The Instigator
mmadderom
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chimera
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Communism is an antiquaited, disproven political/economic system both morally and practically.

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...
Chimera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 52428
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

mmadderom

Pro

Since you are hell bent on making your fantasy (Communism - good) reality, I challenge you to debate the subject in FACT and in PRACTICE rather than in your fantasy world.

In every instance where Communism was tried on a large scale it has failed miserably. The ONLY way for it to be successful is with a repressed populace that doesn't question it's 'leaders' and leadership willing to 'off' dissenters. This is why ALL Communist countries control and restrict access to free speech.

Since Communism is SUPPOSED to benefit the people, indeed it's supposed to ONLY benefit the people, how do you explain EVERY instance of mass implementation?

USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea.

ALL countries that did or do seriously REPRESS their people. Nobody in China or NK is going to see this debate. Why? Because their Governments do NOT want them to know what is going in in free countries. Communism ONLY works if the people aren't aware of FREE systems.

Why Communism doesn't work

- It goes against human nature.

Whether you admit it or not, your main objective is YOU. Your secondary objective is your family. Your third objective is your friends. Finally, your last objective is people you don't know. It's fact and it's universal no matter what you believe politically or philosophically.

This being FACT, Communism can NOT work among families. No matter how much you'd like it to be the case, I will NEVER care as much about my neighbors struggles as my own. I will NEVER be as concerned with societies problems the same as I do my own household. That is simply human nature.

While there are communal systems that work/have worked quite well, they don't go anywhere near the level of Communism. I'm talking about Quakers, Mormons, Mennonites, etc. where religion is the driving force in their belief system. In those instances it ONLY works because it's 100% voluntary and there is a driving force beyond an economic ideology at work.

Communism is much more political by design. It REQUIRES a central Government to enforce the system. There is no way around that simple truth. Where successful communal systems are 100% voluntary, Communism mandates participation. It is also secretive by nature. It has to be. Once the populace recognizes there is a better system out there, they would revolt. It is only the strong arm of a repressive Government that can keep the natives in check.

You envision a world where everyone just follows YOUR ideology of the individual accepting working solely for the benefit of the whole. The problem is that kind of thinking results in an overall underachieving public without fail. People who achieve great things have personal motivations. They want money, recognition, power, etc. That their accomplishments might benefit the whole of humanity is a secondary benefit, not a driving force. No Doctor went through 15 years of schooling, apprenticeship, 15 hour days, etc. in order to benefit YOUR family. If you relegate his lifestyle to the same as a garbage collector, you won't have many doctors.

You advocate a 'money-less' system. Nothing could possibly be more reclusive in an age where world trade is NECESSARY to the survival of any nation. Where exactly would this work? There is only ONE nation on earth capable of sustaining itself absent help from the outside world...that would be the USA, and only if they started drilling oil at a much higher pace. ALL other nations RELY on other nations for supply their needs. With no monetary system, YOUR nation wouldn't stand a chance. You MUST be able to purchase food, energy, technology, etc. from other nations. That isn't possible without a GDP based economy.

You also advocate a leaderless system. That would be laughable if you weren't so serious about it. No central planning. No central Government. You advocate pure chaos. Under such an absurd system, everyone would be looking out for themselves in a 'system' where they are SUPPOSED to be looking out for each other. ALL humans are FAR more concerned with their own well being than they are society as a whole. Don't believe me? Who do you love most in the world? If you were given the choice of that person being brutally raped and murdered or a small town of people you don't know being hit by a tornado, which would you choose? 99.99% would root for a tornado. "It takes a village" might sound good, but ultimately we take care of our own FIRST. It's human nature.

In your fantasy world, everyone is 'equal'. The problem with that is twofold.

1) Everyone doesn't DESERVE to be 'equal'.

2) 'Equal' only applies to what you get, not what you contribute.

Why should a lazy non-producer receive 'equal' sustenance to a hard worker? Why should someone spend the hours and effort going to school to become a Doctor or engineer just so they can graduate to the same lifestyle as the guy who picks up his/her trash?

With Communism there is no recognition of your achievements. Just a constant reminder that you are not an individual...You are just another face in the crowd no matter what you accomplish...or don't. That's great for the laziest among us. It breaks the spirit of the ambitious...you know, the very people who are actually making a POSITIVE contribution to society...

USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea.

Please point to the favorable nation to be a citizen of in that group. Please point to ANY Communist nation past or present that you would want to raise a family in.

If your objective is to help your fellow man, you can certainly do so without Government mandate.

You advocate a 'classless' system. Again, if I can't 'get ahead' then why on earth would I use my abilities and work incredibly hare to benefit someone else who does not? I don't care if your net worth is $5 or $5million, It's YOURS and allows you to make decision to benefit your family. A Communist system means you are the mercy of the system not only in pay but in long term planning. ANY time Government is involved in your life, it's a BAD thing.

"If you want to see the Sahara desert run out of sand, put it in the charge of the Federal Government:

--Ronald Reagan.
Chimera

Con

I accept this challenge. Thank you for debating me.

To begin, I will define the term 'communism'[1]:

communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

However, to show the distinct differences between state communism and stateless communism, I will refer to them as 'communism' and 'Communism'. This difference being that:

'communism' is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, where private property(with the exclusion of personal property) and the wage system are abolished. For example:

I have two cows, my neighbors help me take care of them, and we all share the milk produced.

'Communism' is the institution of a socialist state, that is meant to wither away into a 'communist' society, as stated by Engels[2]. This state would enfore policies meant to have the people adjust to socialism and eventually communism, the problem with this is that these centralized authorities will keep retaining their power, and force the people to seek out a new system, instead of having them adjust to socialism. For example:

I have two cows, I take care of them and milk them, then the government comes and takes all the milk.

Therefore, since I advocate for 'communism' and I am a 'communist', you cannot generalize me and name me as being a 'Communist', and that I support 'Communism'.

Therefore, this argument:

'In every instance where Communism was tried on a large scale it has failed miserably. The ONLY way for it to be successful is with a repressed populace that doesn't question it's 'leaders' and leadership willing to 'off' dissenters. This is why ALL Communist countries control and restrict access to free speech.

Since Communism is SUPPOSED to benefit the people, indeed it's supposed to ONLY benefit the people, how do you explain EVERY instance of mass implementation?

USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea.

ALL countries that did or do seriously REPRESS their people. Nobody in China or NK is going to see this debate. Why? Because their Governments do NOT want them to know what is going in in free countries. Communism ONLY works if the people aren't aware of FREE systems.'

and this argument:

'Communism is much more political by design. It REQUIRES a central Government to enforce the system. There is no way around that simple truth. Where successful communal systems are 100% voluntary, Communism mandates participation. It is also secretive by nature. It has to be. Once the populace recognizes there is a better system out there, they would revolt. It is only the strong arm of a repressive Government that can keep the natives in check.'

Are null and void if we are speaking of 'communism'.

However, if we are speaking of 'Communism', then this entire debate is null, and I win. Due to you incorrectly assuming that I am a 'Communist', and since you are attempting to move both 'communism' and 'Communism' into the same camp of ideology.

Now, let us continue with the rest of your argument.

'- It goes against human nature.

Whether you admit it or not, your main objective is YOU. Your secondary objective is your family. Your third objective is your friends. Finally, your last objective is people you don't know. It's fact and it's universal no matter what you believe politically or philosophically.

This being FACT, Communism can NOT work among families. No matter how much you'd like it to be the case, I will NEVER care as much about my neighbors struggles as my own. I will NEVER be as concerned with societies problems the same as I do my own household. That is simply human nature.'

The logical flaw with this argument, is that human nature itself is not a fixed thing. You assume that all people wish to be competitive, and would not cooperate with one another. This is not necessarily true.

Human nature is something that bends and adapts to the economic system that it habitates in. It is by no means fixed. People for many years in Europe believed that the system of divine right and kingship would last for the rest of time, that is, until modern republicanism became the staple for revolutionary movements.

Also, by benefiting society, you are simultaneously benefiting yourself, since the idea of both the individual and the collective are tied, yet illusionary, but, I digress.

Simply because you believe in your own self-interest, and that it is a part of your nature, does not mean that humans tens, hundreds, or thousands of years from now will believe that.

'You advocate a 'money-less' system. Nothing could possibly be more reclusive in an age where world trade is NECESSARY to the survival of any nation. Where exactly would this work? There is only ONE nation on earth capable of sustaining itself absent help from the outside world...that would be the USA, and only if they started drilling oil at a much higher pace. ALL other nations RELY on other nations for supply their needs. With no monetary system, YOUR nation wouldn't stand a chance. You MUST be able to purchase food, energy, technology, etc. from other nations. That isn't possible without a GDP based economy'

This is where you make another assumption, you assume that 'communism' is about creating a nation, when the system I advocate for is stateless in design. 'communism' itself is meant to be on a global scale, when humans as a whole have built themselves a global ethnic backbone that they can use to become one human species.

