The Instigator
Organicdem
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
benko12345678
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Communism is an ineffective system.

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: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 66985
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Organicdem

Pro

Before I begin I would like to extend an apology to my opponent for not beginning this debate at an earlier date. Pro concedes that he doesn't really have an excuse yet that he doesn't particularly regret his decision. Pro has things (pointless vice documentaries and conspiracy theory videos) which he has been busy with. Pro hopes that Con accepts this decent (horrible) excuse.

To the voters Pro would like to state that this is merely a continuation of a previous debate and that to fully understand this debate it would be recommended that they read the previous iterations of this topic. To summarize the debate for all who didn't bother to read it the main point of argument centred around the idea that people have an inherent goodness within them. One of Pro's main points to defend the opposite was that in all apparent "brands of communism" the problem has effectively been that at some point power has been taken by the upper class. Con didn't particularly offer an argument against this but mainly stated that Chinese and Russian communism were not examples of "true communism" but did not explain why they became "untrue communism". As Con's entire argument rests upon this I motion that the debate focus on this point.

Definitions:

Communism:Communism (from Latin communis " common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

Altruism:Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others.

As aforementioned Pro has proposed that the reason that previous iterations of communism has never been proven to work[1] is because people are not altogether altruist and enjoy seizing power for themselves. Because the communist system relies on altruism (as stated in the previous debate) I motion that if Con concedes that people are not inherently good I will win the debate by default.

The most effective example of how altruism does not work is the fact that the Holocaust has happened. Normal people (SS personnel could not have all been mentally disturbed) led thousands of people to camps infested with typhus. These people were normal yet did bad things. Thus, people are not inherently altruistic.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
benko12345678

Con

Please stop referring to yourself in the third person, it's confusing as all hell...I would also like to point out that the resolution of this debate is not supported in your arguments. Your arguments have nothing to do with the resolution at hand. I would have titled it:'Communism cannot function without the pre-existence of an altruistic society, which cannot be achieved'
Now, let's just assume that that was the resolution you had in mind.

Before we get into the arguments that are remotely related to the resolution, let's just get my supposed no true scotsman fallacy out of the way.
No, I never stated that they were not 'True socialists'. I merely stated that the systems enacted in aforementioned societies were not in line with socialist ideas. Now, in some cases socialism did succeed (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam and the short-lived reign of Maoist china until the revisionists destroyed it), however, these states were destroyed by interior turmoil or outside forces, such as the Yugoslav civil war, the breakup of Czechoslovakia, the death of Mao Tse-Tung and the implementation of Dengism along with the execution of the gang of four...
The only case that I stick with is that Stalin was not a socialist by any means, or a communist for that matter.

Stalin's social outlooks were much closer to fascism than true communism.
Stalin's system collective farming was akin to subsidized farming, an aspect only found in a completely capitalist nation. The Stalinist model of collective farming functioned on the pretense of 'foreign exchange', meaning that Stalin would allow foreign investments to be made on part of subsidies regarding larger or even smaller farms, meaning that Stalin never implemented an actual form of collective farming. The soviet union was based on various forms of State capitalism. Goods were produced, not for use only, but for sale at a profit. Industry was carried on largely on lines familiar to State-capitalist organisations outside the USSR. The soviet Government borrowed from investors (mostly Soviet citizens) hundreds of millions of pounds for investment in industry, and payed them a high rate of interest on their investments; this payment to the investors being the first charge on industry. One of the most significant events of the cold war was the Tito-Stalin split. Tito advocated the abolition of collective farming and the 'Tito standard' which stated that the needs of an individual socialist nation would be of higher significance than the needs of a one-socialist-nation, which Stalin opposed (A one-world-socialist state is a mark of imperialism. Definition of Imperialism from the Oxford thesaurus: 'advocacy of imperial or sovereign interests over the interests of the dependent states.'). On 22 May 1943, Stalin announced the formal shutting-down of the Communist International, the association of revolutionary socialist parties across the world set up after the October Revolution.
Finally, and the most important distinction between fascist Stalinism and Marxist Communism was the preserved class hierarchy. Most branches of Fascism include an extreme fixed Hierarchy, whether the elite class was the Leader, the Military, the Capitalists, or just the State. The "Communist" Party of the Soviet Union was an elite class of its own, while the rest of the people were left in dire conditions... something that the Revolution sought to put an end to.

