The Instigator
calculatedr1sk
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
KingHenrikLundqvist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Communism is the best solution to most of the world's problems

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
calculatedr1sk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,049 times Debate No: 35684
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

calculatedr1sk

Con

I'd like to start by welcoming my opponent to DDO, as I see he is a new member.

This debate is in response to the opinion question posed by Guardian_Rock: http://www.debate.org...

My opponent seems to strongly favor Communism. I'd like to give him an opportunity to elaborate on why he thinks Communism is the best economic system, and to provide warrants, examples, and credible sources to back up his position.

As Con, I will be arguing that Commuism is not the best economic system to address the worlds problems. Whichever debator most convincingly articulates their position should get your vote, rather than just the person whose side you agree with.

Any forfeits are an automoatic loss of conduct. Pro may present his opening case immediately in round 1, but to keep the rounds fair he'll need to leave the final round blank. Failure to do so is to forego the 3 points for arguments.

Pro, best of luck to you, sir.
KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

I would like to start off by saying thank you to calculatedr1sk for starting this good debate and good luck to him in this debate. Through out this debate I will be covering many issues that communism can solve. For the first two rounds I will focus on the social issues that communism can solve.

"Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution."
Karl Marx in his book, Private Property and Communism (1844)

The first two society issues I will focus on is racial ultra-nationalism and education. Even though there has not been a country which has adopted the communist system, there has however been a numerous amount of countries which aimed toward achieving communism through socialism. These countries like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Republic of Cuba, and the German Democratic Republic have all focused on ending hate in their societies.

But two of the nations put a special focus on ending ultra-nationalism in the societies, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

First, when Mao Zedong created the People's Republic of China he stepped into power when there was some strong nationalist sentiment left over from the Chiang Kai-Shek days of China. So through art such as music, posters, and films, Mao ordered that they put a special focus on equality from all races like this poster detailing that all of the people no matter their race or creed are all the same because we are all being exploited by the imperialist powers: http://chineseposters.net... (Caption reads: The struggle of all the people in the world against American imperialism will be victorious!). These and many other works produced by the Chinese government dramatically decreased the nationalist sentiments in China.

Another nation which similarly had a huge issue with nationalism was the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which was formed directly after World War II by Yugoslav Partisans who fought of the fascist powers in Europe from gaining control in the Balkans. Even though the war was won, many fascist principles which where indoctrinated into the people during the German and Italian occupation of the regions of the Balkans. Especially with the fascist principle of having a dominate culture in society allured the many ethnic groups in Yugoslavia such as the Slovenians, Croatians, Muslim Bosnians, and the Serbians who had to deal with the majority of Albanians in Kosovo. This was a major issue in Yugoslavia which later tore it apart in the 90's due to the fall of socialism in the world which made Yugoslavia completely vulnerable. But before the collapse, the Yugoslavian government put a special focus on ending nationalist groups which was widely considered one of the major successes of the SFRY. Many would be terrorist were caught before they would cause any harm to another race. Even though the statistics of the crime rate in the SFRY are hard to come by these days since most records where destroyed during the wars in the 90s many former citizens of the SFRY recall it being safe anywhere in the country and moving from each region to each region they felt no cultural difference since the work to finally establish the fact that they are all Yugoslavians not Bosnians or Serbians.

The next issue which communism can fix is the lack of educated people in a society. One of the finest examples of this is the Cuban Literacy Program after the revolution which replaced US installed dictator, Fulgencio Batista with Cuban working class born, Fidel Castro. Illiteracy was a huge problem in Cuba, most of the Cuban funds during the Batista years were either sent to the United States corporations or the many mafias in Cuba. But after the expulsion of the mafias and the US corporations in Cuba, the funds were finally being sent to the people. One of the key promises of the Cuban revolution was to abolish illiteracy in Cuba. Before the revolution, around 1959 the literacy rate was at 50-60% (These numbers were falsified a lot by the Batista regime, but historians agree that this was the rate but after the revolution and around 1962 when education was 100% free and readily available to all on the Cuban island, the literacy rate was at 96% which was actually one of the highest in the world. (Source: Fagen, Richard R. Cuba: The Political Content of Adult Education. Stanford: Stanford University, 1964. Print.) These numbers mimic the success of many other socialist nations like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China but Cuba has one the most well documented success that I have decided to specifically use Cuba for this argument.

