The Instigator
firestorm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Communism is better than Democracy

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 2 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,194 times Debate No: 46305
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

firestorm

Pro

this debate has four rounds, I am for communism and you will have to prove that Democracy is a better political ideology. each round will proceed as following.
round 1: introduce topic, structure of the political stances
round 2: benefits that your political stances achieves for the country E.g. industrial, economical
round 3: social standards that the country has, E.g. no religion or free speech
round 4: summing up points.

Communism as a political ideology is better than a Democracy. The definition of Communism is a social organisation in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. As we know a Democracy is very different, it is a system of government that represents the people and is usually run by elected representative.
As a from of government communism achieves more for the country and is better for the people and the economical state of the country. A true communism is run by the people, however there has usually been a one party system. unlike a democracy where there are multiple parties running the country. multiple parties running a country can be problematic, party policies and political stances on matters creates a confused country and can create frustration and a loss of power for the party that is leading the country at the time. for instance, in communism one particular party is in power, they have the ability to form the country as a whole. under the same political page there is no policies clashes and varying laws in different states, also each representative forms the similar opinion and form as a collective. this does have cons however I believe the benefits outweigh the bad.
A Democracy couldn't be more different for example in Australia two parties run the country, officially one party leads the country with their elected prime minister and elected ministers. what I mean by two parties run on country is that the liberal party may own majority seats in the whole of the electorate say they won 90 seats, then labor will have 60 seats. this almost half the country that labor still run. therefore they still can place their parties policies within their elected area. another problem is that the senate controls what laws, amendments and bills can pass through Parliament. if labor party and its affiliates (minor parties that have alliances with the major two parties) controls the senate then there parties policies come first, this can be a problem for the party in power because none of there policies can pass the senate unless is benefits the labor party.
how is the country expected to evolve and become better if both parties do not agree on each others ideas. this is why communism is better as political ideology, there is minimal in-party fighting and no resistance towards policies. the country is run as a whole and not separate districts.
bluesteel

Con

Burden of proof

My opponent sets up democracy is opposition to a Communist "one party" system. Communism is an economic, not a political system, so my opponent's resolution is incoherent unless we assume he is arguing for the dictatorial brand of Communism that we have historically seen. My opponent even affirms this when he says that he is arguing for a Communism under which "there has usually been a one party system." Therefore, my opponent must defend the instances of Communism that have occurred in the real world.

== My case ==

C1: Communism inherently leads to dictatorship

Communism could never work if it entailed democratic voting. Murray Rothbard explains, "Communism holds that every man should have the right to own his equal quotal share of everyone else. If there are two billion people in the world, then everyone has the right to own one two-billionth of every other person . . . [W]e can picture the viability of such a world: a world in which no man is free to take any action whatever without prior approval . . . by everyone else in society. It should be clear that in that sort of ‘communist' world, no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly perish." [1] Thus, a non-despotic Communism could not function because it requires a massive consensus for every tiny decision.

Communism therefore inherently leads to despotism. Rothbard continues, "The participatory communist world cannot be put into practice. For it is physically impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal quotal share of partial ownership over every other man. In practice, then, the concept of universal and equal other-ownership is utopian and impossible, and supervision and therefore control and ownership of others necessarily devolves upon a specialized group of people, who thereby become a ruling class. Hence, in practice, any attempt at communist rule will automatically become class rule." [1]

Of the five countries that are classified as Communist today [Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea], all rank among the lowest on the Freedom House index of political freedom and civil liberties. [7]

C2: Communism empirically fails

Communism fails because people are not willing to work if they are not paid. A person has no incentive to work if he is going to get the same resources no matter what ("to each according to his need"). Grigory Yavlinsky, a Soviet economist, observed that "[t]he Soviet system is not working because the workers . . . had no incentives to work." [2] Nearly the entire Soviet economic was sustianed by the military industrial complex. Military production accounted for 70% of the USSR's GDP. [2]

