Communism is an ineffective system and should be abolished
Debate Rounds (5)
Communism has been proven time and time again to not work. Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China are all perfect examples of this fact.
However, I understand that one could argue that we are creating a false correlation. Based on this I shall propose a number of reasons WHY communism did not work in these nations and never will.
#1. One cannot merely control an economy and hope that said economy will not collapse. Economic growth is based on ambition and free market capitalism, not on government stimulation. An example is present day Japan, a year ago Japan began passing a number of stimulus bills with the hopes that this would pull Japan out of economic recession. The consequence of this fatal decision was that the Yen inflated (which led to a drop of export prices) however, companies did not increase workers salaries. This caused a drop in the HDMI index of the Japanese middle class. The federal reserve has also attempted this fatal technique, resulting in highly similar results.
#2. Any nation which has the ability to put money into the economy also has the ability to pump money out and into their own hands. Authoritarianism is a broken system: the more authoritarian a system is, the more places corruption may occur throughout the structure.
#3. Work incentives. Knowing people who have lived in communist nations I can safely say that in a nation where work incentives are not present, the inevitable result is a lack of commitment to one's work. When Doctors are paid the same salary as janitors the result is ALWAYS that they will work as hard as a janitor.
#4. People are sinners. As sad as it is to admit, nobody is perfect. We all sin. People are not nice, we work because we want money. We work because we have ambition, nobody works because the utterly believe in the common good. If you remove ambition, again, people do not work.
#5. The system changes nothing. People are the problem here, greed is inherent in all people. Capitalism is not what is wrong with capitalism, WE are what's wrong with capitalism. If we change the system, we change NOTHING, if we change the people's beliefs we change EVERYTHING.
Regardless of the fallacious resolution, I will procceed to refute pro's arguments.
Let us establish the definitions of communism and abolished.
Abolished: 'to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void '
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. '
1. You cite no source, but I will cast that aside for now. The practice of stimulus spending is most commonly attributed to socialism; however, stimulus spending is a prevelent method even in capitalist nations. The first argument by pro seems to establish that economic growth is the key to an egalitarian society. This is outright false. This sort of argument was beautifully debunked by Karl Marx.
Before we get into that and the law of value, let's ask ourselves what a society is. A society, according to Merriam-webster is: 'people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values'
The emphasis on the PEOPLE, not the economy. Society functions dependent on itself. Humans maintain it and it maintains humans; if either depdendency were to be interrupted we would be left in a state of absolute chaos.
The primary motivator of human society is profit. The lower class' profit depends on their labour. Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but it has no value itself.
Therefore we must ask ourselves: 'Is a society that values the economy over its people even a society?'
2. That is a complete strawman argument. It is based on a hypothetical of 'systemic authoritarian corruption' which doesn't exist in communism because the market nor the state exist in communism. What you are referring to is socialism, which is a transitional period.
3. That statement is illogical. There can be no communist states as communism demands the abolition of the state as a repressive body. Now let's continue with the argument. There is an incentive; 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'
However much you put into the collective (i.e. a doctor helps people medically) you will receive FROM the collective (i.e. food, housing, clothing...). Again, what you are referring to is socialism. In socialism salaries are on the relative same status, yes; however, the transitional period of socialism is necessary for the implementation of communism and the final liberation of mankind.
4. And why is that, may I ask? Why not attempt to pursue an altruistic worldview? That's what the collective is for. You put into the collective and you receive from the collective.
5. And just how do we change people's beliefs? Capitalism is the issue, worker exploitation is the issue. What's good for the collective is good for us all.
Altruism is achievable. Communism is the perfect system in which equality is created. Our ideologies change with time as does our society; they work off one another. The people impact society and vice versa. This is where dialectical materialism comes in. We change the society and the society changes us. How do we change society? Through violent revolution, through the uprising of the oppressed masses, the downing of the bourgeois.
Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Penguin edition, 1976
Marx, Karl (1875). "Part I". Critique of the Gotha Program.
My opponent has made a false assumption about my position. Pro is certainly not proposing any alternative to communism, he is merely suggesting that it is not an effective system of government. Pro has made it explicit that "I defend one major contention" take note of the word "defend" not "propose" defend. Now, with this in mind, does it not seem illogical that con has openly gone against capitalism?
From this premise that con has already committed a straw-man and has demonstrated his inability to make valid contributions to the debate I will attempt to actually refute con's refutations.
