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

Communism is justified in poor countries.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,352 times Debate No: 13425
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Hello and thank you to whom ever decides to accept this debate. This debate is to be executed in the following manner:
-Opening Statments
-Cross Fire (Questioning period)
-Second Statements
-Second Cross Fire (Second Questioning Period)
In other words similar to a round of conventional Public Forum debate.

Before I begin I would like to take just a moment to establish a criteria in which the Con must meet to win. The Con must prove that Communism by no means is justified in poor countries. To merely suggest that communism is a bad system does to meet the burdens for victory in these debate. Now I will define some terms in order to better regulate this debate:

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.

Poor-characterized by or showing poverty.

Contention 1. Poor countries do not have the economic stability to function in any other manner- First allow me to give a brief description of Communism. Communism is the belief that all possessions are commonly owned. For example a communist theory would be: A carpenter is building two houses. One for himself and the other for his brother. In a capitalist society more often then not the Carpenter spends more hours on his own house than his brother's. Communism teaches that the carpenter should work equally as hard on his house as he does on his brothers. My first contention isn't inherently saying that this mindset is the correct one,however; In poor countries it is necessary to work together in order to improve standard of living. In poor communities in countries such as Cuba, Haiti, and many more barter is an essential way of getting products our services you need. Because more often then not paper money (or for that matter any money) is scarce barter is the only method people have obtain goods and services. In order for barter to work people must be pleased with the goods/products they are getting. So for that matter the communist theory triumphs the capitalist theory. For example: Once again you are a carpenter. You need some food some make a deal with the local farmer, if you build his house he will supply you with food for a month. Communism suggests that you build the farmers house with equal care that you used to build your house so you construct the farmers house and worked equally as hard on his house as you did on yours, and as promised you receive the food in adequate amount. Suppose that this perfect little scenario went this way: You build the farmers house and he notices that your house has been built much better. The farmer decides that your job was not sufficient and does not give you the food. No only have you lost materials but you now have no food. It is clear that in poor villages in poor countries communism is necessary in order to maintain the delicate balance of the barter system.

Contention 2. Eventually They will convert to more appropriate forms of government: "The 20th People's National Assembly met in Beijing in March 2003 to approve changes in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the executive bodies of the People's Republic of China (PRC) which had been decided on four months earlier by the nomenclature of the party at its 16th Congress. The promotion of the "fifth generation" of leaders, with Hu Jintao at their head, has been accompanied by the dissolution of the State Commission for Planning and Development, responsible for the five year plans. The last symbol of a planned economy has thus disappeared with the definitive installation of the market as regulatory mechanism." -

China is becoming increasingly capitalist. China became communist after a bad consecutive streak of warfare. When the smoke cleared one man stood triumphant. Mao Tsetung, possibly the greatest communist to ever walk the earth. Not only did Mao support his fellow communists but had deep seated hatred for capitalists."We will kill the capitalists with the bullets they will sell us." was one of his most famous quotes. How could a nation once ruled by such a man ever make such a switch? Well, when the nation went down the communist path it as a depressed country. People were still trying to recover from the Chinese civil war and WW2 which both occurred at the same time. People where starving and dying and Mao's communist idea's sounded a lot more appealing to the ear than the words of former nationalist Shang Kai Shek. But now 70 years latter country has recovered (thanks to Communism) and has grown to be one of the largest economies in the world and i trying to convert to capitalism now that they have the stability.

Once again thanks to whom ever excepts this debate, best of luck!
I urge all parties voting to pass a PRO ballot.


Thanks for the debate TheSquadBoss.


According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "justified" means "to demonstrate or prove to be just" and "just" is "consistent with what is morally right." [1][2]

==Burden of proof==

My opponent, as the instigator, has the burden of proving that Communism is consistent with what is morally right.

My opponent lays a burden on me: "To merely suggest that communism is a bad system does to meet the burdens for victory in these debate." I will not "merely" prove that Communism is bad but will prove either that 1) there are better systems or 2) Communism is not morally right.

==My Case==

I will show that Communism is not consistent with what is morally right. The system of morality that I offer is libertarianism.

C1) Morality

Murray N. Rothbard explains the libertarian creed as follows: "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the ‘nonaggression axiom.'" [3]

From this central axiom follows three tenets: the right to self-ownership, strict property rights, and free markets.

Communism violates all 3 of these tenets. People do not have the right to self-ownership; the State can conscript its citizens into the army and force them to sacrifice themselves in its name. Every day, the State violates property rights by confiscating "from each according to his ability" and redistributing hard earned property "to each according to his needs." Lastly, Communism is the opposite of free markets, with 100% of the economy being planned and controlled by the State.

Libertarianism believes in equal liberty whereas Communism believes in equal results. [4]

C2) True Communism leads to complete inaction and extinction

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. In the first place, we can state that this ideal rests on an absurdity: proclaiming that every man is entitled to own a part of everyone else, yet is not entitled to own himself. Secondly, we can picture the viability of such a world: a world in which no man is free to take any action whatever without prior approval or indeed command 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. But if a world of zero self-ownership and one hundred percent other ownership spells death for the human race, then any steps in that direction also contravene the natural law of what is best for man and his life on earth." [5]

C3) In practice, Communism inevitably leads to a dictatorship by a ruling class

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." [6]

C4) Communism empirically fails

The free market is inherently better at correctly allocating resources according to demand. The Soviet planned economy was well known for bureaucratic oversights that would result in "stores" carrying far too much toothpaste and far too few shoes, for example.

Rothbard continues, "Socialism was a confused and hybrid movement because it tried to achieve the liberal goals of freedom, peace, and industrial harmony and growth—goals which can only be achieved through liberty and the separation of government from virtually everything—by imposing the old conservative means of statism, collectivism, and hierarchical privilege. It was a movement which could only fail, which indeed did fail miserably in those numerous countries where it attained power in the twentieth century, by bringing to the masses only unprecedented despotism, starvation, and grinding impoverishment." [7]

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. [9] 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. [10] From C1, these statistics all prove that Communism violates the right to self-ownership (the right to life).



My opponent claims that poor countries cannot survive without Communism. However, even Somalia, one of the worst countries in the world, has faired better under anarchocapitalism than under State planning. According to the Mises Institute, "Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated. The future of peace and prosperity there depends in part on keeping one from forming." [11]

The Asian Tiger economies all disprove my opponent's argument; Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan all went from being poor to wealthy countries using free market capitalism. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are seeing astronomical economic growth due to their free market reforms. [12]

My opponent next cites an example that a carpenter should work as hard on another's home as on his own home. This happens under laissez faire capitalism because if the carpenter does not work hard enough on his neighbor's home, the neighbor will fire him and tell other neighbors not to hire the carpenter. (Turn) The carpenter would not work hard on another's home under Communism because he receives his quota of food, clothes, etc whether or not he works hard. The only house he has an incentive to work hard on is his own.

My opponent next describes a system of bartering. Bartering and trade only exist under capitalism; Communism reserves all property rights to the State.

My opponent cites Cuba as a good example of Communism. According to the Chicago Tribune, in Cuba, "food shortages are frequent, the stock of adequate housing has shrunk, and hospital patients often have to bring their own sheets, food and even medical supplies." [14] The same source says that Chile has become 4 times wealthier than Cuba since 1980 "thanks to bold free-market reforms."


China's incredible economic growth was mostly due to opening up its economy three decades ago and allowing its export sector to grow dramatically. [13] China's success is almost entirely attributable to its free market reforms. State run companies are terrible; "While state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are suffering growing financial losses, the nonstate sector is developing tremendously." [15]

According to my opponent, China is still ruled undemocratically by the CCP but now has a free market. A dictatorship paired with capitalism is defined as fascism. I ask my opponent if he endorses Nazi Germany as a good form of government.


Debate Round No. 1


TheSquadBoss forfeited this round.


awwww man.

Extend my case. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


TheSquadBoss forfeited this round.


Shoot, I actually wanted to DEBATE this.

Extend my case and such. Vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3


TheSquadBoss forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheSquadBoss 5 years ago
i know im sorry, i should have realized I wouldn't have time with mid-terms so soon. I appologize.
Posted by innomen 5 years ago
Easy win for Bluesteel.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
Why post the debate if you knew you wouldn't have time to respond?
Posted by TheSquadBoss 5 years ago
sorry i have been very bussy lately i probably won't be able to respond much at all my appologies
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
Had 51 characters left yet this got cut off:

Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Sorry -- I'm not up for a more formal debate; I've never done HS debate so I'm unfamiliar with the format. I apologize for the delay - I'll let the challenge expire unless you're okay with traditional discussion/debating style.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by innomen 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06