As I stated above, these are my two opening arguments, I have many other things I will discuss in the next few rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
calculatedr1sk

Con

Thank you for your opening argument, Pro.

Karl Marx was a brilliant and persuasive thinker, but did not get to see his ideas empirically tested. If he had, then in order to maintain intellectual honesty he would have had to admit that he was mistaken about many things.

I begin by noting that my burden is not to prove that Communists cannot solve any problems, that everything they did was wrong, that it is inferior to every other system, or that all of its supporters are inherently evil. Indeed, these are not at all my positions. Communist Russia was an American ally in WW2, Communist Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space, and the USSR was at one time powerful enough to rival America militarily and perhaps in some ways even economically and ideologically. This provides ample evidence that Communism cannot simply be dismissed out of hand as being incapable of getting results. But it is not my aim to do so, and this is not at issue in this debate.

My burden is simply to demonstrate that Communism is not the best answer to the world’s problems - nothing more, and nothing less.

With that in mind, please note that none of the points Pro made in round 1 provide any support to the resolution that Communism is the best answer to problems, only that it provides one possible answer – and in at least some of these cases, a very bad answer. Denazification programs were also carried out in Western Europe. One of the main differences was that in the West, the Allies recognized the project as essentially a failure and a “witch hunt” and eventually in 1951 “the provisional West German government granted amnesties to lesser offenders and ended the program” [1]. Meanwhile, in Soviet controlled East Germany, 43,000 East Germans died in the camps that were set up by the Communists to imprison Nazis, but many were arbitrarily arrested and did not receive fair trials, or in some cases, any trials at all [1]. Rather than end the madness, they doubled down. The Soviets were embarrassed by the millions of East Germans that were fleeing to the better prospects in the West. They used fear mongering and demonization of West Germany, accusing it of being nothing but an extension of the old Nazi regime, to erect an “Antifascistischer Schutzwall”, or “antifascist bulwark” - the Berlin Wall. The true purpose of the Berlin Wall was to stem emigration out of hellish East Germany - to keep the population from escaping. If Communist controlled East Germany were such a paradise compared to the West, then why did people still risk their lives trying to get out of it? 5000 succeeded between 1961-1989… 600 of which were guards [2]. I can’t help but wonder - why do you think they were so desperate to leave such a great place, Pro?

I agree that the Communist regimes did focus tremendous effort on building literacy and providing healthcare to the people, and to their credit, they were successful in improving literacy in countries such as Cuba. Again, my contention is not that Communist policy is incapable of improving the lives of people in any way at all. My criticism however, is that this is an incomplete solution, because high literacy, education, and healthcare never translated into good jobs and economic prosperity for these people. In the capitalist West as well as our capitalist allies like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, there was both high literacy and economic prosperity. One need only look at the Korean peninsula at night to see the stark contrast between an enlightened prosperous mixed economy (both capitalist and socialist elements) like South Korea or even modern China, compared with the purity of Communist ideology that cripples North Korea.

Indeed, while Mao may be rightly credited with being a patriot who was instrumental in freeing China from the grip of foreign domination, he was also was gravely mistaken about how best to transform his country into a prosperous and successful superpower. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were disastrous attempts to move China towards Communism and away from Capitalism, and the lowered agricultural production caused by these policies led directly to the deaths of millions of Chinese and the tragedy of a “lost generation” [3][4]. It was only when Deng Xiaoping gained enough influence to successfully maneuver his nation towards reform that China was able to enter a phase of unprecedented growth and prosperity – through mixed Capitalist-Socialist market economics, and not Communism [5]. During the past several decades, China has maintained high education levels, and generally speaking, political order and stability (with the exception of Tibet, which is a whole other issue). This indicates that mixed-market economics (Post Deng China, Singapore, much of Europe, etc...) is a vastly superior system than futile attempts to achieve pure Communism (Maoist China, Cuba, and present day North Korea).

1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) http://www.history.com...

3) http://www.independent.co.uk...

4) http://www.cnn.com...

5) http://www.time.com...

KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

Indeed Karl Marx was a brilliant a persuasive thinker. And if he saw the world as it is today, he would realize that he was 100% right that the gap between the rich and the poor is spreading further and further each day. Sure Marx would have been embarrassed to see the Stalinist regimes that made a mockery out of his work and made it look horrible.