Inventions like the Internet, and the cell phone have brought humanity closer together, and as the bond between humans becomes closer, the idea of universal brotherhood becomes possible.

'You also advocate a leaderless system. That would be laughable if you weren't so serious about it. No central planning. No central Government. You advocate pure chaos. Under such an absurd system, everyone would be looking out for themselves in a 'system' where they are SUPPOSED to be looking out for each other. ALL humans are FAR more concerned with their own well being than they are society as a whole. Don't believe me? Who do you love most in the world? If you were given the choice of that person being brutally raped and murdered or a small town of people you don't know being hit by a tornado, which would you choose? 99.99% would root for a tornado. "It takes a village" might sound good, but ultimately we take care of our own FIRST. It's human nature.'

Now, since you have stated this, you have contradicted yourself. A few paragraphs ago you were stating about how 'communism' = 'Communism', yet now you acknowledge my belief in the lack of a state.

Anarchism itself is not chaotic if applied alongside communism. You yourself said:

'While there are communal systems that work/have worked quite well, they don't go anywhere near the level of Communism. I'm talking about Quakers, Mormons, Mennonites, etc. where religion is the driving force in their belief system. In those instances it ONLY works because it's 100% voluntary and there is a driving force beyond an economic ideology at work.'

These societies themselves were anarchistic, and communal. They were not chaotic, and they didn't have leaders.

As I have stated before, human nature changes along with the system within which we live. It is not a static entity.

'Everyone doesn't DESERVE to be 'equal'. '

If we are not equal, how can we call ourselves free? Thet fact of the matter is, without equality, only the more privileged are freed. Everyone else is a slave to the system.

I wish I could explain more, however I am running out of characters. I will counter the rest of your argument in the next round.

Sources:

1- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

2- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
mmadderom

Pro

"communism: A theoretical economic system ..."

"'communism' is a stateless, classless, moneyless..."

You just completed contradicted your own ideals and we've barely gotten started. There is no economic system without a currency. As you advocate some sort of twisted 'moneyless' system to use your word, then your version of Communism by default is NOT an economic system. There can be no economy without some sort of currency. Even in a simplistic barter system there is currency, or value, in goods traded for other goods. You eliminate all of that, hence no economy at all.

"I have two cows, my neighbors help me take care of them, and we all share the milk produced."

Another contradiction. If there is no currency with which to buy the cows then nobody owns them. By default the cows are either communally 'owned' or they are 'free'. Either way, you don't own them. See, even little nuances like this make it clear you haven't thought this out very well.

"Therefore, since I advocate for 'communism' and I am a 'communist', you cannot generalize me and name me as being a 'Communist', and that I support 'Communism'."

Communism is an ideology. You support said ideology. That makes you a Communist. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the implementation necessary for it to work. It also doesn't matter that it is impossible to implement your version of it. If you believe in the ideology then you are, indeed, a Communist. I am a capitalist. I don't necessary agree with every misuse and abuse of the system, but I don't get to invent a purer version of it in my own mind and claim THAT is what I am. Fact is we live in the real world, not your fantasy island. In the real world, with real people, Communism does not work. Your tweaks to the theory only serve to make it an even more deeply flawed system impossible to implement.

"The logical flaw with this argument, is that human nature itself is not a fixed thing. "

Of course not. Which is why your system is doomed to failure.

"You assume that all people wish to be competitive, and would not cooperate with one another. This is not necessarily true."

I assume no such thing. In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite. ALL people don't wish anything. There are plenty of folks who have no desire to compete OR cooperate. They simply want to receive because they exist. Those are the people who drag down any socialist society, and they are VERY prevalent in any socialist society. Your version of Communism would be even worse as there is no leadership to enforce everyone pulling their weight and no monetary motivation to do it willfully.

"Human nature is something that bends and adapts to the economic system that it habitates in."

Untrue. Humans have an incredible ability to adapt to most situations, but it is certainly not human nature to do so. When you push people beyond their WILLINGNESS to adapt, they push back, hard. THAT is human nature. That is why the Soviet Union fell. It is why the United States became the most successful country the world has ever known. They pushed back once Britain pushed them beyond their willingness to accept the economic system imposed.

It is YOU who is making the fatally flawed assumption that somehow the entire world would willingly drop their economic system and fall into what in most cases is an inferior system from a personal standpoint. You also assume they would do so without guidance or enforcement. That it would somehow naturally occur and be accepted.

