The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Communism, while perhaps impractical, represents a Utopian society

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,638 times Debate No: 7875
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




What man wants, above all else, is to be equal. To share the same amount of opportunities as his neighbor. However, this is simply not the case in a normal society. There was a need for order, for unity, and for equality to the extent where one man was not held higher than the rest. When men like Karl Marx and Frederich Engels began thinking, the only viable solution, and the proposed one, was Communism.
When first introduced, Communism was a brilliant idea. Many people thought it would work, rather, longed for it to. What it represented was something that man in that time needed. What man needed was that equality. What man also needed was not the slavery he was confined to.
Different from the slave we normally refer to, these proletarians were subject to hourly or daily slavery.
Ultimately, we see the final plan as being a work for the common man, for every man, for the entity and not in part.
However, Those put in production of this wonderful idea skewed it and caused it to be more Dystopian than Utopian.

For that reason, we must look to this resolution in the hypothetical rather than the realistic because, with the corruption of man, we find that something intended and representing a Utopian society should be must be a hypothetical discussions.

Furthermore, under this hypothetical scenario, we must assume that the full intent of Marx and Engels were fulfilled and that a true Communist society exists.



Communism - an economic system where all individuals receive equal pay for their labor (i.e. A doctor receives a salary of 10,000 a year as does a farmer, or whatever value.) This does not include a political system of democracy.

One can assume that by "hypothetical", and while the resolution acknowledges it is impractical, that the debate should assume that every individual receives equal pay and they are not exploited into absolute poverty. Classes are eliminated.

Both of those are fair. Impracticality arguments in facets of Communism OTHER than the administration of equal pay are legitimate under the definition of communism and what I outlined above.

Utopia - A society which best protects individuals rights, and is the most advanced (or fasting advancing) society possible.

First, contentions:


Human beings are not equal. I do not care what the Declaration of Independence or the Bible say - use your head.

1) Human worth is measured of an exertion of will upon the world around you. Insofar as we view politicians / activists / whatever to be "superior" because they control the existence of beings around them and the poor to be of less worth because they have no impact on their surroundings, then it can be assumed that human worth is not some moral plateau where all individuals are - rather it is a linear pattern reflecting the influence an individual has on the world.

2) Communism accepts the moral plateau by placing all individuals on equal grounds with one another, regardless of their impact to the world around them. Insofar as this is true (as my opponent will agree), then communism denies the individual impact of that person. There are two problems to this (impacts of C1):

FIRST: Individuality is what makes us human. Without the will to reason, to choose, decide, be autonomous, we are nothing more than robots on a treadmill, spawning off other robots to run after us while never achieving anything. To deny individuality is to deny the fundamental nature of human existence. Thus, communism is a negation of humanity itself.

SECOND: Equality is a concept that reflects individuals aspirations. Insofar as we want to be equal with those above us, individuality and, thus, capitalist viewpoints of the world encourage aspiration to new levels. The ability to aspire to greater things is the full reflection of human autonomy. Equality can only occur as an abstract principle because it is the journey to become equal that is fulfilling for the individual, not the rewards gained when one is equal. To deny this journey is to deny the worth of human autonomy.

Take note of that: Communism denies individuality, and denies human autonomy, the two most important aspects of being human.


Capitalism furthers social darwinism. Insofar as:

1) Those who are lazy, stupid, or in some other form undesirable (physically or mentally handicapped) are more likely to be poor, then those who are poor are thus genetically inferior to those who are rich. (Don't use a cute anecdote about some smart homeless person you know, we're talking holistically.) People are genetically different. To deny this truth is to deny genetics and individuality altogether.

2) Those who are poor are more likely to die (through poor health care etc) and thus by rewarding the rich we reward the best genetic qualities. This is one strain of reasoning for the existence of the Flynn effect, which is the growth of the average IQ of individuals.

3) Communism negates social darwinism by putting everyone an equal playing field, regardless of genetic background. Thus, everyone has an equal likelihood to live, die, whatever, and so the progression of society (which i outline is necessary for utopia) is impacted negatively.


1) Insofar as humans are naturally competitive (social hierarchy is ingrained into our very nature, including hunter-gatherer societies etc) then it is logical that we would reward those best at competing. Communism discourages competition by providing no incentive for those who perform best. As a result, communism denies human nature.

2) Moreover, the denial of competition will be the downfall of the human race. Humans only survived by being the most intelligent creatures, and through having the incentive to innovate to overcome their attackers. If humans have no incentive to innovate they will implode upon themselves.


As I said before, individuals have a natural tendency to be competitive. If they cannot be competitive in the workplace, they will do so in other areas. As a result, communism leads to an increase in thievery and other crimes and individuals seek to overcome their peers through means that are not approved.


He says, "what man wants, above all else, is to be equal." I disagree. I do not want to be equal with the bum i keep locked up in my basement. What man wants, is to be equal with his BETTER. In other words, man wants MORE than what he currently has. Communism denies him this through equalized pay (he cannot earn more than a fixed salary. Thus he cannot get more.), the denial of individuality (if he is the same as everyone else he cannot be better), and through an increase in crime / destruction of the human race (if he's dead he is not better off.)

Moreover, I contend that man wants to BECOME equal, not the BE equal. The journey from peon to prince is what is self-fulfilling, not the title of prince. I outlined this previously. The only way one can self-actualize is through an individual journey, not a handout.
Debate Round No. 1


draxxt forfeited this round.


You extend everything.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm sorry. The computer I was using at the time crashed as I was in the middle of writing my rebuttal. Please, vote Neg.

Sorry, I'm inclined to post this debate again, however and hope to debate you on this topic.


It's obvious how to vote.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
I wish PRO's computer hadn't broken. This debate had potential.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 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 draxxt 7 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:70 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 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