In addition, central planning does a horrible job of allocating resources. Government bureaucrats simply “guess” how much of a given product people might want in a command economy. The USSR was notorious for never having enough toothpaste in stock because of the failure of government planning. Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek described this problem as the “economic calculation problem” – that supply and demand do a good job of funneling resources to where they are wanted and needed, but central planning does not. As Tibor R. Machan has explained, "Without a market in which allocations can be made in obedience to the law of supply and demand, it is difficult or impossible to funnel resources with respect to actual human preferences and goals." [3] For example, during Gorbachev’s reign, he decided that factories should start producing more expensive goods. [4] Gorbachev’s centrally planned decision forced factories to move away from producing everyday consumer goods. [4] Supply for everyday goods - like toothpaste, bread, and shoes – suddenly went way down. [4] As a result, the prices of these everyday commodities skyrocketed. [4] People were understandably upset. [4] Central planning is a horrible system. Supply and demand do a much better job of allocating resources where they are needed.

The Soviet economy failed, causing the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.

C3: Communism leads to genocide and death

Communist regimes have willfully murdered approximately 260 million of their citizens over the course of human history. [8] Most of these murders were carried out to silence political dissidents. Communist regimes have sacrificed countless others for the greater good. Stalinist Russia sacrificed 7 million lives to starvation due to farm collectivization. Mao Zedong forced his people to make steel in their backyards instead of farming, leading to the deaths of 45 million people in 4 years. [5]

C4: One party rule leads to corruption and nepotism

In China, "everyone is guilty of corruption." [6] Bribes are necessary to get a business project approved or to get your relative admitted to a hospital. [6] Wealthy business must develop patronage relationships with party officials so they can get anything done. [6] Advancement within the Party is dependent entirely on nepotism, i.e. it is a dynastic succession system. North Korea has the same political structure. In contrast, democracy is more of a meritocracy-based system. The best and most honest politicians are more likely to rise to the top. Politicians that are completely corrupt will be filtered out by media investigation and public opinion. In democracy, politicians are at least somewhat accountable to the governed. In despotic rule, the single party can do whatever it likes because it cannot get voted out of office.

== Rebuttal ==

R1: My opponent argues that in a two party system, minority parties do not get their way

Most democracies protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by providing them certain fundamental rights (such as in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution). These rights can only be removed by a Constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority. Democracies also typically have a system of checks and balances so that one actor cannot accumulate too much power. For example, in the US, the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, but only Congress has the power to declare war. By dividing the power between different branches, a democratic government prevents tyranny and despotism. Communism, in contrast, starts with a dictatorship by one party.

Democracy is not perfect, but it's the best system we have available. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst system of government - except for every other system tried in human history." Because democracy is preferable to the alternative, I urge a Con vote in this debate.


[1] http://mises.org...;
[2] http://www.sjsu.edu...;
[3] http://media.hoover.org...
[4] http://library.thinkquest.org...
[5] http://www.independent.co.uk...;
[6] http://www.cnn.com...;
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
firestorm

Pro

firestorm forfeited this round.
bluesteel

Con

Extend everything.
Debate Round No. 2
firestorm

Pro

firestorm forfeited this round.
bluesteel

Con

Extend everything.
Debate Round No. 3
firestorm

Pro

firestorm forfeited this round.
bluesteel

Con

Full forfeit ==> Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Democracy and communism/socialism are not mutually exclusive. There is a difference between political systems and economic systems.

Comparing democracy to communism is like comparing football with hunting.
Posted by TheIndividualRights 3 years ago
TheIndividualRights
"Democratic" in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one"s work, one"s property, one"s mind, and one"s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.

he American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn"t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one"s rights.

Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom.
Posted by firestorm 3 years ago
firestorm
you might need some understanding of Australian politics, but you can use your own Democracy understanding to prove your point. I only gave this as an example because I'm Australian. so feel free to use your own and i can read up on it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
firestormbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
firestormbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited every round.