"People for many years in Europe believed that the system of divine right and kingship would last for the rest of time"

Right. Until the people figured out there was a better way that benefited THEM, not just the royals. Ditto Communism.

"Also, by benefiting society, you are simultaneously benefiting yourself"

Only when done in a planned and structured way or done of your own free will. Something that could not exist in your version of Communism.

"'communism' itself is meant to be on a global scale, when humans as a whole have built themselves a global ethnic backbone that they can use to become one human species."

ANY system that purports to be the 'right' system for all of humanity is absurd on its face. Just as capitalism would not be acceptable in many cultures around the world for various reasons, so too would communism be immediately rejected, particularly in western countries that value freedom and independence. You are NOT free in any Communist system. You are almost completely reliant on others for most things. That is not freedom.

Hence, yet again, you are proposing something that could absolutely never happen. If it's not feasible, then the claim that it 'would work' automatically fails. It CAN'T work if it can't be implemented.

We also still have this leaderless issue...you are working on the entirely fanciful assumption that 7 billion+ people will just magically follow your ideology, without leadership. As if communism is the 'natural' way to run society. If there are no leaders, that means there is no structure, no law enforcement...indeed no laws. There could be no innovation, medical practice would be set back a century. No research and development. No new products. Heck, no continuance of current products that aren't deemed necessities. After all, you can't have an XBox if you have no money to buy one. Or is Microsoft somehow going to exist solely to give out free XBoxes to everyone?

I don't have near enough characters to continue down the list of things that could not exist in a leaderless, moneyless system or the adverse consequences of such. Essentially, anything that isn't necessary would cease to exist. There would be no reason to continue producing consumer products and no motivation to advance science.

"Now, since you have stated this, you have contradicted yourself. A few paragraphs ago you were stating about how 'communism' = 'Communism', yet now you acknowledge my belief in the lack of a state."

No contradiction whatsoever. Your belief and what Communism actually is are two different things. Your version doesn't exist, has never existed, and couldn't possibly exist going forward hence your version means nothing to this debate. This debate is about PRACTICE, not fantasy, as I clearly stated in the 1st paragraph of the challenging argument.

"These societies themselves were anarchistic, and communal. They were not chaotic, and they didn't have leaders."

Quakers, Mormons, Mennonites, were/are leaderless? That's ridiculous. Of course they have leaders. The elders of the church lead the commune. Without leadership there is no guidance, no prioritization, no organization. All of these groups have all of the above in a very disciplined way precisely because they have STRONG leadership. That is why there is no chaos. They are also not the least bit anarchistic, you're simply making things up to support your weak position. All of those groups are fully law abiding and participate in their countries economic system. They are not and do not attempt to be leaderless, moneyless systems. Far from it.

"If we are not equal, how can we call ourselves free?"

That makes no sense at all. We are all equal from the get go. However, our actions determine if we continue to be equal on all levels. If you commit a crime you go to prison and are no long free. Are you advocating doing away with laws, prisons, etc.? Well, by default I guess you are because without leaders there can be no law, only chaos.

There is not equality (or freedom) in even your pie in the sky theory. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that people will not just act like drones, each contributing to the communal system equally. We know some will refuse to work, but still reap the benefits. That is not equality. We know that others will work harder than most but receive the same as the free-loader. That is not equality. All that does is harbor resentment until you reach the point that NOBODY works, only takes. System Collapses
Chimera

Con

'"communism: A theoretical economic system ..."

"'communism' is a stateless, classless, moneyless..."

You just completed contradicted your own ideals and we've barely gotten started. There is no economic system without a currency. As you advocate some sort of twisted 'moneyless' system to use your word, then your version of Communism by default is NOT an economic system. There can be no economy without some sort of currency. Even in a simplistic barter system there is currency, or value, in goods traded for other goods. You eliminate all of that, hence no economy at all.'

So, what you're saying is, there is no such thing as an economic system that doesn't use money?

I disagree, there are many systems of socio-economics, such as the Resource Based Economy[1], that don't have a monetary system. The idea of a gift economy[2], with reliance on a system of mutal aid[3], is a major tenent in 'communism'.

What you fail to realize is that there has never been a 100% barter economy in the entire history of mankind, it has always been blended with a gift economy of some sort.

'"I have two cows, my neighbors help me take care of them, and we all share the milk produced."