Now, to continue the debate:

1. It is true that the holocaust occurred and it is true that not all people are altruistic by NATURE. I do not concede that people CAN be altruistic, though. Let's look at it from the angle of the Paris commune. During the period of the Paris commune, collectivization of all property was begun, people began co-operating in pure altruistic spirit and brought their children up in an altruistic manner. Society influences worldviews.

2. Societies impact and influence our thinking, even to the slightest sliver of a degree they do. Humans are social creatures, as we live and interact with other people. People, in the form of society, will have an impact and influence on our behaviors. Empirical evidence from the Asch Conformity Experiments support the resolution.

The Asch experiments, in which there was one real participant who didn't know the intentions of the experiment, and all the others were aware of the intention of the experiment. A small society, which can be as small as two individuals in this scenario, had a slight influence on the "real" participants behavior. The more confederates (the people aware of the intentions of the experiment) their influence over the participant grew. The consensus here is that there is empirical proof that society, even in small amounts, influences and/or effects the decisions and therefore the actions of the individual. This proves my position, that a society, even a very small one, influences a person's behavior and actions.

In psychology, it has been concluded with various studies that people have two psychological needs that makes people conform to the expectations of others. We are even if we don't think so influenced by society to a degree, since we have a psychological need to conform to others.. The reasons we conform to the expectations of others is for our need to be liked or to be right. So, even unconsciously, society is influencing us to conform to others, which influences our actions. We need to conform to others, and with this need, our actions passively are trying to achieve this need. Thus, we are influenced by society in our actions to meet these psychological needs to be liked or to be right.

3. We can therefore logically deduce that a society that promotes altruism and an altruistic worldview is likely to produce an altruistic population. With that in mind, we can logically conclude that altruism IS achievable.

References:
http://soviethistory.macalester.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,51, 629-636.
Debate Round No. 1
Organicdem

Pro

Organicdem forfeited this round.
benko12345678

Con

Pro conceded. Extend.
Debate Round No. 2
Organicdem

Pro

I would like to extend an apology to you relative to the debate. With Christmas and the fact that you took a long period of time to extend the challenge I was unaware that you had posted your argument and that thus mine was due. I hope you understand. Contrary to what you may think I have not conceded on the debate topic.

I would also like to begin by stating that due to a request by the opposition I will no longer refer to myself in the third person. It ensues thus that my opposition will not do the opposite. Another issue I would like to address is the title of the debate. The debate is about communism, not altruism. I explained during my previous posting that we would mainly be discussing the latter, however this isn"t because the debate is strictly about the latter but instead because it is a continuation of our previous debate which ended with the discussion of the latter. I will refrain from using that word for a while.

In fact, what the opposition has committed was a no true scotsman fallacy. He said that "No, I never stated that they were not 'True socialists'. I merely stated that the systems enacted in aforementioned societies were not in line with socialist ideas. " Now. According to the wikipedia page this is a no true scotsman fallacy1]. To say that they "weren"t in line with socialist ideas" is a no true scotsman argument. You have avoided my point which was that in every case where socialism was initially attempted it never succeeded. Instead of presenting evidence to EXPLAIN why they didn"t succeed you instead provided evidence to AVOID explaining why they didn"t succeed. That is a no true scotsman fallacy. Now, with this in mind I am under absolutely no obligation to prove to the audience why the USSR and Maoist China were in fact socialist (with the prospect of being communist in the future) as they themselves claimed to be so. In summary: I want you to explain why the previous attempts at communism weren"t successful. I don"t want examples given about why the USSR wasn"t socialist, I want to know your view on why it deviated from it. A system based around altruism failed[2] because the people in it weren"t altruistic[3]. What I would like to address and perhaps have not made clear (seeing that you misunderstood my position) is what you think of this. You explicitly said that altruism was possible if it was taught, however, in a country where altruism was initially attempted it deviated from this. Instead of explaining the theory behind your belief I want you to actually explain why it failed. If it didn"t work in Russia what makes the rest of the world any different?