1. Con has tried to explain that economy is actually not important to the functioning of society. However, he also states that "society functions dependent on itself" and that "humans maintain it" he goes on to assert that "if either dependency were to be interrupted we would be left in a state of absolute chaos." I agree completely, which is precisely why I find Con's argument so confusing. Taking into account that money or any other item of trade is necessary to purchase food and that society depends on food I believe that it is absolutely obvious that for people to maintain society they must have money to feed it. Thus, the economy and ergo its economic growth is paramount to the maintenance of the aforementioned society.
Con then goes on to ask the question "Is a society that values the economy over its people even a society?" Pro would sincerely like to know where Con has gotten the idea that valuing one's economy is
i)An obstacle to valuing one's people
ii)A problem in any context.
The economy is FUNDAMENTAL to nations. Is Con proposing that people are somehow not interconnected with the economy? This is clearly false, it is clear to me that to value one's economy IS to value one's people. Is it not valuing one's people to sustain one's economy so that the people may feed themselves????
2) One cannot merely state that "corruption won't exist" in the face of overwhelming evidence which suggests that the Russian, Romanian and Chinese party members lived in greater luxury than their people. Unless of course these nations were "not true communists". Another problem is Con's belief that "the state will not exist" A state is "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation." Whenever this body is not present one will form to occupy the vacuum. To say that it is possible for a state not to exist shows lack of historical knowledge. If Con can give me an example of complete anarchy with no power structures over a specific period of time I will by happy to concede this point.
3)This is again absolutely preposterous. Statehood MUST exist. Nowhere in history has this been demonstrated to be otherwise, it is IMPOSSIBLE for power structures to be removed.
As I have addressed in round one your argument stems from an incorrect assumption popularized by Jean Jacques Rousseau and his book "The good savage" which claims that all evil residing within us is a product of our circumstances. Essentially this is what communism is built around and I will now prove that it is absolutely false. Humans are biological products, we evolve due to natural selection, certain animals kill their young ,we share ancestors with these animals., ergo we are capable of killing our young. We are not good. Taking this into consideration I ask the following: does con believe that a society without a state may exist and survive and prevail in the face of human nature. Does Con believe that new states will not fill the void and that power structures will not be constructed and that societies will distribute goods after the removal of said power structures and said states.
4. Refuted in #3.
5. People ARE the problem. We are sinners, we are not good beings. In authoritarian systems such as the early Islamic Caliphates we observe that mathematics and science flourished. This is not because of the system but because of the citizens. Nations reflect their people and their prosperity or lack of prosperity is reflective of said people. The #1 problem with communism is that it assumes that the system is the problem and that people are all good. THIS IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Communism is the perfect system in a perfect world, however, we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world motivated by greed and ambition!
I'm so sorry, I wish we didn't. I really do. I'm sorry to burst your bubble and to perhaps be the first to tell you this but we do not live in a perfect world. I'm sorry, I really am. D:
I would also like to point out that you cite absolutely no references for any of your arguments.
1. Why would money be required to purchase food? You completely discard my argument of the collective as a unit of redistribution. You receive from the collective what you give to the collective. There is no currency in communism, the are no markets and there is no economy. What you are referring to is socialism, which is a transitional period. Unfortunately for you, this debate's resolution is 'Communism is an ineffective system and should be abolished'
Society is a construct created by us and we are a direct result of it. It functions in a circular cycle.
I never claimed the economy is detrimental, merely the fact that the point of capitalism is putting the economy before the people. The amounts of unemployment in the western capitalist world (the USA) is astoundingly high. It's 12% , compared to the socialist republic of Vietnam's 2%
The people will feed themselves through the collective. I've made this argument tens of times and I would like to see it refuted. As long as it is not, the resolution is discarded.
2. I never said corruption did not exist, I said that pre-supposing that corruption would exist is illogical. I'm not referring to anarchy, I'm referring to a large period of government to eventually destroy the state as a repressive body and hand power over the each individual commune. There have been hundreds of examples in history. Take the Paris commune as an example. It shaped Paris, a formerly backward city, into an expanding metropolis. There was a form of power structure, just as there would be in communism. The power structure came from the democratically elected heads of the communes.
3. Again, I refer to the Paris commune. Such a society has existed; multiple in fact. There is no inherent human nature. We may have animal relatives, but we are not in the same stage of development. As a developed species we have an advanced worldview and mindset. We cannot abandon all hope of altruism simply because other animal species do not understand altruism. Humans ARE shaped by their societal enviroment. This is easy to prove. Why do you think shows such as Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad ect. are so popular? It's because of the culture we live in. Why do you think rape is inherent to commit? Because we live in a rape culture.
4. Still not refuted. You fail to prove how the collective as an administrative unit would fail.
5. This is an absolute appeal to emotion. Communism would work because humans are shaped by their society. If they grew up in a communist society they would be pre-disposed to an altruistic, communist worldview.
Your arguments are weak and the resolution immensely fallacious. I hope I can guide you through the enigma that is DDO.
1) Con has again committed a straw-man argument, what I have expressed EXPLICITLY is that currency (be it sea-shells or documents stating transactions) will always be present and will always be required. Even in barter economies we can observe that commodities such cows or slaves have been used in place of the exchanged material. Con has, yes, suggested a utopia. However, utopic systems may only exist in utopic worlds. Our world is imperfect!
Society is not a construct. Organ life interacts, such is its nature. It benefits us, power structure is inherent in all human beings. If one were to remove said power structure another one would rise to fill the void.
Unemployment is one thing, however, happiness is far more important than wether or not somebody goes to work everyday..The United States is far higher up in the hdmi index than Vietnam(1). Standard of living and quality of life should be valued far higher than unemployment rates.
2) Con has created a contradiction in his argument. Either there is a state, or there is not. Simple. If the government were to hand over its power to communes then the communes would become the state.
Con has made up 100 examples and has not told them. The one example for where statehood has been non-existence is also incorrect. The Paris commune lasted literally a few weeks before it was overrun by the proper French military, to say that the small period of time in which it existed proves that it works shows lack of knowledge relative to the time needed to test a political ideology.
3) Are you saying that bio-polarity, scitzophrenia, a vast array of phobias , theft, down syndrome, developmental disorders ect are all social constructs?
5) People are NOT just shaped by society. And are you seriously saying this? If people were shaped by society people pre-disposed to a communist worldview would lack ambition.
You're clearly grasping, I don't know what to say. Please either forfeit or actually commit to this debate.
1. Your arguments seem to hinge on this tiny little point, unfortunately, its foundations are weak. You cite nothing to back your claims, you simply spew statements about imperfection. I do not propose utopia. Through a long period of a large state everything would be put into the collective and redistributed equally, eventually destroying the state as a repressive body and simply leaving a systematic network of indepdent communes. I do not advocate anarchy, there is a form of a power structure.
Society IS a social construct. Indeed, I do not advocate the removal of power structure. Your completel ignorance of marxist theory is astounding. I advocate a long period of government to eventually create the collective unit and slowly wither away leaving for communes to govern themselves. I propose reading Vladimir Lenin's 'What is to be done'
You seem to be in a constant contradiction. At one point unemployment rate and the economy were necessary for happiness, now happiness is more imporant? Which is it? Are you honestly suggesting that the united states have a higher equality index? That's is preposterous. Vietnam has a GINI rate of 35  compared to the united state's 41!
2. Is this a joke? Have you literally ignored everything I've said thus far? The state should not exist as a repressive body onto itself! The communes are individual governing communities, they have a power structure yet they do not act as a state. The definition of state is: 'a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation. '
The state I refer to is the social construct of the ruling class, the bourgeois. The definition of a commune is: 'a small group of persons living together, sharing possessions, work, income, etc., and often pursuing unconventional lifestyles. '
Again, the state is not abolished, neither is a power structure. The social construct of the state as a repressive body of the bourges is what must be abolished.
Are you really that ignorant? Do you really have no knowledge of history? There have been hundreds of communes. To name but a few: Paris Commune , Free Territory , Shinmin autonomous region (1929"1932), Revolutionary Catalonia, Anarchist Aragon
3. I am not saying that. In fact, I have no idea how this is even relevant...You are aware that mental institutions exist, right? Not to mention, you misspelled half of them.
4. Still not refuted...I await some references and a decent refutation
5. What? That's literally the only response I can give to that statement. How would they lack ambition? Elaborate. You just spewed a declarative statement with no context...
Obvious ad hominem attack. Your arguments are atrocious...
Alexandre Skirda (2004). Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack. AK Press. ISBN 1-902593-68-5.
Adams, Jason (2005-12-26). "Non-Western Anarchisms : Rethinking the Global Context. 2: Asian Anarchism". RAforum.info. Retrieved April 13, 2011.
Kropotkin, Peter (1895), The Commune of Paris
Dolgoff, S. (1974), The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution. In The Spanish Revolution, the Luger P08 was used as a weapon of choice by the Spanish., p. 5, ISBN 978-0-914156-03-1
1) Boom. You've admitted theirs a power structure "there is a form of a power structure" now, power structure implies hierarchy and hierarchy implies that people are "better" than each other. This system that you are proposing is not egalitarian. Now, with this in mind I again point you nations such as the USSR and North Korea (coat of arms of which you now have as your profile picture). If you had done your homework you would know that North Korea has a very wealthy elite and a very poor middle class. This is one of the glaring holes which we can observe in Con's argument. Nations which Con supports are in fact contradicting the ideology that Con stands for.
Look, I understand that communist ideology has been hammered into your brain. However, there is absolutely no need to bring this up the middle of a conversation to do with wether or not society is a social construct. Again, what Con has done is that he has avoided the actual topic and instead disguised his avoidance by writing massive un-related walls of text.
I actually see where Con is coming from here, he believes that I think that there is a difference between the economy and the people just like he does. However, this isn't true. As I've expressed the economy and the people are interdependent and to argue that one of the pair is more important than the other is a straw-man.
Relative to happiness rates we can observe something quite curious. Con has actually straight up lied about one of his sources. As we have observed throughout this debate I have made an effort to not cite sources so as to not get involved in a battle of statistics, however, I have in fact read my opponents sources. The GDMI index states that it's a measure of equality and distribution of wealth, not happiness. This leaves Uruguay and the Ukraine in roughly the same position (if not lower) than Thailand. Additionally the numbers have not been updated recently and may come from biased sources (government propaganda).
2)First of all the source Con has used to define commune is speaking about communities of hippies "unconventional lifestyles" not specifically communist communes. Secondly, if a community is to exist with a power structure in a certain area it will be a state. "Politically unified people occupying a definite territory"
I've just explained why the Paris commune didn't work yet you continue to argue for it. You've also stated "anarchist aragon" anarchy does not imply communes and catalonia which existed in an interim period. Shinmin is a place in china, a highly corrupt communist nation. Honestly, I love Con's examples. THEY ALL FAIL.
3)I'm saying that people aren't born perfect, sorry for the confusion.
5)People work so as to become prosperous, when you eliminate the possibility of becoming prosperous you remove the work. Simple.
Misunderstanding of the meaning of "ad hominem" and tons of lies. I refuse to engage in a battle of statistics. Honestly, I love Con. Con does not know how much entertainment he has provided. Con is hilarious. However, con knows that con is a con-man.
Of course it's not directed at me...sure...
1. This is a straw-man argument. Power structure does not imply hierarchy, not if all members of the commune are part of the power structure. Again, the USSR was not a communist nation and North Korea is not a communist nation. North Korea isn't even socialist, please, do a little research before you spew these non-sensical statements. Yes, I realize that the DPRK has a high sense of hierarchy, yes I realize they have a centralized government, namely the 'supreme leader'. Why do I have the coat of arms of the DPRK as my picture? To show my support for anyone defying imperialism. You cite no evidence, you only provide a citation and you do not link it to anything...Do you think that just randomly adding numbers to the end of arguments validates them?
This is another ad hominem attack. By claiming that the communist ideology has been hammered into my brain and therefore I do not have any reason left you not only prove your incapability but also your hypocrisy.
How is it a straw-man? I never made any such claims, you're twisting my words into your own little perverted mess. I said that placing the needs of the market and the economy before human need is detrimental to society.
What? I lied about my sources? I clearly stated that this is a measure of equality...You complained in your arguments above that income equality is more important than unemployment...as for the human happiness index, Vietnam's is extremely higher
Your ignorance shocks me. I never mentioned Thailand once...Why bring Thailand into this? Another declarative statement: It's all just propaganda, it isn't true. That is an argument from ignorance...You do not know therefore you will assume that it was forged by the government...This is incredibly ignorant of you.
2. China is not a communist country anymore...ever heard of Deng Xiaoping? He privatized most of the formerly state-run enterprises of China...You have no idea what the Shinmin commune was, do you? In the time of Chairman Mao, several communes arose in China, one of them being the Shinmin commune. It was granted complete autonomy by Mao and was allowed to govern itself in true communist fashion. There are no communes nowadays because the so called 'communist nations' are all socialist (or not even that; North Korea is a juche state, which you would have known if you did your research). How many times do I have to explain this: 'There can be no communist nation because communism cannot exist within a nation'
3. Sure they aren't , that's why we have prisons, mental institutions, rehabilitation centers. In communes such institutions would continue to exist, the only difference being the fact that they would be administered and run by the people themselves.
4. Still not refuted...Why not attempt to pursue an altruistic worldview? That's what the collective is for. You put into the collective and you receive from the collective. You completely abadoned your initial argument and attempted to escape from the fact that you have to back your arguments with references and actual facts, not just declarative statements.
5. That doesn't make sense. If people had a communist mindset they wouldn't mind living in the same conditions as everyone else (or at least living slightly better and not exploiting anyone). If you work for the collective, the collective repays you...
I understand ad hominem and you attacked me multiple times. You refuse to engage in a battle of statistics? Why? Citing sources is necessary for the process of debating...
Thank you for calling me a con-man...You're really really mature.
Pro has proven several times that he has no idea what he's talking about, he has twisted my words (or just misunderstood them). I have tried to remain calm and dignified through the process of this debate, but I can't anymore. I have tried to politely befriend pro, I have politely asked him to refrain from using cheap ad hominem attacks...
Before I begin I would like to reference the book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau "le bon sauvage". This book is a great work of fiction, as well as proposing many bright and colourful ideas it also attempts to justify them. However, rousseau's claim is false. The "bon sauvage" proposes that all evil which resides in human beings stems from the evil given to them by society and that if one were to be removed from society they would return to their natural state of rainbows and unicorns. This is WRONG. Biologists will tell you that animals do not obey a moral code and that all morality and goodness apparent in them is an illusion. To say that people are motivated by kindness is simply incorrect. As I've said many animals eat their young so as to feed themselves meaning that they are not motivated by altruism but instead need for safety.
Now, with this premise in mind I would like Con to ask himself wether or not people are motivated by kindness or survival instinct.
If, as I believe, people are motivated by ambition and survival instinct we can then conclude that as hard as communism tries to be egalitarian people will always outperform others, lead others, manipulate others, and make themselves more powerful than others. This circle is inevitable, one cannot merely escape it by changing the way people think because survival instinct is as hard-wired into peoples brains as their ability to eat.
1) Actually yes it does. Power structure does in fact imply hierarchy. In a power structure leadership is necessary. The leader, and their family, will thus become the new elite of the system.In Romania , the USSR , the DPRK , China  and Vietnam  this is observable.
My claim was that society is not a social construct , I backed up this claim by the fact that herds and social order exist in animals as well as humans. The fact that Con was unable to except this and instead "spewed declarative statements" told me that marxist ideology had been hardwired into Cons brain. I wasn't aware that this conclusion showed my "incapability (incapability relative to what?) or hypocrisy (hypocrisy relative to what?).
My claim is that the people and the economy are interconnected and that to put either above the other is wrong. Con has clearly shown that he believes that the economy and the people are mutually exclusive when he declared that I was putting the "economy before the human". I wasn't aware that Pro is twisting Cons words.
Perhaps my wording was not perfect, Con has not lied about his sources but he has referenced equality when the conversation is about happiness. I believed that Con was lying because I did not fully read what he had said. I apologize to Con for this mistake.
Con has referenced an article by the "Daily Mail" (Are we sure this is a reliable source???" which states that Vietnam is "happier" than most of Europe. According to this very same article "Western Sahara" (a country torn by civil war) is happier than France. The HDI index states that the US is 5th. 
When referencing Con's previous source I argued that many countries such as the Ukraine and Thailand which have higher equality rates than the first world are not necessarily happier than the first world but merely have better distribution of wealth.
2) Is Con aware that in the time of "Chairman Mao" genocide was committed in China? Pro understands that communist nations cannot exist but he would like to explain why. The reason that they cannot exist is because people are NOT perfect. One cannot hope that the leadership in the socialist system which precedes the communist system will not be reluctant to hand over power. Such is the nature of humanity.
3) Great, Con has admitted that people are not perfect. Now, with this in mind, I ask Con to consider wether or not this imperfections in humanity are present in all people. If they are not Con is incorrect. If only some people are disabled in some way Con is also incorrect (because we all have phobias). The only remaining conclusion that Con must make is that the only way for us to deal with mental imperfections without wasting too much money is to leave some people in society, thus leading to corruption and other problems to do with inequality and greed.