Another contradiction. If there is no currency with which to buy the cows then nobody owns them. By default the cows are either communally 'owned' or they are 'free'. Either way, you don't own them. See, even little nuances like this make it clear you haven't thought this out very well.'

The problem with this argument is that you are assuming that for one to own something, that it must first be bought. Let me use this as an example, you own your body correct? However, did you have to buy your body to own it in the first place? No, you have a natural right to it.

In 'communism', all things that are producers, such as factories, farms, and yes, even cows, are all owned by those who put work into those producers. They have a natural right to collectively distribute to themselves what is produced from these producers.

'"Therefore, since I advocate for 'communism' and I am a 'communist', you cannot generalize me and name me as being a 'Communist', and that I support 'Communism'."

Communism is an ideology. You support said ideology. That makes you a Communist. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the implementation necessary for it to work. It also doesn't matter that it is impossible to implement your version of it. If you believe in the ideology then you are, indeed, a Communist. I am a capitalist. I don't necessary agree with every misuse and abuse of the system, but I don't get to invent a purer version of it in my own mind and claim THAT is what I am. Fact is we live in the real world, not your fantasy island. In the real world, with real people, Communism does not work. Your tweaks to the theory only serve to make it an even more deeply flawed system impossible to implement.'

If you don't recognize the difference that I stated between 'communism' and 'Communism', and also ignore the definition that I provided for such, then I win this debate since you assumed I was a 'Communist', and not a 'communist'.

Thus, if you are arguing for 'Communism', then you are arguing about the wrong topic, and your argument becomes null and void. That was the point i was trying to make if you didn't understand.

You also state that the system is impossible to implement, your evidence for such? No system is necessarily impossible to implement. All you are saying in this argument is that 'Communism' (Note that you are using the term 'Communism' which is not the system I am advocating for in this debate.) doesn't work, and you provide absolutely zero evidence.

' "The logical flaw with this argument, is that human nature itself is not a fixed thing. "

Of course not. Which is why your system is doomed to failure.'

You say that it is doomed to failure, then you don't provide any other basis to elaborate this cryptic sentence. Here, yet again, you provide no evidence.

'"Human nature is something that bends and adapts to the economic system that it habitates in."

Untrue. Humans have an incredible ability to adapt to most situations, but it is certainly not human nature to do so. When you push people beyond their WILLINGNESS to adapt, they push back, hard. THAT is human nature. That is why the Soviet Union fell. It is why the United States became the most successful country the world has ever known. They pushed back once Britain pushed them beyond their willingness to accept the economic system imposed.'

So, what you are saying is, 'communism' would push people 'beyond their willingness to adapt'?

I don't see how that would be possible, since there is no government or leader pushing them to adapt, they would do so of their own free will.

My point here in the quote above, was that since capitalism influenced people like Marx, that we can use this idea to show that humans are eventually going to want a different system of socio-economics to habitate in. 'communism' itself is meant to be a system of many that could replace capitalism after it eventually fails, since it will like all systems, to provide a means of survival and welfare for the citizens of the Earth.

'We also still have this leaderless issue...you are working on the entirely fanciful assumption that 7 billion+ people will just magically follow your ideology, without leadership. As if communism is the 'natural' way to run society. If there are no leaders, that means there is no structure, no law enforcement...indeed no laws. There could be no innovation, medical practice would be set back a century. No research and development. No new products. Heck, no continuance of current products that aren't deemed necessities. After all, you can't have an XBox if you have no money to buy one. Or is Microsoft somehow going to exist solely to give out free XBoxes to everyone?'

I am by no means assuming that people will instantaneously follow my ideology, all I am saying is, 'communism' is a system that would be an alternative to capitalism after it collapses. Since we are starting to build a more global society with things like the internet and the cell phone, it isn't unlikely that we will eventually develop a more similar thinking global society.

Also, Microsoft wouldn't exist in a 'communist' society, it's factories would be owned by the workers. Who would then pool those Xboxes produced to a communal warehouse, then distribute what is needed to themselves. However, it would be impractical to produce Xboxes of all things that could be produced using a factory, but, if Xboxes are wanted, and needs are satisfied, then they would be produced.

This half answers the next quote.

'There would be no reason to continue producing consumer products and no motivation to advance science'

I disagree, most people innovate for science not out material want, but simply because they are interested by their field, and wish to make a mark in it. If one would want to innovate in a 'communist' society, they wouldn't need an understanding of economics to distribute their invention. Things like medicinal cures would still be needed out of a need for survival, and therefore would be produced.

'No contradiction whatsoever. Your belief and what Communism actually is are two different things. Your version doesn't exist, has never existed, and couldn't possibly exist going forward hence your version means nothing to this debate. This debate is about PRACTICE, not fantasy, as I clearly stated in the 1st paragraph of the challenging argument.'

I will make sure to include a source or two for 'communism' (anarcho-communism)[4], at the bottom of the page. If this debate is about practice, then why do you not show evidence for your claims? I will resume the rest of this argument in the next round.

Sources:

1- http://www.thevenusproject.com...

2- http://en.wikipedia.org...

3- http://en.wikipedia.org...(organization_theory)

4- http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 2
mmadderom

Pro

" there are many systems of socio-economics, such as the Resource Based Economy[1], that don't have a monetary system. The idea of a gift economy[2], with reliance on a system of mutal aid[3], is a major tenent in 'communism'."

Theories, not practice. And certainly not on the global scale you advocate.

"What you fail to realize is that there has never been a 100% barter economy in the entire history of mankind, it has always been blended with a gift economy of some sort."

I don't fail to understand anything. What you fail to understand is there IS NO economy without some form of currency. Production MUST be measured and valued in order to create an economy.

"Let me use this as an example, you own your body correct? "

No. My body is not a commodity. There are no 'rights to ownership' of human beings.

"In 'communism', all things that are producers, such as factories, farms, and yes, even cows, are all owned by those who put work into those producers. "

Factories don't build themselves. Farms aren't run by a single individual and Cows don't just naturally become property. The factory must be built, the land worked, and the cow obtained. Without a currency none of this is possible. No 'owner' can build the factory on his own or work the farm alone. In order to breed cows you must first obtain them. If there is no monetary system, how on earth am I supposed to build a factory or acquire cows in order to obtain what is produced? What you are proposing is the ultimate totalitarian society. What you own is yours to distribute, hence only those who ALREADY have make all the decisions. Those who don't have, ALSO don't have a means of acquiring, hence are doomed to eternity to be at the mercy of the have's.

Yes, I realize you skip all the initial problems with your theory and jump to advocating that the builders of the factory are the 'owners' and I assume the workers of the factory also 'own' a stake as well. But distribution from the factories output has to be determined somehow and without leadership to determine that, there can be no distribution. Further, the output from a shoe factory is completely worthless if I need food and shelter. Without a means to convert that output to a usable currency to fill my needs my 'ownership' stake is essentially worthless. I can't trade a pair of shoes (or ten thousand pairs) for a house. The house builder simply won't need that many shoes. I can't sell the shoes as there is no currency in your fantasy land. So in order to obtain a house, I must first trade shoes for all the things the house builder wants in exchange. An impossible task. Essentially my shoes are worthless to me.

"If you don't recognize the difference that I stated between 'communism' and 'Communism', and also ignore the definition that I provided for such, then I win this debate "

In order to 'win' a debate, you have to actually DEBATE the TOPIC at hand. You have done no such thing. You have run around in circles and claimed victory without addressing what the actual debate is about.

Your twisted definition is not applicable to this debate. I means absolutely nothing. You did not start this debate, you accepted it. As such it is incumbent upon you to debate the ACTUAL topic, not try to change the topic to something you'd rather debate.

Please read the title of this debate again:

"Communism is an antiquaited, disproven political/economic system both morally and practically."

It has nothing to do with YOUR fantasy theories that CAN NOT be put into practice, but rather the ACTUAL practice of Communism in reality. Nobody can debate your fantasy because it is impossible to implement.

"Thus, if you are arguing for 'Communism', then you are arguing about the wrong topic"

You seem VERY confused. This isn't YOUR topic, it's mine. It is YOU who is arguing the wrong topic in an attempt to avoid arguing the ACTUAL debate topic. In some bizzare attempt to avoid arguing what you were challenged to, you instead claim that I am 'arguing the wrong topic' which is completely impossible since it's MY topic.

Let me say this again, we aren't debating the topic YOU chose in your other debate, which is nothing but a distorted view of what you think Communism should be, not what it is in actual practice. We are arguing the topic *I* set forth in the challenge. You don't get to change the topic to suit your whims simply because you can't defend Communism as a political/economic system IN PRACTICE.

"You also state that the system is impossible to implement, your evidence for such?"

Common sense. You advocate a worldwide system with no Governments and no currency. OF COURSE that is impossible to implement. It would involve not only 7 billion people collectively agreeing to abandon their current system and jump blindly and leaderless, into a fantasy theory with no guidance what so ever but it would REQUIRE political, business, and religious leaders around the world abandoning their power, influence, and wealth simultaneously. Not even the most active imagination can believe any of that being realistic.

