The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Communism ideally could work.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 67698
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Before making an opening statement I would like to clear a few things up first. First off I am not apart of a communist promotion group nor intend to be. I will not support communism at this current moment (This may sound like a contradiction now, however I will tell you why it's not later) I also do not wish to show any rudeness to my fellow competitor, but wish to explain my point of view.

Communism is often looked down upon by many people, and I can understand why. It seems that all communism leads to totalitarian governments and violence in a nation. However communism can actually be a lot better than society believes it to be. I hope that in reading this debate you will at the very least walk away with a better understanding of the true concept of communism, or Marxism as it is also known. I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate. I hope it's a good one


I accept this debate. By could work I assume you mean a have economic vitality with no market system and no tolitarianism.
Debate Round No. 1


To begin I would like to make it crystal clear what communism is.
Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
This means that there is no social class and business is controlled by the government.

The idea of communism was started by Karl Marx and publicized through his book "The Communist Manifesto". What he saw was a world that had classes where essentially the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. He believed that if the government didn't merge the classes and own all business and capitalism, then the lower class(es) would rebel and form this communist government. He was actually partly right.

People did rebel and start this form of government. The most notable ones were Russia (USSR), China, North Korea, and Cuba. However there is one major factor he did not consider. Human nature. As humans we are corrupt. It is just apart of our nature. So when people see a chance to get power they go for it. They take it and do everything in their power to keep it. This is how humans work.

While human nature prevents us from communism working presently; ideally his ideas could be used. Even in totalitarian government (though I do not believe it was not apart of his original idea for communism) could truthfully work as well. This is all ideally though because once again thanks to human nature people abuse power once they get it.

I would like to thank CON for accepting my challenge and wish him/her the best of luck in the debate.


In this debate pro must show that communism could ideally work. In his first round, pro has literal shown no evidence for this. Instead he has summed up what communism is a a short paragraph and said that if human nature hadn't gotten in the way, communism could have worked. It is often said that the problem with communist dictators is that they use their power for their own gain rather then for the benefit of the people. Well, this is partially right. Dictators tend to persecute their enemies and use whatever means to keep themselves in power. Why is this so prevalent in communism? The reason is the communism is an absolutist ideology. It is such a radical departure from human nature that if the communist fell out of power for just a single year, most of their work would be undone. To people who say that communism and democracy can coexist, one must look no further then the Constituent Assembly elections of 1917. These elections took place after the Bolsheviks seized power and the Assembly was intended to become the country's new legislature. The Bolsheviks got only 25% of the vote and were disturbed by the the moderate Socialist Revolutionary party's 42%. What shocked them even more was that the liberal, capitalist, Constitutional Democrat Party received 5% of the vote. Realizing they would not be able to stay in power, they simply dissolved the assembly and arrested it's members. This is an example of why communist organization worked so hard to stamp out opposition, a communist society is only sustainable under communist leadership.

Beyond that communism certainly doesn't help the poor. Why? Doesn't communism take money from the rich and give it to the poor? Well yes, but after the rich have been looted the government must form an effective economy. The obvious problem is that the communist wants to do this without a market system. The market system has proved itself extremely effective at pricing goods and distributing resources were they are most needed. The communist has an answer to this of course. The whole economy will be run by bureaucrats. The problem here is that these bureacrats would have to have perfect knowledge to do a decent job. These central planers must set all prices a little history will tell you that this system did not work.
Debate Round No. 2


To say communism or communist leaders cannot form a stable economy is false. Yes the government may be eventually run by bureaucrats, regardless the fundamental idea behind communism is that people are given exactly what they need. In some countries like that of Cuba there are many items needed to sustain life that are given in rations to those citizens living there. Money needed to trade would come out of taxes imposed by the government.

While it is true communism and democracy will most likely be unable to coexist; the example of what happened in Russia is just one example of what could go wrong. The Bolsheviks may not have gotten support in Russia, however in Cuba communism is supported by many of the inhabitants

Also with the Bolsheviks stamping out all who opposed them, this is once again a "side effect" if you will of human nature. It is human nature to take down anyone or anything in your path who is a threat to your power. That is why ideally communism could indeed work, but could not work presently under human conditions.


Ok, let me get this strait, If human nature was not a problem, communist would coexist happily with a nations capitalists, whilst also robbing them of money they earned by gunpoint. That is essentially what communism is. As to a bureaucrat based economy, has this ever worked in a single country? If a bureaucrat sets the price just a little high, a surplus occurs, if they set it just a little to low, they create a shortage. This is what happened in the USSR. There was always a shortage of something because they was really no way for the bureaucrats to replace the way the market allocates resources. This led to economic downturns and thus life being far worse for the poor. As to Cuba, I assume you are unfamiliar with it's long history of human rights violations? Don't believe me? Here's a link.
Debate Round No. 3


Hakoda forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Mr. Hakoda, are you or have you ever been a part of or affiliated with the communist party?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Con due to the fact that Pro forfeited. Sources Con because they used one. Arguments- Although Con made stronger arguments, under the resolution, the Pro only has to prove that it COULD work, under completely ideal circumstances. This means that it doesn't have to be proven possible to work in the world, but only that it could in ideal circumstances. An abusive resolution? Probably. But Con accepted the debate as it was.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I personally think that Pro never fulfilled the BoP. Whilst Pro did mitigate Con's example by suggesting that not all Communism would be like that, there was no offensive impact in Pro's case other than 'if human nature changed, then communism might be okay'. Pro never showed why or how this would eventuate. As a result, I'm not even sure if it can work at all, and therefore Pro has not quite met his/her BoP. Conduct points go to Con for Pro's round forfeit.