Sure the erecting of the Berlin Wall might have been a huge mistake, but as Stalinist East Germany, they built the border and created drastic programs in hopes of eliminating nationalist sentiments, but they did not take the lesson of Tito in Yugoslavia which was Yugoslavia was more "western" with the handling of these people, they weren't abrupt like the GDR (East Germany) was with the Stasi in creating a like you said, witch hunt.

You mention the failures of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, China has never touched true socialism, sure they may involved some socialist elements in their society, but the totalitarian outweighs that. They created a Stalinist then Maoist regime. They held a tight grasp on the working class in China. After Mao Zedong died, Deng Xiaoping created a state capitalist system which created a wide spread exploitation on the working class in China. With this state capitalist system, many sweat shops where created which is the one thing all communist want to eradicate in the world. Also with North Korea, during the early 60s they erased Stalinism in the country and adopted a Korean form of Socialist/Theocratic ideology called Juche, during the last half of the 20th century they cut out all references to socialism and communism by replacing it with the Songun Policy, socialism and communism was wiped out of the North Korean's minds in 2009 when they redrafted their constitution and no mention of socialism and communism is found (http://leonidpetrov.wordpress.com...). Since their inception they have always had a false concept of communism which has lead them to the current state they are at with food issues and diplomatic issues.

Another thing Communism will solve is the lack of support for health care. One of the main principles of Communism is to make sure all of the people are healthy and that they have everything they need to stay healthy. Many Communist have medical degrees including communist revolutionary Che Guevara who was said to have checked everyone in a village during the Cuban revolutionary. Even once in Bolivia he gave a child his only inhaler because he saw that he was in horrible shape. This is said to have caused his downfall later in Bolivia due to its high elevation and Che's asthma caused him to grow weak which caused him to be captured and murdered. But besides that, all socialist nations have universal health-care and make sure that each village is close to a medical station be it a clinic or a full blown hospital. Another success of the Cuban Revolution was the creation of hospitals across the Cuban island. All of the stats on the increase of quality in health services can be seen here: (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Sure it may be Wikipedia, but it has an extensive amount of information which each has its citiations which you can refer to.

One of the major things socialism has eliminated is the main idea of homelessness. With the abolition of private property all land is provided by the state which means it is free. So all citizens are well housed, well fed, and well equipped with everything they need. And if you felt like you wanted an upgrade in living (such as a larger house, you could purchase it). It is very hard to get official statistics due to the Russian Federation destroying these to hide the success of the Soviet Union. But here is an article to prove that another socialist nation has literally 0% homelessness: (http://fresnoalliance.com...).

My last thing I will discuss in this round is the employment and its major benefits in a socialist/communist society. The fundamental thing in communism is the liberation of the working class from the oppressive rich who have long exploited them by paying them the minimal wage and taking the profit away from the workers. But in a socialist/communist society the workers benefit from working, the profit along with a wage goes directly to them. The worker keeps the wage while the state takes the profit and redirects it to health-care, education, transportation, and various other improvements in life. Unlike in a capitalist society where it is hard to get a job due to it being a "competition" to get one. In a socialist/communist society you get a job where you want because it is readily available to you. There are always the people that do not want to work or they just can't because they are a mother and they wish to spend the time raising the kids. Even though Cuba is going through a rough patch, many people maintain there job despite that the products they create are not being sent out into the world due to the embargo placed on them by the many NATO countries. (https://www.cia.gov...) Click economy and you will see it is 3.8% which is better then most capitalist countries including the United States which is at 8.0% and their products could easily sell but they still have that immense number.
Debate Round No. 2
calculatedr1sk

Con

Thank you, Pro. I will try to organize my points and rebuttals systematically in this round for the reader’s ease of use, but in order to quickly summarize my position it is this: Pro’s points are moot because a mixed economic system is capable of achieving each and every one of the benefits that Pro points to throughout this debate, but does not require that we “kill the golden goose” [6] of entrepreneurship and the free market. Because a mixed (Capitalist and Socialist) market economy, such as the kind already used by the USA, China, Europe, Japan, and every other modern nation, can achieve the benefits of Communism without the severe liabilities, it is thus the best known way to structure an economy.

Section 1: Liabilities of Communism – Class Warfare, Disincentive to Innovate, Inefficiency, Incorrect Assessment of Human Nature.

Pro in round 2: Sure Marx would have been embarrassed to see the Stalinist regimes that made a mockery out of his work and made it look horrible.