PS: Apologies for not addressing your points in order, they all added up to the same thing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
benko12345678

Con

You only brought up altruism and I refuted your claims...You're only bringing yourself lower.
It is not a no true Scotsman fallacy, as I never stated they were not 'true' socialists, whatever that means. In response to this allegation, let me give an example. A no true Scotsman fallacy would be conducted in a manner accordingly:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish and I like sugar with my porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."[1]
Let us take aforementioned example to the level of Socialism. The requirement for a Scotsman is to be born in Scotland and to have Scottish citizenship, the requirement for a Socialist society is: Nationalization, regulation, collectivization and equality.[2]
Stalin did not follow the principles of Socialism, therefore he is not a Socialist, just like someone who isn't Scottish isn't a Scotsman. You seem desperate to accuse me of a logical fallacy, but you fail in the most miserable way, I'm afraid.
I never avoided your case, I clearly provided examples of countries where Socialism HAS succeeded: North Korea, Cuba and Vietnam. All three countries have:
a. A high level of social equality
b. A high level of employment
c. A completely nationalized industry
d. A system of collectivization
I have therefore provided an irrefutable case of a socialist society with truly socialist policies that succeeded. I provided this example in my previous argument, which you might have missed. It is irrelevant if you use an argument like:'But those are all totalitarian'. This is irrelevant to the debate. I wish to hear an argument apropos to the aforementioned argument.

Why socialism didn't succeed in the USSR? Because the USSR was only socialist until 1924.[3] Stalin completely pushed aside Lenin's NEP, implementing his own system of urbanized collectivism and 'foreign subsidy'.[3]
Why socialism didn't succeed in China? Possibly because chairman Mao died and China fell into the hands of revisionists who executed the gang of four, Mao's successors.[4]
Socialism succeeded in Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea and is still succeeding.
Are you really that daft? I just provided an example wherein altruism is possible, the Asch experiment...

To quote my argument:'The Asch experiments, in which there was one real participant who didn't know the intentions of the experiment, and all the others were aware of the intention of the experiment. A small society, which can be as small as two individuals in this scenario, had a slight influence on the "real" participants behavior. The more confederates (the people aware of the intentions of the experiment) their influence over the participant grew. The consensus here is that there is empirical proof that society, even in small amounts, influences and/or effects the decisions and therefore the actions of the individual. This proves my position, that a society, even a very small one, influences a person's behavior and actions.
In psychology, it has been concluded with various studies that people have two psychological needs that makes people conform to the expectations of others. We are even if we don't think so influenced by society to a degree, since we have a psychological need to conform to others.. The reasons we conform to the expectations of others is for our need to be liked or to be right. So, even unconsciously, society is influencing us to conform to others, which influences our actions. We need to conform to others, and with this need, our actions passively are trying to achieve this need. Thus, we are influenced by society in our actions to meet these psychological needs to be liked or to be right. We can therefore logically deduce that a society that promotes altruism and an altruistic worldview is likely to produce an altruistic population. With that in mind, we can logically conclude that altruism IS achievable.[5]'

Russia could never achieve altruism simply because there was not enough time. Altruism was only endorsed for the extremely short period of Lenin's reign and completely abandoned when Stalin took over.[7] Altruism WAS achieved for a period in China. Ever heard of the great cultural revolution, in which Chinese citizens helped each other through barefoot doctors, collective farming etc. [8]
The process of Socialism and altruistic indoctrination was stopped by Deng Xiaoping and his revisionism and return to capitalism.[8]

In essence, you ignored some of my arguments, you completely changed what I was saying. I request that you actually put some time and effort into this debate. This is not an ad hominem, as I'm not attacking you for your intelligence, I'm simply saying that your format and argumentation in this debate is rather weak. I'm not attacking you on a personal level or even implying you cannot debate properly, merely that I find your argumentation feeble.

References:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,51, 629-636.
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Organicdem

Pro

I will let the voters decide on the issue of wether or not you committed a logical fallacy. The definition has been given. To claim that somebody isn"t a "true scotsman" is the same as claiming that somebody isn"t a "true communist". You said that "only a true communist wouldn"t behave in a non-altruistically fashion".

I feel that I know longer need to put effort into refuting the preposterous claims of my adversary. It appears that he does not have his wits about him. "Socialism succeeded in Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea and is still succeeding." is an absolutely preposterous claim. Cuba is a western brothel filled with derelict buildings[1]. North Korea is an oligarchic, totalitarian mess2]. Vietnam is a third world nation by all accounts.[3] It has a high death rate, high infant mortality rate and a stagnant population. Sure, perhaps North Korea has a high level of social equality...but that's because everyone is poor. Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher : "Would you rather the poor be poor and the rich be poor than the rich be rich and the poor be middle class?". Sure, perhaps North Korea has low unemployment, but what jobs do the people have? North Korea's economy lives in the dark ages! The people, instead of owning businesses and being literate and producing wealth, work from sun up to sun down to produce food that they themselves probably won"t even eat. Oh and of course Cuba is fully nationalized, what with it's western resorts and western factories[4].
Sure, maybe they all have system of collectivization, but what matters isn't wether or not they have these systems but wether or not they work! If people in North Korea are dying a dozen a day in every single village (metaphorically) perhaps it would be best that we woke up from our fantasy world where ideas rule in a world of rainbows and woke up and faced the facts! How can you say that totalitarianism isn"t the issue of this debate. I refuse to argue with somebody who believes that totalitarianism is "irrelevant". If my opponent has conceded that communism leads to totalitarianism I see no further reason to continue with this. It is perfectly apropos of this debate, if we were to debate fascism we would debate it, if we were to debate feudalism we would debate it, if we were to debate capitalism we would debate it, if we were to debate any political issue we would debate totalitarianism. So don"t you dare say that it"s inconsequential or not "apropos". If people in North Korea are dying a dozen a day in every single village (metaphorically) because their ruler takes their food perhaps it would be best that we woke up from our fantasy world where ideas rule in a world of rainbows and woke up and faced the facts! Communism has never been proven to work, sorry.
With relation to my adversary's claims about Russia and China, I ask him to justify why an "altruistic and great system" would allow somebody such as Stalin or China's "revisionists" to take charge. Surely the great socialist utopias wouldn't allow such a thing! If it truly is possible to teach somebody to be a "good savage" wouldn't they have managed in Russia or China? If we are to mention time it then begs the question of wether or not time will be an issue in the future as well. Perhaps feudalism did not function properly because it didn"t have enough time to develop. How do we know greedy people won"t take over again. Why did the revisionists exist in a so-called communist utopia? Perhaps, it wasn"t a utopia after all, perhaps, socialism doesn"t work...
Look, I"m personally really sorry. I understand that it can be hard to let go of an ideology, however, if it"s a worthless fantasy thought up by an obscure german political thinker who has indirectly caused millions of deaths [5] perhaps it"s far easier. There"s a reason that the Germans paid Lenin to go to Russia, they knew that he"d screw it up. Nobody in their right mind would give their enemy nuclear bombs. Socialism and the proceeding communism doesn"t work. Granted there are isolated cases of altruism (such as the cultural revolution, such as the life of Jesus, such as the life of Buddha, such as the lives of many indian peoples) however they"re, as I"ve said, isolated cases. They do not form the majority of all human interactions. They don"t. Sorry.

[1]http://www.ageofconsent.com...
Cuba derelict
[2]https://www.cia.gov...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.agoda.com...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
benko12345678

Con

I never stated this...You're moving the goal post and putting words in my mouth...I did not commit the no true scotsman fallacy.

Thank you for the beautiful ad hominem. You're just granting points to me.
Irrelevant. They have a system of socialism in place. Cuba is slowly moving away but this is due to revisionist domination.[1]
Where is your evidence of this? This is a baseless assertion. If everyone is equal, they cannot be poor...the definition of poverty:'The state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions'[2]
Emphasize 'SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE amount', meaning that in order for one to be poor, one must be in a lower position than others. If everyone is equal, no one can be poor. North Korea has a system wherein outside forces from foreign markets do not infringe upon its citizens well-being.[3] Vietnam is a third world country, yes, but with an enormous amount of happiness, equality and environmental safety.[4]

This statement you made was beautiful: 'Instead of being LITERATE...'
Perhaps you were not aware North Korea has a 99% literacy rate.[5][6]

You provide no sources and you appeal to emotion. Your arguments are so fallacious I can't even believe it...
No, nobody dies in North Korea simply because Kim Jong Un 'hogs all the cake'...
Totalitarianism is NOT a theme appropriate for this debate as the resolution is called:'Communism is an ineffective system'. Totalitarianism is a completely different topic and you might called the period of dictatorship of the proletariat as totalitarian, however, that is not in the period of communism.

Irrelevant. The debate is not focused here. Altruism was never achieved in China, Mao even said that it would be impossible for several hundred years. Altruism is a stagnant goal that is impossible in such a short period of time.

This is another appeal to emotion and is irrelevant to the debate. I suppose you're referring to Lenin's closed train here? What do nuclear weapons have to do with anything here?
Again, I've demonstrated through the Asch experiment that altruism on a mass scale is possible. You still have not refuted it.

In essence, your arguments are fallacious and weak. Very weak.

Sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] Library of Congress country study, see p. 7 for Education and Literacy (Archived at WebCite)
Debate Round No. 4
Organicdem

Pro

Before I begin I would like to congratulate my opponent for his skill in the debate so far. Although he has committed numerous fallacies, and although he has defended a ridiculous belief he has also managed to twist the debate away from it's initial meaning. He appears to have spent innumerable hours conjuring up ways of avoiding my questions. Wether or not Cuba is socialist at this time is not (and never has been) the subject of the debate. I mentioned Cuba along with Vietnam, North Korea, the USSR, and China so as to make the point that altruism has never succeeded thus far. An altruistic state should imply selflessness and lack of greed. Thus, a state where "Kim Jong Un hogs all the cake" isn't socialist a totalitarian state where Kim Jong Un"s dynasty rules the nation is not socialist. Socialism implies egalitarianism, none of the above are, at present, egalitarian. Now, in light of this new evidence I asked why these altruistic systems did not produce a society conscientious of their social class. If North Korea truly had achieved altruism, bronze statues of it"s dynasty would not be seen all over the country[1]. If Vietnam truly was altruistic, the presidential mausoleum in Hanoi wouldn't exist in it's present (grandiose) state[2]. If China truly was altruistic, chairman Mao Tse Dong would not have lived in a palace[3]. If Cuba truly was altruistic, capitalist interests (except for those of Coca Cola) would not rule supreme[4]. If the USSR and the Warsaw pact members truly had been altruistic, the Nomenklatura would not exist[5]. In conclusion, I asked you why these systems, which were supposed to promote selflessness, instead bred a race of bourgeois politicians detached from the realities of their countries. Instead, you declared that I had committed an ad hominem in an unrelated statement [6] and had continued to debate wether or not you had committed a no true scotsman fallacy [7]
With this in mind my opponent is, in fact, very clever. This can be seen by the fact that he has successfully (thus far) managed to provide cop-out answers to my questions so that he can move on to isolated cases to justify altruism. He has, instead of questioning my argument, tried to pick apart the peripherals of my examples and definitions. You have strategically disguised your makeshift rebuttals with walls of unnecessary text. You have constructed elaborate covers for your broken ideology. In essence, you have attempted to engage me in a semantics debate. I speak on the behalf of the voters when I say that people want clarity. Numerous times you have evaded my questions and have disguised them with answers such as "your argument are weak". You have insulted me instead of refuted me. The audience requires that both sides answer the questions they have been asked. the audience demands that time not be spent arguing the true definition of poverty. The audience will not have it. You, much like the bourgeoise of the USSR, have bottled yourself behind a concrete wall. You dispute Cuba[8] North Korea[9] and Vietnam [10] as opposed to the (metaphorical) homeland of your side of the debate. However, the USSR"s weakness was it"s inability to communicate with the outside world. As it pushed itself further and further into its Warsaw-Pact cave it ate itself to death. Not having food or energy it flitted away. An incompetent and selfish upper class and a tired and dispirited lower class ate the corpse of the socialist utopia. They drained it of it"s energy, they drained it of it"s power to act. The once (relatively) proud Russia led by Stalin and Lenin before him in the fifties which then led the first man into space (after Stalin) rusted away. As the economy grew ,methods of control grew harder and harder to administer. Failed foreign policy led to import cuts and thus cuts in the standard of living of the people. Russia"s inability to listen to it"s enemies led it to bread lines and a ruthless secret police. Old communist party member after old communist party member tried to fix the system. They used old fixes to attempt to mend new problems. By the 1970"s the USSR was a ghost of it"s former self, by the 1980"s it was falling rapidly under new failed strategies and by 1991 the communist dream was killed[11]. It was the close minded nature of the communist world which led to it"s demise. In this debate, I hope that my opponent does not meet the same unpleasant fate.
With the unpleasantries out of the way I will now, to avoid being hypocritical, invade the "motherland" of your debate. Throughout this debate I have come to believe that we have concluded that communism is only effective if it is possible, and that it is only possible if altruism is possible. Now, you have attempted to justify your belief using the "Asch" experiment. You believe that because people can be told to be a certain way by society and because altruism is a way to be ,society can teach people to be altruistic. I did not refute this because it is completely unrelated. If altruism is not "possible" or "a way to be" then it simply cannot be taught by society. To paraphrase my opponent, " Altruism is a stagnant goal that is impossible to achieve in a short period of time." (Citation needed relative to Mao). Now, obviously there is a difference between impossible and very,very difficult. However, considering the population of the world and considering the fact that attempts at altruism thus far have always been met by failure I believe that it is highly improbable that socialism and the preceding communism would ever be possible and that thus it would never be effective. Why should anyone defend a political ideology which probably won"t work?
Now, in light of the erection of this solid conclusion I will allow my opponent to unconditionally surrender his position. If he does so he will not be ridiculed or insulted face to face. He must merely forfeit or leave a message announcing his concessions and no more shall be added to the debate. I am glad we have had this discussion and hope that my opponent has not taken his failure to heart. If he has, I apologize.

