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

Communism is a viable form of government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 11/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 65787
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Many people associate communism with tyrants like Stalin and Lenin. however the system in itself cannot be made out to be bad.

it strives for equality for all regardless of your employment. Everyone is given a job. The reason why communist countries look poor is because everyone is equal. It shows how poor many countries actually are as the rich cant hide away the poor as there is no rich and poor.

Tyrants such as Stalin and Lenin should not be seen as interlinked with the system. They are tyrants in there own. if the corruption in communist systems could be stopped it would be one of the most advanced forms of government


Thank you for this debate. I will be arguing on the side of Con, or that communism should not be a viable form of government.

Communism is, by definition, "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." In other words, everything is shared equally amongst all people.

At first, it seems like a good practice to have. Nobody loses anything! However, nobody really "gains" either.
In a communist state, where we each obtain an equal portion of wealth.
One small problem with this: where's the motivation?
The problem with communist countries is exactly the type of government there is: communism. Since everything is shared equally, there is no real "need", for a lack of a better word, to strive to become better or make something that could change the world. After all, we all get the same things anyway. So why try to make something better, when you'll get the same amount of credit as some other slacker?

The reason the United States is the start of many innovations is because the people have the freedom to succeed and fail. If there's no failure, there's no room to succeed. Failure must come first before succeeding. People such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg have all "failed" at some point in their life. And they've become extremely influential in our world today! Without those three people, we would probably be nowhere near where we are today. It's because of their ideas, their aspirations, and the freedom for them to choose, fail, and succeed, that the world is so successful.

Many people in America have started off poor and become great people. Many others were not as fortunate. The reason why America is so great is because the people have that freedom to ascend and rise above the rest, or to fall below them. The people have the ability to do these things and to make great things for our current world.

"But communism has no poverty!"

But most communist countries aren't super rich either. The exception being China, as they make virtually our entire lives.

I await Pro's arguments.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your argument.

My opponent asked the very important question of where the motivation would come from. The motivation comes from the fact that most communists embrace the system and want to see it succeed. They know that by slacking they can bring about its demise. Also everyone has to do a certain amount of work as a requirement for the government provided housing and other ammeneties. The people will still strive for better but just not as individuals but as a team/community. I know this concept is hard to grasp as in western society we are taught its every man for himself but the fact that everyone works together is what makes communism so unique.

I'd also like to reiterate that most counties would look poor if they went communist. This is because there is no longer a class gap.


Thank you Pro for your arguments. I shall now refute.

My opponent offers little evidence to support his claim of communism being a viable form of government.

He states that the motivation comes from most communists wanting the system to "succeed", and that everyone has to do a certain amount of work in order to receive benefits from the government, such as housing.

While the second part of that statement is true, the first is just a blind assumption. Unless opponent provides evidence for this claim, it will not be taken into consideration.

As to the second part of this statement, there is a minimum "quota" citizens have to fulfill before they can receive their needs, as opponent states. After that they are free to slack, and not to try further. Thus, the real "motivation" in a system like this is absent. After they get the first part done, they do not want to do the rest. Why should they? They don't get any more.

As well, I find an analogy about communism to be another great choice for my argument.
Suppose you have two animals. One without wings and one with wings, both the same species, just a different modification.
A country like the U.S. would allow that creature to roam free using the ability it has and use it to the best of its ability.
Communist countries, on the other hand, feel that everything should be "equal" for everyone. Thus they clip that animal's wings, unwilling for it to reach its full potential.

The ones that have a natural ability for a certain task are punished, and the ones that don't face nothing whatsoever. The government is essentially punishing those ahead of others, in the name of "equality". That's an ability wasted that they could have used in the country such as the U.S.!

"I'd also like to reiterate that most counties would look poor if they went communist. This is because there is no longer a class gap."

But those classes would be on the lower-end of things instead of some on the lower, some on the higher. "Middle-class" in the country like the U.S. is considered the average, while communism has its own average as everything is equal. Those averages in communist countries are much lower than those of the U.S.' as all things are distributed equally in communist countries, giving no opportunities for those who want to break free of the shell of poorness.
Thus proving my point once more.

Awaiting opposition's args.
Debate Round No. 2


bossnegotiator forfeited this round.


Opponent ffs. Extend all arguments. Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bossnegotiator 2 years ago
no problem
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Sorry for the late response I had tons to do.
Posted by bossnegotiator 2 years ago
still waiting...
Posted by bossnegotiator 2 years ago
good luck to you too
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Good luck, opponent.
Posted by bossnegotiator 2 years ago
communism is not anarchism in itself , it is the people who run it who cause it to fail
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
communism cannot be organized as a government per se because communism is a form of societal anarchism
Posted by Libertatis 2 years ago
compared to a society that has a limited government and is built around the free market, then its not viable.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture