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

Communism is better than Capitalism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 7/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 116622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




Capitalism is a better form of government, because it allows people work hard and get better jobs and opportunities.


First of all, communism also allows people to work hard. It is true, however, that capitalism forces you to work hard. But do we really need to work hard? And what if what we think of working hard is just work for someone else? Perhaps he likes what he is doing, so, to him, spending more time and effort into something he wants to do is something he wants to do. As a matter of fact, working on something someone likes doing is something they like doing. Can this be considered a job at all? I would say no one likes to work. Working, more often than not, is something we don't want to do. Now, I'm not the best candidate for saying what communism says, but I will say what I think it should say: communism should not force you to work. Communism believes to citizens' contribution to the community. We know we can, and do, contribute, as well, from those little things we do everyday for those around us. Capitalism, on the other hand, forces everyone to fight for themselves. This is a flawed idea, since the big fishes will eat the small. Is this a society we want to live in? A society that forces everyone to work and only the few lucky or privileged will succeed?

About getting better jobs, that is something I don't want to do. I just want a respectable salary for me and my family. I don't want no fancy cars and houses. If you do, then let me tell you you are missing the point of life, which is living your life, not accumulating money and goods.

Finally, about having equal opportunities, I don't see how a low income person can effectively challenge a high income one.

I know for a fact I don't want to live in a capitalist society. I want to live in a communist society, because communism serves my interests, the common people's interests, my desire to feel safe, accepted and useful to the society. I want to live in a society that understands my right to be happy. Capitalism cannot and will not ever understand that.
Debate Round No. 1


Honestly communism is a great idea in theory, and yes it does allow you to have a life with less work, but does exactly what you said capitalism does, it allows big fish to eat the small. Unless you consider dedicated hard working people who make buissnesses and put in the work it takes to perspire in life, big fish, than communism takes advantage of the small fish. Yes, you want to enjoy life, everyone does, communism makes it so a young buissnessman, able to work and charge less for his products charge the same as everyone else. Yes, this make less people go to his store less, and yes, this potential owner of the nexrt mass company will be confined into his small store forever, but there are other problems that arise.

For one every type of product in the country costs the same. If the country wanted it could, say, charge 10$ for each apple rather than 1$ and people would either live without apples or pay that price. Where in a capitalist country buissness would be forced to compete against each other for the demand of the consumer and whoever sells the lowest price at the best quality makes a ton of money. This is great for consumers like you and me, because everything costs less, which is obviously a good thing.

Second, you run out of hard working people. Honestly, if I wasn't forced by our capitalist goverment to work hard, beleive me I definently wouldn't work nearly as hard as I do, but the thing about me not working is that its someone else's problem. If I were a farmer I might produce 10,000 crops every year. (I'm not a farmer so that's why my estimate was off.) All the farmesr collectively might produce 300,000 crops every year per 100,000 middle-class people, but in a communist goverment I might work 7/8 as hard producing 8,750 crops, and the community would produce 262,500 crops, causing at least 1 out of ten middle-class people to be without three meals a day. If this doses't convince you just imagine what happens when the doctors, dentists, lawyers, sewage workers, police officers and every other job stop working as hard. I don't think its nessassary to explain exactly how horrible that would be.

Communism is basically horrible for the working class and it may sound good in theory to be able to enjoy life, but getting rid of ambition from everyone is not the way to do it.


In communism, all economical activity is exercised by the state. The state is the one big fish. Unlike capitalism, though, where big fishes eat the small without thinking twice, the state is a conscious being. It has ethics. One of them is to serve the people's interests. So, even though you, the citizen, are a small fish compared to the state, you have nothing to worry about, because that big fish works for you. It commits in providing you with what you need to live. This goes the other way around as well. You work for the state. Essentially, you are a part of it. Now, one would say this state-citizen relationship may not work that well, because the state will betray you in some way. If a government betrays you, then it's time for a government change, not an ideology change (also there should be substantial evidence before deciding to change the government and a good understanding of what happened to consider that). Corruption exists in capitalist societies as well. If anything, the security communism provides will discourage public officials from becoming corrupt and acting against the citizens' interests.

Concerning product prices, it's true that a country can charge 10 $ an apple, or charge 1$ an apple. It is up to the government. There are many variables like availability, but the goal of the government is to provide the population with enough apples at a decent price and quality. On the other hand, the goal of companies is to make profit. At the end of the day, the price of a product (which is also of good quality) is lower than the price of a product plus the profit a business has to make. Additionally, it is not true a quality product will have a good price. On the contrary, their prices are usually quite high. And not only that, but we can't effectively measure quality as consumers. For example, an apple that looks good on the outside may have been injected with all sorts of unhealthy substances to look like this.

Concerning production, farming doesn't work this way. 1/8 of the outcome doesn't just vanish. Farming is pretty linear. Plant crops in a field and you may get a good yield. It doesn't require enough skill to be considered a job you have to work hard to. The machinery we use to farm can be automated as well. Computers are good at doing things they are told and so, for example, not watering a part of the field due to fatigue won't be an issue anymore.

Concerning work, a true catastrophe would be having people working in jobs they don't like. What if becoming a doctor was just a passage to a greater salary? Capitalism endorses that. Nevertheless, let's drop the mentality that communism equals idleness. The people that enjoy being a doctor in a capitalist society will still exercise that profession in a communist society. These people will work very hard, though they do not see their efforts as work, but rather something they want to do, which in this example is helping others with their ailments.

Lastly, concerning ambition, how about we focus on living our lives instead of climbing a ladder? Let's endorse communism as an ideology that doesn't force you to climb a ladder like capitalism does.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to point out that every communist government person is rich. Yes, this is mostly true for capitalism, because the politicians need money to campaign, but I would hardly call running for positions campaigning in communist countries. Anyone who's heard the news knows communist rulers eliminate the competition through their own methods, and I don't think someone with ethics would do this. Ethical people want the best for their country, so wouldn't they try their best to legally campaign, but let the people decide what they want. Politicians aren't exactly known for ethics, but their is not a single american politician worse than the corrupt King John Uhn. Sure the people should revolt, but they can't. If they even talk about their government they might say "mysteriously disappear" in the middle of the night. Even, if communism allowed people to talk about revolting against their government, and have guns it would still be bad, because it gives the government a monopoly allowing them to control prices. If you still don't believe me here are the various problems of some large communist countries.

People's republic of China (it's not a very good republic)- overpopulation
-one child act
-rulers who won't give
-xi jingping
- small amount of middle class people
Democratic republic of North Korea- Crazy leader
- nukes
-extreme poverty
-Do I even need to mention the rest? I'm just stating facts everyone knows.

Socialist republic of Vietnam- Actually Vietnam- It doesn't many more problems than America. It's surprisingly moral. Of course I was getting board of this argument; meaning I didn't research it as much, but still. (You know governments are bad when american politicians are relatively moral.)

Also if I were an ethical politician leading a government I would not steal money from the people. That's something most communist governments do that others don't do nearly as much. Stealing money is not considered ethical.


You said some bad things about communist governments, like state officials being rich or exterminating political opponents. Let's clarify for a moment that communism does not support these horrible acts. Rich people in a communist society are not communists and murder cannot be justified in any way. It is sad that there are governments that resorted to unethical practices. They shouldn't have done that. Their actions defeat the purpose of communism. And not only that, but they give such a bad name to the ideology. They give reason to every populist in the USA and elsewhere to rub the bad things of communism in our faces and discourage us from seeking it. For that, I cannot forgive them.

All this isn't to say, however, that people in capitalist societies are saints. I would even say the degree of stealing is higher in capitalist societies than communist societies. And if you consider the legalized right to be able to make profit, it gets even higher. P.S. Profit isn't something bad. It's just that when a businessman makes profit it belongs to him, whereas when a public sector/business makes profit it belongs to the people. Who are you going to trust with wealth, he who has no morals (in theory and in most times in practice) or he who has?

In the governments you mentioned, you forgot to include Cuba. I can see why. After all, it is not famed for its killings or inequality. The first positive thing that comes to my mind is the quality of healthcare there. As a matter of fact, its healthcare is better than the USA's(1). This would make health sector privatization advocates furious. Too bad they have so much money that they can just bury news concerning the subject.

This brings me to my next point. Economical freedom creates economical inequality. As I said before, nothing stops the big fish from eating the small. In turn, economical inequality creates social inequality. Social inequality creates hunger or, in extreme cases, death. It is immoral to seek social inequality. As such, it is also immoral to seek economical freedom. People that seek economical freedom are plain greedy. Stop being greedy. Not only is it not worth it, but you are also hurting the people around you.

Concerning political orientation, people's decisions are not very rational. I could talk to them about how communism means a better life for you, the worker, and they won't even listen. If communism is the ideology of the citizens, the many, and capitalism of the businessmen, the few, communism should be the favored ideology in elections, since it represents more people. But are communist parties voted for government? No. Communism makes good arguments, capitalism doesn't. I have made many arguments here. I'd like to think they make sense. I would also like to think I swayed the opinion of many. Why, though, did I not sway the opinion of some? Well, there is the theory of "following the group", the theory that we agree with others just to have them as friends. Additionally, people might be afraid of losing the few things capitalism gives them. But is the false security capitalism offers enough of a reason to support it? Also, are you forgetting the negatives of it, such as a life full of anxiety? Either way, you have to realize that by supporting capitalism you are doing a disservice to yourself.

Concerning elections, in an ideal world, there are no elections. The government is a communist government, because communism makes sense. The government is not a capitalist government because capitalism doesn't make sense. That government does its best to serve the people and, if they made mistakes, admit that they did, fix them and move on.

This, however, is not an ideal world, is it? Well, that doesn't mean we can't aim for one that is. Support and vote for communist parties. Endorse communism today. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by communismistheway 3 weeks ago
Why exactly is it ridiculous? It's ambitious, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't aim for it.

Capitalism may be able to aim for that perfection as well. However, this is not a reason to justify the harm it causes.

Capitalism is a system rotten to the bone. The politicians support it in the belief that the wealth will eventually reach the hands of the many (not that it does and, if it does, it takes too long and is disproportionate to the amount the businesses have made) and businessmen support it because it gives them a lot of money. The people are always cheated. An example would be that last year 99% of the wealth generated by the world ended up in the planet's 1%. The revenue was big enough to eradicate world hunger three times.

"The sacrifice piece is about implementation" You are still making no sense.

I actually bothered to look up innovation in communism and found many interesting things offered by the USSR

To finalize, even if the data is tampered, how much far off could the actual results be? These researchers are funded by a capitalist system to examine if its rival is doing a good job or not. I wouldn't expect a good word from them.
Posted by s0lution 3 weeks ago
Are you saying that any research request would be funded? This seems ridiculous.

The sacrifice piece is about implementation however I can concede in this case I don't see why communism would be ay worse or better.

The reason is my source provides information regarding how the stats you source provide are generated. This challenges the validity. I can agree that nothing can be 100% certain however this is a trend commonly seen in communist and any highly centralised system. That when the information collected does not fit what they want they change the rules regarding the information. (This is called propaganda). This happens both in capitalist and communist countries. When this happens in more democratic capitalist countries this is usually exposed through the free press or other means.
Posted by communismistheway 3 weeks ago
I forgot to mention that, even though the state funds the research, the research is initiated and carried out by the scientists. You just have to fill an application and, hopefully soon (not that in capitalism it doesn't take long), your research will be funded. As a result, we can see that there is private initiative and it can, and will, be exercised. It's just that you can't profit from it.

New and innovative ideas are what people can benefit from, right? Since communism serves the people, it is only natural that it endorses innovation. Though, as I said earlier, the examples are not very satisfying.

Additionally, your argument about putting innovation to use makes no sense. When we create something, we already have an idea of what we want to do with it, regardless of social model.

Concerning investment and sacrifice, we don't research because of the thrill the risk gives us, but because of our curiosity, which has fueled all major discoveries since the start of humanity.

Lastly, concerning sources, your source looks politically biased. It is blatantly comparing economic systems. Furthermore, it comes from an American Academy. Considering the training of doctors in Cuba is groundbreaking (the doctor learns through internships), it is obvious they, the defenders of education for money, are a bit salty. Also, the title says "Demystifying" (as if there is a mystery to the statistics, a truth only the author can see). If it supports your view that the Cuban healthcare system is a lie, then it should say "Disproving" instead.

"different publishers have sometimes opposite interpretations of the situation" And why should your sources be trusted, but mine shouldn't?

As my source said, the statistics don't lie. Cuba has a healthcare system that ensures a life expectancy of around 78 years, close to the US's, but with a decreased spending per patient. IMR is there as well. What else is there to discuss?
Posted by s0lution 3 weeks ago
Then you need to diversify the publishers you read. As the Cuban IMR is clearly not as good as reported in the article you cited. It is very clear that different publishers have sometimes opposite interpretations of the situation. This is especially true scientific information as you commonly have people that have no scientific understanding just creating talking points. Given this new information are you agreeing that the Cuban example is now invalid. Can you provide another?

You comments about the Russian innovation proves my point. Yes government does much of the primary research however it is the free market that tends to find the best application for those discoveries. Knowing something makes no difference it is how that knowledge can be effectively applied in action. This is a task capitalism has been more successful then communism at. Primarily this appears to be the significant investment and sacrifice required to bring these breakthroughs into reality. It is not clear how the communist structure and flattened hierarchy of competence can support this.