[1]http://www.reuters.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]https://www.flickr.com...
[4]http://www.meliacuba.com...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]An adhominem is an attack on the individual instead of on the argument. An example would be "Your argument is wrong because you are fat" I insulted you, I did not use an ad hominem. I merely stated that "You are fat". http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]No more shall be added. http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]Resorts which are owned by individuals are present in Cuba, thus, Cuba is not socialist. Altruism did not triumph.
[9]I concede literacy rates, however, starvation is common place. I"d rather have food than know how to read. http://en.wikipedia.org.... To address poverty, I concede that a communist world wouldn"t be "poor" because everyone would be equal, but I still hold that it would have a low standard of living, which is the most reliable criteria. http://content.usatoday.com...
[10]Vietnam has a low standard of living http://www.globalexchange.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
. Quality of life is subjective. Anyway, Vietnam has Limousines driving around through it"s streets, it isn"t even socialist.http://www.saigonlimousine.com... Yet another example of how altruism has not been successful.
[11]http://en.wikipedia.org...
benko12345678

Con

I thank my opponent for blocking the point with a wall of text, completely unnecessarily of course. I never claimed that the eastern bloc was altruistic or even socialist...The nomenklatura was the result of corruption.
The resolution is:'Communism is an ineffective system'. The basic argument that pro seems to put out is the impossibility of altruism, which we've already established is possible (Asch Experiment).

When I stated that socialism is succeeding, I meant that there are nations in which socialism remained. I maintain this position. I named these nations as: Cuba and Vietnam, specifically explaining North Korea is a juche socialist state.
Vietnam, irrelevant if it is a third-world sh*thole, is still a socialist nation. It still maintains a high level of social equality, nationalization etc. [1]
Cuba is, regardless of commercialization, still a socialist nation. A high index of equality, a high index of environmental safety etc. [2]
Limousines etc. are irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

Again, I establish that communism is an effective system, as it can be enforced by a society.

Societies impact and influence our thinking, even to the slightest sliver of a degree they do. Humans are social creatures, as we live and interact with other people. People, in the form of society, will have an impact and influence on our behaviors. Empirical evidence from the Asch Conformity Experiments support the resolution.

The Asch experiments, in which there was one real participant who didn't know the intentions of the experiment, and all the others were aware of the intention of the experiment. A small society, which can be as small as two individuals in this scenario, had a slight influence on the "real" participants behavior. The more confederates (the people aware of the intentions of the experiment) their influence over the participant grew. The consensus here is that there is empirical proof that society, even in small amounts, influences and/or effects the decisions and therefore the actions of the individual. This proves my position, that a society, even a very small one, influences a person's behavior and actions.

In psychology, it has been concluded with various studies that people have two psychological needs that makes people conform to the expectations of others. We are even if we don't think so influenced by society to a degree, since we have a psychological need to conform to others.. The reasons we conform to the expectations of others is for our need to be liked or to be right. So, even unconsciously, society is influencing us to conform to others, which influences our actions. We need to conform to others, and with this need, our actions passively are trying to achieve this need. Thus, we are influenced by society in our actions to meet these psychological needs to be liked or to be right.[3]

I stick with Leon Trotsky's theory of proletarian Bonapartism, which claims that the USSR was never, in fact, socialist, as I established in round one.

In China's case, socialism requires the creation of a vanguard party that is at the head of the struggle. Socialism is a system where class struggle remains, currency remains etc.
We are debating communism and COMMUNISM has only been achieved in a handful of communes.

Sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,51, 629-636.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by benko12345678 1 year ago
benko12345678
You mispelled assess...You spelled it asses...I just noticed and almost laughed by a*s off.
Posted by Organicdem 1 year ago
Organicdem
Can you please stop referencing the Paris Commune, it lasted for too short of a time to fully asses wether or not successful. At the beginning of Hitler's reign everything seemed amazing.
Posted by Organicdem 1 year ago
Organicdem
It's fine :D
Posted by benko12345678 1 year ago
benko12345678
Oh, sorry...I didn't notice :/
I'll accept tomorrow, if that's all right?
Posted by Organicdem 1 year ago
Organicdem
If you don't accept leave a message. I don't want to go through the hassle i went through last time :/
No votes have been placed for this debate.