Engles: What is Communism? Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. What is the proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor....[7]

Karl Marx: We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable..[7]

I submit to the reader that the cruelty we have historically observed, both in Marxist revolutions and later in the resulting Socialist dictatorships, does not happen by accident. It is in no way inconsistent with the vengeance which Marx and Engles feel is justified to visit upon the bourgeoisie. They have, by virtue of activity rather than race or religion, dehumanized one class of person and romanticized another. They provide justification to steal the property and commit all manner of horror upon the “oppressive” bourgeoisie Capitalists by the same process of emotional disconnect and dehumanization that Nazis used in order to convince Germans to essentially go along with doing the same thing to the Jews, who were also caricatured as being undeservingly prosperous.

Without being able to enjoy the rewards of entrepreneurship and without facing the threat of competition, why would anyone work day and night to improve their idea, build a reputation with consumers, market their product so people know about it, and rework the product until it is exactly what customers want? They wouldn’t. Without incentive to take risk, people have no reason to take the massive action needed to build a business. If one can simply be paid to be a janitor, then forget going to all that trouble to innovate; where’s the mop? But friends, that is the fast track to a stagnant society, the kind that would still produce phones that look like this:

Marx and many since him have many mistaken assumptions about human nature. Yes, humans do have some sense of cooperative altruism, and in the right environment and on a small enough scale, they do have the potential to be able to share and take care of one another without things like class divisions or money – it can look a lot like pure Communism. But this primitive experience can only be achieved in the context of small homogenous tribes and groupings, where there is trust and familiarity, and selfishness can be easily observed and punished by the group by threat of social ostracism. Once the tribe becomes too successful and population size grows too large, the free rider problem becomes increasingly more pronounced, and the incentive to help strangers becomes too weak to drive necessary behaviors anywhere near as effectively as structures aligned with self-interest can. Suppressing self-interest as Socialism and national level Communism tries to is entirely delusional.

Section 2: Heroic Myth of the Revolutionary

While it seems non sequitur to me, since my opponent uses imagery to paint a pretty picture of the noble revolutionary, I may as well address his artwork. My own heroes are men like Warren Buffett who have compassion not just for those of their own social class, but for those of all social classes. With love and humor, he advocates not for warfare and suffering to be inflicted upon the rich, but for kindness and generosity for the poor. He speaks honestly of the imperfections inherent to Capitalism and the need for it to evolve, rather than be overthrown, with quotes like the following: A market economy creates some lopsided payoffs to participants. The right endowment of vocal chords, anatomical structure, physical strength, or mental powers can produce enormous piles of claim checks (stocks, bonds, and other forms of capital) on future national output. Proper selection of ancestors similarly can result in lifetime supplies of such tickets upon birth. If zero real investment returns diverted a bit greater portion of the national output from such stockholders to equally worthy and hardworking citizens lacking jackpot-producing talents, it would seem unlikely to pose such an insult to an equitable world as to risk Divine Intervention. [8] - "How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor", Warren E. Buffett, Fortune May 1977 #

In otherwords, he’s saying it won’t do us any harm to share more with the less fortunate. The man, one of the richest owners of capital and “exploiters” of labor in the world, is no oppressor. He’s raised literally billions of dollars, and allocated his vast fortune to be donated to making the world better for everyone, but especially the poor [8].

Contrast him with Che. The same Che Guevara who may very well have felt sufficient empathy for a poor child to give the boy his last inhaler in a Quixotic display was also a hateful and cruel bigot. He would have shown no mercy towards a rich person, even if that rich person might have also been the kind of guy Warren Buffett is, the sort who would surely also give up an inhaler to a suffering child. As director of La Cubana prison in 1959 Che executed nearly 100 people without due process. He also advocated nuclear war against the United States, the abolition of free speech, the abolition of free press, and abolition of the right to assemble. [9] He was violent and oppressive - some hero, Pro.

Section 3: “True” Communism

In the previous round, Pro makes may excuses as to why there are no actual examples of working on a national scale. It was as if he were saying “Oh, but that example doesn’t count because they weren’t true Communists”. That leaves me with a question: If Communism were really so robust as to be an “inevitability”, then why is it so easily derailed by revolutions into corrupt and brutal Socialist dictatorships? Without Socialism, there is no national scale path to Communism, but with Socialism, no country ever actually reaches Communism, the corrupt elite just cling to power. So put another way, I might as well ask “why does the true nature of man always seem to get in the way of what Marx incorrectly dreams that it is?”

6) http://therionorteline.com...

7) https://www.marxists.org...

8) http://en.wikipedia.org...

9) http://blog.nj.com...

KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

KingHenrikLundqvist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
calculatedr1sk

Con

This round, as you all know, had originally been intended only for my use, and Pro was to leave this round blank. He got the first word, and I would get the final word. There has been a development, however; you may have noticed in the comments section that my opponent posted his inability to post his arguments due to technical problems (I have on occasion had problems with this as well).

Rather than have the entire debate become compromised, what I propose is to allow him to use this round to post his argument rather than leave it blank as was previously agreed upon. I would then be allowed to shift my conclusion into the comments section of this debate, and with both of our consent this would be considered legitimate for voting consideration as long as I limited my response to 4 messages (a total of 2,000 chars each). I'd begin each of the official comments with the label at the top indicating order: "Con's Conclusion Part 1, 2, 3, or 4".

I have not yet heard back from my opponent as to whether he accepts this solution. If he does accept, I invite him to post his arguments in this round instead of leaving it blank. Thank you all for your interest, and thank you Pro for what has been an interesting debate thus far. We've both worked hard on this, and I'd rather not walk away from that effort if a simple solution is available.
KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

I would like to apologize to Con for my computer issues, if you voters did not see my comment, I had difficult posting my round 3 arguments due to some script error my computer was giving me when I was hitting the submit button, so I was forced to forfeit the round. I will combine my round 3 and round 4 arguments into one argument.

(ROUND 3)

Con, you state that a mixed system can fix this, I would just like to state that these so called mixed systems (which they nowhere are near to being mixed, they are pure Capitalism with no socialist elements at all) have high rates of homeless people, unemployed people, and starving people because of the exploitation of the worker, they do not benefit from their labor like they would in a communist and socialist system. They also have a high rate of alcoholic people and suicidal people because of the the division of society to make you feel alienated. This is because the bourgeoisies in society display an image that we are all different, which we truely aren't. We are all human beings that are on this Earth, living day to day with the same thoughts and emotions. In a society that teaches we are all the same such as communism would dramatically decrease alcoholism and suicide rates to lower then 5% to 7%. (http://www.accessmylibrary.com...)

In your Section 1 of your piece, you make many outlandish statements that are baseless and purely biased statements with no proof. You state that the socialist dictatorship dehumanizes the bourgeoisie, which rightfully so, you need to dehumanize the bourgeoisie for what they have done to the majority of the people, they have made them hunger and freeze for years. You also state they dehumanize the Nazis, have you not seen the atrocities committed by the Nazis? They are no longer human when they systematically try to eliminate an entire faith/race. You also state that a communist society would be stagnant, I think not, the German Democratic Republic was very technologically advanced, they produced computers and cameras that could easily compete with the US' products. Here is a East German SLR camera made during the 80s: http://www.flickr.com.... Here is a East German computer made in the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org.... I guarantee that if the western imperialist powers did not force the economic collapse of the Eastern Bloc, East Germany would be the technological hub of the world making the finest cameras and computers. Also here is a tumblr devoted to Yugoslavia (Just to show the futurism in a socialist society): http://igoyugo.tumblr.com....

In Section 2 of your piece, you state that Warren Buffet is a great man and how he is so fantastic for donating money. But has he cared about giving the workers under him the right to the profit? No, he is just like the rest of the bourgeoisie, he has no care for the proletariat. You state that Che Guevara was a hateful bigot, he was not, he was a kind man fighting against the unjust regimes stripping the proletariat of the world of everything. Did you find why he executed those people? Those people where mobsters, Batista's henchmen, and soldiers that during the revolution that committed atrocities. They weren't innocent men, they were vicious criminals that needed to be put down. You state that he advocated nuclear war, he only favored it if the US decided to invade Cuba a second time. You also state that he was against free speech, he is against the form of speech that was created by the bourgeoisie to divide society likewise with free press and the right to assemble, these all divide society because if you allow nationalist and capitalist sentiments to be displayed, it will destroy the progress of equality.

In Section 3 of your piece, you state that I use the excuse of "true communism". Like in all ideologies, there are always people that want to add their own principles to it like Mao Zedong who changed most of it to fit his cult of personality but there are some of the original principals of Marxism. Some add good additions like Josip Broz Tito who added worker self management to the Marxism which branched off into the ideology of Titoism which is the the section of Marxism that I would call myself. And some add horrible things like Josef Stalin by creating an almost totalitarian fascist side to communism and socialism.

(ROUND 4)

This round I will focus on the prices, this will be short. Prices in a communist country would be low because competition is eliminated for the peoples good and for the workers good. When competition is eliminated, you have that one company ran by the state that creates good products at a low cost since all of the money is being funneled into one company then to the state and into various programs. You can see some of the prices in the Soviet Union here: http://englishrussia.com.... There are no competing companies that price their items high to seem like they are better because they have a higher price tag then the other. I would like to thank Con for an interesting debate and once again, I would like to apologize for my computer issues.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
KHL, the debate is over and you technically don't get another round to respond, but since I'm curious at how you can possibly still think you should win when you are so obviously wrong, I invite you to respond to just this point which I made in round 4 below:

"I am truly in awe at how oblivious Pro is to the deep flaws in his argument, and how strongly even his own sources refute his position. Regarding alcoholism, if you click Pro"s first round 3 link, you will see this: "From Khrushchev on, the antidrinking campaigns emphasized the role of the Ministry of Internal Affairs rather than the Ministry of Health, and focused on compulsory treatment and punitive measures. The campaigns were seen, even by the Soviet government, as fragmented and ineffective (Ivanets and Lukomskaya 1990), and, according to Vladimir Treml (1987), heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems continued to increase into the early 1980s. ..." I really have no idea how Pro can read this and think that it in any way supports him. As the reader will easily observe, his source clearly reinforces my position, not his, because it substantiates how ineffective Soviet efforts to reduce alcoholism were, and how pervasive the problem had been. Therefore, all his enthusiasm about how happy and alcohol free the workers were in Soviet Russia is rightly dismissed by voters as nonsensical delusion.
Posted by KingHenrikLundqvist 3 years ago
KingHenrikLundqvist
Its sad to see Anti-Communist keep their bias when voting. But so be it, I live in a world surrounded by class unconscious people.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
@bullish.. yeah its "cheap" compared to you.. but imagine if you were a Chinese factory worker? You can't afford hardly anything.. forced to live in tiny dorms with other people.. 18hr days making pennies.. they slave away making tvs they can't even afford.. the vast majority of Chinese live in poverty.
Posted by Leninec 3 years ago
Leninec
i3;m1;k8;l5;l6; l3;m1;m5;m6;k7; l8;k2;k9;k3;l0;l8;k2;m0;n0;l9;n3; k4; l2;l6;l4;l4;m1;l5;l0;k9;l4;k7; l0; l9;l6;m4;l0;k2;l3;l0;k9;l4;k7;, m5;m0;l6;k3;m9; l5;k2;m5;l0;l5;k2;m0;n0; m0;k2;l2;l0;k7; k6;k7;k3;k2;m0;m9;.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
There's pros and cons to everything.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
While everything else is debatable, the low price thing is not joke. Been to China, Cuba, the low-tech and non-supply-limited products there are generally just ONE FIFTH of an identical product that is wholly manufactured in the US.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
CON'S CONCLUSION PART 1 of 4

(Posted within 24 hours of Pro's final argument)

Thank you readers for your consideration of this debate. Because of Pro's computer problems, it had become necessary for me to postpone my round 4 conclusion, and move it here into the comments. Just to emphasize, THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF THE DEBATE, AND SHOULD BE GRADED AS IF IT APPEARED IN ROUND 4 IMMEDIATELY AFTER PRO'S CONCLUSION.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
CON'S CONCLUSION PART 2 of 4

I thank Pro for posting his arguments, but remind him that he was only entitled to one more round, not 2. Since he got to present his case first, he was supposed to have concluded in round 3 and left round 4 blank. Pro was entitled to 8,000 chars, so any distinction between what he wants to think of as round 3 or 4 is arbitrary, except to say that he should not have been raising any new points in his conclusion. Additionally, I really would have appreciated the courtesy of Pro directing voters to see the comments section for my conclusion; he left the impression that the debate had ended. He got the first word so I get the last, and thus there is still the matter of my conclusion. Here it is:

I am truly in awe at how oblivious Pro is to the deep flaws in his argument, and how strongly even his own sources refute his position. Regarding alcoholism, if you click Pro"s first round 3 link, you will see this: "From Khrushchev on, the antidrinking campaigns emphasized the role of the Ministry of Internal Affairs rather than the Ministry of Health, and focused on compulsory treatment and punitive measures. The campaigns were seen, even by the Soviet government, as fragmented and ineffective (Ivanets and Lukomskaya 1990), and, according to Vladimir Treml (1987), heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems continued to increase into the early 1980s. ..." I really have no idea how Pro can read this and think that it in any way supports him. As the reader will easily observe, his source clearly reinforces my position, not his, because it substantiates how ineffective Soviet efforts to reduce alcoholism were, and how pervasive the problem had been. Therefore, all his enthusiasm about how happy and alcohol free the workers were in Soviet Russia is rightly dismissed by voters as nonsensical delusion.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
CON'S CONCLUSION PART 3 of 4

I"ll back up for just a moment and also explain that what he incorrectly dismisses as "pure capitalism" is indeed mixed, as I stated. When the government provides any kind of welfare, unemployment benefits, medical benefits, social security, or public education, these are all socialist economic activities and not capitalistic ones.

Pro readily admits that the bourgeoisie are dehumanized in Communism, probably because he misunderstands the point I was making. I was in fact not criticizing Communists for dehumanizing Nazis. If you go back and read my comments again, I was actually likening the Communists to being no better than Nazis. Communism dehumanizes the bourgeoisie class in much the same way that Nazism dehumanizes the Jews and other "inferior races". Both ideologies do this for similar reasons: scapegoating and the justification of the government stealing private property. By defending what he considers the legitimate dehumanization of bourgeoisie, Pro makes my argument for me that Communism prescribes a divisive Nazi-like hatred, and that it is really no better and no less destructive to a society than Nazism. This is naked and ugly hatred and bigotry, and is not at all a solution to the problems of the world.
As we discuss technological advance in East Germany, I"m afraid I have to take away another one of Pro"s sources by demonstrating how it actually supports my argument. If you click on the link, you will see that the East German computer, Robotron KC87, was a clone of technology which was in fact developed and licensed by a firm in the United States named Zilog (the hyperlink to their site is there in the Wikipedia article).
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
CON'S CONCLUSION PART 4 of 4

In other words, this was an American innovation licensed to the East Germans which Pro is absurdly trying to claim as an East German achievement. As for the camera, I"m not surprised that East Germans would place high priority on having good cameras, considering how much effort and cost the Stasi expended in keeping oppressive watch over every detail of East German lives [10]. In the "futuristic" photos of East Germany, most of the cityscape looked rather depressing to me, but one or two buildings did look comparable to 70"s era American buildings. So what? The Birkenstocks and staged picture of a 50"s style soda fountain doesn"t prove anything; this source does nothing for his case.
For the remainder of his conclusion, Pro spends most of his time defending extra judicial killings and repression. The last source of his I"m going to flip to my side is the price sheet, which admits that the average worker"s wage was only $200/month, but a pair of jeans cost more than $400, and tape recorders didn"t come cheap either. As for the bread and milk, they may have been cheap " but that"s only when they were in stores, and when you didn"t have to wait in long lines to get it. Nothing Pro says leads us to conclude that Communism is any less hateful, moral, or less economically catastrophic for a country than Nazism is, let alone that it is the best solution to the world"s problems. His sources were mostly flipped, and I had 10 relevant ones of my own besides, so I hope voters will take that into consideration when voting sources. I thank you all for your time and interest.

10) http://en.wikipedia.org...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
calculatedr1skKingHenrikLundqvistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not provide one example of where communism will succeed in making a better society where mix capitalist/socialist governments can not. In fact, many of his own sources proved this and he apparently didn't even realize it. Pro's point about people will to die to try and escape communist dictatorships is enough to convince you that communism isn't a practical solution to anything. The only thing communism does is make everyone equal.. Equally miserable and poor that is.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
calculatedr1skKingHenrikLundqvistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Agreements: Con, I agreed the whole time, before and after. Conduct: Con, because of Pro's FF. Spelling and Grammar: Tied, both debaters' seemed fine. Arguments: Con, he gave a better-rounded and factual argument that Pro didn't seem to equal up to. Sources: Tied, because they both provided sources that seemed reliable.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
calculatedr1skKingHenrikLundqvistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct point goes to Con because his argument layout appears more professional. Just look at how he utilized sources, how he numbered his sources, including certain sections with bold titles, and how he included pictures (pictures, not links to pictures) in the debate argument ITSELF.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
calculatedr1skKingHenrikLundqvistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I will adjust my vote after the closing argument.