4) We aren't all good and people will always be motivated by greed, sorry.
5) What I've been trying to say is that you cannot simply remove people's survival instinct. It's as hard to remove as people's will to eat if not more difficult.
Sadly Con has not accepted that Pro does not want to get involved in a statistics battle, thus, he has been forced to concede this point.
The whole con-man thing was a pun, I was trying to make the point that considering how outlandish Con's position is Pro is beginning to believe that he himself does not even believe in it and that thus he is con-ing us. It's a pun.
I apologize for coming across as rude, it is my personality to be cynical and to push limits. I take pleasure in doing so and consider it a form of humour. However, I understand that Con has thinner skin than Pro does and that he can't take jokes. If I ever come to debate Benko again I'll refrain from debating in this manner. Apologies to Con for offending him.
Pro understands that Con has made many good arguments and that he has perhaps debated in a better manner than Pro, however, Pro is simply correct. As good as Con is at arguing his points this does not compensate for the actual validity of his argument. Hopefully Con understands the points made by Pro and understands where his arguments weaknesses lie.
Due to the complexity of the debate Pro hopes that it could be continued. If Con agrees I propose that we involve ourselves in a second debate so as to elaborate on the topic. Pro assures Con that he will not employ his amazing humour in future debates ;).
I also want know wether or not Benko has read animal farm.
I've read Rousseau's works and I am quite aware of the argument you present. Yes, it is inherent animal nature to feed their young, hunt their prey ect. The important thing to note here is the fact that less evolved animals have a lower level of cognitive awareness. The point of being so advanced is the pursuit of an altruistic worldview. Another thing to note is the fact that it is all done out of survival. Why do wolves slaughter their prey? For survival.
The wish for exploitation and material possessions does not express the need for survival.
Humans ARE to an extent shaped by society. Sure, we eat and drink and breathe without societal output, but our mindset varies. In the islamic world, children are taught all sorts of odd things which they believe in. It's all about indoctrination, which can be useful if pursued for an altruistic purpose.
1. Not if the entire society as a whole is the power structure. Communist Vietnam, The DPRK and China (not a socialist country anymore) are not and were never communist countries. I have made this clear multiple times now. They are socialist countries. 
Socialism is the pathway to communism, not the same thing. That's why the resolution is rather weak on its own.
When I refer to society I refer to human community, human cooperation. A herd is not a society. The definition of society:'a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members:'
I apologize for labelling pro a hypocrite. Although the fact remains that unbacked statements are declarative statements with no proof behind them. You provided sources in your last argument so I am willing to forgive it.
Again, I never said that they are in contradiction with one another, I merely said that that's how it works in capitalism. The economy remains in socialism and is to an extent abolished in communism as there is no need for a global economy. Communes still exchange with one another ect. The only difference here is that the profit motive is abolished completely as is currency in general. All is in the collective, all goes form the collective to the people.
The human development index is not a measure of happiness. Perhaps you would be more pleased with a better source.
This index takes into account 1. Human satisfaction 2. Enviromental beauty 3. Sustainability
The human development index and the global happines index are both flawed as they are based mostly on GDP per capita, which is not a measure of happiness or equality. Vietnam has a high level of equality and happiness as I proved above.
Ukraine and Thailand are not socialist countries. This is irrelevant.
2. Completely irrelevant if chairman Mao committed genocide. If you're referring to the great leap forward, it killed around 40 million people, mostly caused by bad planning. I will not cite this as it is irrelevant.
That is a complete hypothetical. You have no evidence of that as it has never been attempted.
3. No, we are not all perfect and we do not need to be. We only need to realize that living modestly, yet equally is superior to living pompously, yet unequally. There would be no currency in communist society. Mentally disabled people would be treated by doctors who would receive rewards from the collective.
4. We don't need to be perfect and we're not necessarily driven by greed. Greed is the single desire for more material possessions. If we were all fueled by greed, how would the very premise of communism even come about?
5. Survival has nothing to do with greed. All we need for survival is food, water, safety and shelter. All we need for a good life is education, a comfortable home and company. All of that can be provided by the collective.
I do accept it, I just don't understand why that's your choice.
Very well then. I actually do believe in what I say for the record.
Thank you for this debate and thank you for your final apology. I would be glad to continue this debate. You've been a worthy adversary.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.