make impossible the establishment of a central power. Also, I never said that a Communist society couldn't institute a term of office (by random selection, possibly).

About your argument about Democracy: it's a system that is inherently flawed, as it can (and, as we've seen in history, often does) lead to Tyranny of the Majority, which happens when the majority of the voting body elects to oppress the minority in some way. With a proper Communism, there IS no majority (as all people are equal), thus this issue becomes non-existent.
Debate Round No. 3


1) That is the point though, the communist nation could not be formed due to the fact that the governing force was diverted from its original communist ideals into a dictatorship due to communism's inability to create it's own stable, lasting state. Communism failed to achieve it's lasting ideological goals and was, in Russia, unsuccessful due to it's inability to address the issues that occurred when one wanted to hijack the system.

2) But obviously the communist system has already failed if the moronic actions of one cause the state to collapse? Because that means that there is evidently a lack of parity between the powers held by differing members of state, going against the communist ideals.

3) Which means that all of these countries that are still being run by bureaucrats are also failing the communist ideals. By listing out ways in which all of the previously established communist countries haven't been truly communist it merely supports the idea that communism cannot be successfully established, as history has shown us.

And its all well and good to say what a communist nation could or couldn't do to prevent itself from collapsing, but in the end will it actually come into effect? History suggests that it won't and hence why I stick to the contention that communism cannot successfully and with stability establish a nation based on it's ideology.


FrozenLichBox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago
Sorry, I was extremely busy on the week of my last turn and I forgot to post my rebuttal. This'll probably lose me the round, but whatever.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AtheistPerson 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of you seemed to be historically incorrect. Both of you provided no sources, both of you had equally convincing argument and grammar, yet Con will win because Pro had decided to cancel the last round. All in all, I would be undecided if Pro had not forfeited. I will also gladly debate both of you on this subject.