The Instigator
dr.jimmythefish
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Communism is a inherently flawed idea

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/24/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 98419
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

dr.jimmythefish

Con

The quote on your profile is rather prefect for explaining my point "That riffle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or laborers cottage is a symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell. I am simply proposing that the proletariat needs to use that rifle.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

To steal other peoples stuff I believe that they should use that riffle to protect their Life, Liberty, and Property.
Debate Round No. 1
dr.jimmythefish

Con

You're not making sense, how can one live dependently and be free? To be free one must control you're own means thus capitalism is unfree as it places large amounts of money and power in a single individual.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Capitalism doesn't place large amounts of money and power in a single individual, many individuals are enabled to create more wealth because capitalism allows them to kept what they earn.

In capitalism, if you grow the food than I am dependant on you for God, this remains a fact regardless, under communism, you would still be dependant on farms or you die. The difference is that you will not be able to live off these farms under communism as production will plummet due to collectivization.
Debate Round No. 2
dr.jimmythefish

Con

Consolidating farm land is not a inherently part of Communism. But if the government gathered and distributed food fairly then the chance of death by poverty is lessened, as capitalist states ask for money for the privilege of life. Capital will be consolo, by ambitious individuals leading to class conflicts such as the valley of fear, where the "union" was a bunch of assassins and rich hired personal armies to fight them.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

That's why collectivising farms is always followed by famine correct?

A perfect example of this is the Jamestown and Plymouth colonies, where everything that people produced would be "redistributed" equally.

Except 80% of all colonists starved to death because no one was working, and everyone was eating.

The reason why my opponent's theory is false is because there is no infinite supply of food that we can just redistribute, it needs to be produced, someone needs to produce it, so enable for people to live, people must work. This is an inherit fact of life.

Production should be maximized to minimise starvation and create a higher quality of living, and the best way to do this is to allow everyone to keep what they produce, thus they would have an incentive to produce more. As can be seen, no one is starving or going without in capitalist nations.
On the other hand, in nations like North Korea or Maoist China have had a constant issue of famine and starvation.
Debate Round No. 3
dr.jimmythefish

Con

I am simply stating that even though your dad was a billionaire, and you bought all land on earth people can still eat. Are you reading? Collective farms are not a inherently part of Communism. Read the arguments please.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Yes, collective farms are an inherwit part of Communism, see the Communist manifesto Chapter 1 where Karl Marx himself says that under communism farms and factories should be collectivised.
If my dad were a billionaire, he still couldn't buy all the land in the world unless everyone else sold it to him, voluntarily. But people would still eat.
Debate Round No. 4
dr.jimmythefish

Con

A single text cannot limit a moral system. Otherwise capitalism would be unable to stop slavery and dealings in narcotics. We can learn from mistakes we are human. Ideology can evolve capitalism has grown some moral boundaries. Communism as I follow and interpret it is simply government control over every aspect of the economy. Is this to much to ask? Communism while being associated with Stalin is not by definition a dictatorship. I like democracy, it allows me to morally validate my opinions, and stagnate all change.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Yes, that is too much to ask, the govt is a rampaging tyrannosaurus, the state is the most dngerous organization in human history. During the 20th Cenury Governments have killed over 262 million, whilst individuals have killed only 8 million. Which one is more responsible? Which one should the economy be left in charge of? Clearly this is individuals, not the state.
http://reason.com...
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Humans are perfect as humans as are all other species. No "flaws" by definition. Any idea about life is flawed by definition.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
A good debate topic, but two bad debaters.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
Ye, but 1,000 is still pretty low.
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 1 year ago
dr.jimmythefish
Do you appreciate the doubling of the character limit?
No votes have been placed for this debate.