"I don't see how that would be possible, since there is no government or leader pushing them to adapt, they would do so of their own free will. "

7 billion people of all classes and statures collectively adapting to something, anything, of 'their own free will' without so much as leaders to move them in that direction? You can't really expect anyone to read your arguments and take them seriously, can you?

"since capitalism influenced people like Marx, that we can use this idea to show that humans are eventually going to want a different system of socio-economics to habitate in."

No large group of people are going to agree what this 'different' system should be and for absolute certain the entire world population is not going to agree on a philosophy most wouldn't understand, would be a step down for the majority, AND do so without leaders or currency. Just because YOU think a system is right for everyone, doesn't mean the entire world population believes that, as would be required.

"all I am saying is, 'communism' is a system that would be an alternative to capitalism after it collapses."

Capitalism isn't about to 'collapse'. It undergoes change often, but it can't collapse. There are shades of capitalism in EVERY economic system and Capitalism basic tenant, supply and demand, dictates EVERY economic system whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Without competition and Government regulation there is no quality control. Without quality there is no demand. Without demand, you are spending valuable man hours to produce nothing of value. The old Soviet Union propped up factories that were producing inferior products with no demand because they didn't know what else to do with the labor. That created a tremendous amount of waste and helped lead to the fall of the system. With no Government to prop it up, the vast majority of factories and producers would be destined to failure.

"Also, Microsoft wouldn't exist in a 'communist' society, it's factories would be owned by the workers. "

Here in lies the problem. The factories only produce what Microsoft creates, Without Microsofts innovation, research and development, marketing, etc. there is no NEED for the factories as there will be no products to produce.

"if Xboxes are wanted, and needs are satisfied, then they would be produced. "

No they wouldn't, because they wouldn't be invented in the first place...ditto ALL Technology. And medicine.

"(Note that you are using the term 'Communism' which is not the system I am advocating for in this debate.) "

Then you have one more argument to argue the actual debate topic. Again, YOU don't get to determine the parameters of what is being debated. That was done in the challenge argument. You accepted the challenge and decided to debate something entirely different. By default your arguments are non-sensical to the ACTUAL debate that you accepted.
Chimera

Con

Round two:

'"People for many years in Europe believed that the system of divine right and kingship would last for the rest of time"

Right. Until the people figured out there was a better way that benefited THEM, not just the royals. Ditto Communism.'

First you say that 'communism', if leaderless, would be chaotic and wouldn't work. Then you make the claim that 'communism' would have leaders and they would be oppressive.

You are clearly redefining the term 'communism', after I have already defined both 'communism' and 'Communism', and attempting to contort the argument so that it is in your favor.

Also, 'communism' is a system that is defined to benefit all people, and was created out of a reaction against industrial capitalism, which at the time only benefited the bourgeoisie (the rising capitalist class).

Round 3:

'Theories, not practice. And certainly not on the global scale you advocate.'

The gift economy is far older than the barter economy, and was used by hunter-gatherers with relative success in pre-neolithic times[1].

Mutual Aid is a system that has been observed amongst hundreds of animal species[2&3], inculding humans, and help keep said species alive.

The Resource Based Economy was used far before the Monetary Based Economy, and was also used by Neolithic tribes.

Also, just by saying something is a theory doesn't mean it won't work. Gravity, Quantum Physics, Evolution, all are 'theories', but a 'theory' is something that has a huge basis of logic behind it, and 'communism' is no different.

'"If you don't recognize the difference that I stated between 'communism' and 'Communism', and also ignore the definition that I provided for such, then I win this debate "

In order to 'win' a debate, you have to actually DEBATE the TOPIC at hand. You have done no such thing. You have run around in circles and claimed victory without addressing what the actual debate is about'

I am not 'claiming victory' in any sense, I am informing you that you are not debating about the topic as I have defined. You did not define the terms 'communism' or 'Communism' in your beginning argument, so I defined it and sourced that definition.

However, this entire debate you have been redefining and manipulating the topical term to use to your advantage. I don't think you understand. You are the one making a claim that, and I quote 'Communism is an antiquaited, disproven, political/economic system both morally and practically'.

You have yet to prove such, I have provided counter-arguments to your claims, claims which are themselves not grounded with any sources, and you then say that I am not debataing the topic that you wanted to debate? You didn't even define the topical term in the opening argument.