Secondly communism does not fundamentally value new and innovative ideas that are not immediately applicable. There is limited room for radical thought as it can never fit into a centralised model of management.
Posted by communismistheway 3 weeks ago
s0lution - Concerning research, I hate reading research. These long papers are a pain to read. I just want the result. Articles are a great way to present that result. Articles tell you what is and why it is in fairly simple terms, while also noting the research they are based on for those interested. However, one would say that you are trusting the writer of the article to present to you the truth. The answer to that argument is that yes, I do. If anything we are all people of the world and want the best for each other. Besides, I am always employing some safety measures, such as reading more than one article and thinking to see whether what the writer says makes sense. Furthermore, how can you be sure the research is legit as well? I trust the research too, except for when there is evidence for its unreliability (yes, that evidence is found in an article, give me a break, you are getting paranoid).
Posted by communismistheway 3 weeks ago
Dear, solution, there is no evidence that human ingenuity disappears with the absence of work. Scientists that made major discoveries report that these discoveries were not the result of their job, but rather of their play. They wanted to study the respective subjects and ended up making scientific breakthroughs. Why should that disappear in a communist society? Now, I understand the examples on innovation communist countries gave, especially Russia, are not good. The only innovation from Russia I can think is on weaponry. Still, there is that for you. I'm not justifying it in any way, though. That money could be used for researching more important subjects, like medicine and technology.

Here we can see that Russia decides to invest resources on developing weapons. Just like that, they can decide to invest in any other research. What is research from their side other than funding scientists' projects? That is how research will work in communist countries, just like it works now in capitalist ones. The state will decide to spend a part of its resources on research. The result of the research is free for everyone (in the state and, why not, the whole world) to enjoy. A side note: can research carried out by private corporations (capitalist society exclusive) benefit everyone? Not really, if you think that 1. they don't have to share the research and 2. they can exploit it to profit. An example would be a pharmaceutical company that discovers a new drug, but doesn't share the details and sells it in the market, usually for a higher than normal price. As a result, either the citizen or the state has to deal with the price, which essentially means less money into the citizen's pocket.
Posted by s0lution 3 weeks ago
Hi. This is a debate I am interested in as I can see some issues with an unfetted capitalist system however I also see major issues with communism.

In regards to some of your sources I highly recommend not using the huffington post as a source of scientific information. See here a more reliable investigation into the Cuban health situation's_View

This is a common issue that comes up with centralised power is that they can decide to measure things differently and suddenly the problem goes away.

I would be interested in your response as too how a communist system allows for unforeseen technological breakthrough. It is clear that it can still push toward known technology eg the space race. However it seems they miss out on other unforseen opportunities as only central planned objectives are are resourced. It is not clear that something like the smartphone would be possible in a communist system as initially it is seen as non critical.
Posted by communismistheway 4 weeks ago
I recently saw the movie Child 44. I believe it is based on a true story. In the movie, a government official in charge of crime (but not in the highest rank) went against an overconfident Stalin and government in order to solve the murder of several young children. There is a moral official for you. That isn't to say he was the only one. There is no reason to believe selfless, honest and moral people suddenly disappear in communism. I'd say that is the case with capitalism.

Concerning work, last time I checked, we work because we like what we are working on. If we like what we are working on, the salary won't matter. He who likes being a doctor will remain a doctor regardless of salary. The "I work hard so I want more money" notion has to go extinct. What do you want extra money for, anyway? Are they going to restore the stamina you lost during work? I don't think so. What I do think is that you are brainwashed to seek more money. Frankly, I can't blame you. The capitalist propaganda is everywhere and it is too strong to resist. Luckily, with a little bit of questioning its ideas, you will see it is not worth its attention and that communism is the only ideology that truly serves your rights as a citizen.

To finalize, I want to break the misconception that communism will come and destroy everything. Communism doesn't have to be applied at once. It can, and will, be applied slowly, but steadily, until we get close to that perfect society it has to offer.
Posted by ThisIsNotMe 4 weeks ago
You know the thing about communism is it forgets people have flaws. Yes, some leaders are pretty good, but some aren't. In the U.S. we have Checks and balances, so just as long as the people have to like the president the president, it is not a dictatorship. No matter who says they are in charge of a country it is always the people, and so long as people know what happens in the world around; so long as the majority has weapons and information about the world; the common people are safe. No matter what happens against the people they will protect themselves if the government goes to far, but in communist societies the government is trusted. Communism requires people to trust that the government; a small minority are all perfect selfless people. How many perfect people do you know? I haven't met one and don't plan to. Honestly, I work hard in capitalist society. I'm not greedy, but I'm no slacker, people who want to live easy and get paid the same no matter how hard they work want to leach off the people who do work. I don't know what most people think, but I do not like leaches.
Posted by ThisIsNotMe 4 weeks ago
Also the good thing about the U.S. is that almost nothing is buried in the news.
No votes have been placed for this debate.