I have provided sources, you have none. I have provided sites showing that my form of 'communism' exists, and is not 'distorted'.

"since capitalism influenced people like Marx, that we can use this idea to show that humans are eventually going to want a different system of socio-economics to habitate in."

No large group of people are going to agree what this 'different' system should be and for absolute certain the entire world population is not going to agree on a philosophy most wouldn't understand, would be a step down for the majority, AND do so without leaders or currency. Just because YOU think a system is right for everyone, doesn't mean the entire world population believes that, as would be required.

They seem to have accepted capitalism as a global system, most 'Communist' countries, like China, are only 'Communist' in name, not in practice.

I am not claiming that it is a system right for everyone, I am simply stating that it is an option when the current system of socio-economics that we have, capitalism, collapses. Then it could move in and take it's place.

"all I am saying is, 'communism' is a system that would be an alternative to capitalism after it collapses."

Capitalism isn't about to 'collapse'. It undergoes change often, but it can't collapse. There are shades of capitalism in EVERY economic system and Capitalism basic tenant, supply and demand, dictates EVERY economic system whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

I never said that it is 'about' to collapse. What I said was, 'when' it collapses.

It is naive to think that the current system we have will last forever, 'communism' is simply an option to take the place of said system.

Here in lies the problem. The factories only produce what Microsoft creates, Without Microsofts innovation, research and development, marketing, etc. there is no NEED for the factories as there will be no products to produce.

As I stated, those things would have already been invented, since 'communism' is a post-capitalist system.

Then you have one more argument to argue the actual debate topic. Again, YOU don't get to determine the parameters of what is being debated. That was done in the challenge argument. You accepted the challenge and decided to debate something entirely different. By default your arguments are non-sensical to the ACTUAL debate that you accepted.

As I stated, you set zero parameters. You didn't define the term that is so pivotal in this debate. That being Communism. So, when I defined the term, I set a parameter that was crucial for me to even begin the debate.

So, this entire debate you have been counter-productive towards helping your argument, due to your lack of sources and evidence to back up your claims.

In Conclusion:

Pro has made claims that he has not sourced whatsoever. I have provided counter-arguments with sources to reflect the claims made, when he has set none to give his debate a basis.

Pro has also continuously redefined the terms 'communism' and 'Communism' as being interchangeable, and equal terms, whereas I have shown sources that disprove this.

Pro has not proved that 'communism' (the system I advocate for), is an antiquaited, disproven, political/economic system both morally and practically.

Vote Con

P.S., I apologize for any spelling errors made in my arguments, and for not being able to cover the entirety of Pro's argument, for I was running low on characters.

Sources:

1- http://en.wikipedia.org...

2- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu...

3- http://www.necsi.edu...

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mmadderom 3 years ago
mmadderom
LOL, a 'group of people with an idea'. How about a PERSON with an idea? That's the problem with Communism, everything has to be a 'group'. An individual with an idea has no chance.

An no, innovation isn't 'natural'. Yes it IS motivated by money. Look at any monopoly in history, there is NO innovation. You won't have a new iPhone coming out every 6 months. You won't have computers advancing the way they do now. You will have ZERO improved medicines. The list is endless. And, again, who is going to build the factories? With no profit motive, there is no motivation to produce a new product.

Besides, how would you acquire such products anyhow? With no money changing hands, what would an iPhone factory do for distribution? hundreds of millions of people use those products...what they gonna do? Trade them for banana's and cat litter? The whole idea is insane. You'd be bartering every single product for something else. You'd need a team of negotiators to make a simple transaction. Why on earth would you dump a system that works (money) for one that would be exponentially worse?
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
@mmadderom

People would still be innovating within a 'communist' society, it's what people naturally do. If a group of people had a certain idea for what they wanted to make, then they could get the supplies needed, and mass produce it in a factory. Innovation isn't mostly powered on money incentive. Innovators are just naturally creative and would innovate for the sake of intrinsic incentive.
Posted by mmadderom 3 years ago
mmadderom
"As I stated, those things would have already been invented, since 'communism' is a post-capitalist system."

That's amusing. So we are therefore limited to current technologies forever more. And you believe this is a GOOD thing that the entire world would agree with.

Insane.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
mmadderomChimeraTied
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: Pro did not address the difference between communism and Communism that Con pointed out in his round one (Conduct to Con). Con also had the more convincing and consistent arguments (Arguments to Con). Con use quite a few very sources compared to Pro's no sources (Sources to Con).