Communism will beat Capitalism
Debate Rounds (5)
In this debate, I will argue that the capitalist system is doomed to fail, and that communism will eventually prevail. My opponent will argue that this is not the case.
Let the debate begin!
Hail the revolution!
As any debate demands, you need to show your evidence as to why Communism will prevail and why Capitalism will be doomed to fail. Furthermore, you need to show how Communism will replace Capitalism, and as I can tell early on, that's going to be an incredibly difficult contention to prove, given the fact that more Communist systems have failed in the past AND have killed more of its own citizens than any Capitalist nation has ever done.
Furthermore, there are many types of Capitalist systems ranging from purely free enterprise to socialist-capitalist systems that exist in places such as Europe or South Africa.
Communism, however, is all but one type of system: A body of government that controls all of the wealthy, property, and means of production, i.e., a totalitarian state.
This being the case, it's going to be incredibly difficult showing how Communism will prevail. Either other Communist countries (most are still considered third world, and others are incredibly weak) invade and install their system of government, or a revolution happens on a massive, potentially global scale and governments that partake in voluntary trade are then transitioned to totalitarian states.
My contentions are as follows:
Capitalism will never be doomed to fail because of these reasons:
1. Capitalism, at its core, is a voluntary, free enterprise system. Under this system, it has led to the wealth and success of nations and their people, which has raised the standard of living for everyone much higher than any communist country has EVER done. As a result, countries are stronger for adopting a free enterprise system than a communist regime, and the likelihood of it failing because of it adopting such a system is extremely low (no matter what, no economic system is perfect).
2. In every country where they adopt a form of a free enterprise system, economic prosperity is the end result. In fact, there hasn't ever been a Capitalist country that has failed BECAUSE of it being a capitalist system.
Communism wont prevail. In fact, I would argue that Communism WILL FAIL and for these reasons:
1. Whenever the government gets involved in anything, the only way for it to get things done is by force. People use the government, point the government's gun at a body of people, and force them to comply in order to for them to get what they want. Communism isn't a voluntary system. In order for this system to even be set up, the government needs to seize property and the means of production. Furthermore, the government has to allocate workers, mostly against their will, to where the government wants them to work. The reason why this system fails is because in order to seize property or get people to do jobs they don't want to do, the government needs to use force. This has already been seen in the past. Governments have STEAM ROLLED over its citizens in trying to install a totalitarian regime. This has happened in every major communist country in the past and to date:
China - Mao starved and killed over 20 million Chinese who didn't agree with his cultural revolution.
North Korea - Kim Il Sung murdered his own citizens to the tune of 3 million, and today, humans there are worth less than nothing.
Russia - Stalin murdered people that he expected went against his cause through purges, displacements, and labor camps. According to Anglo-American historian Robert Conquest in his book, "The Great Terror: Stalin"s Purge of the Thirties," he said: "We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so."
Cuba - Under Castro's rule, most numbers have been concealed to not face public scrutiny, but historians claim that he murdered somewhere to the tune of 90,000 people.
2. No first world country is Communist, and from the way things are looking, they won't be communist anytime soon.
China is a developing country and is Socialist/Capitalist (heavily regulated voluntary trade)
Russia still uses a free enterprise system and has a democratic process.
Cuba is third world.
Vietnam is a developing country.
1. Communism has proved to be an inefficient, broken system that makes everyone poor, and murders any opposition. On this basis, there is no way they can invade countries with a free enterprise system or somehow turn them communist by any external means.
2. Given time and being left to their own devices, Communist countries have a better chance at collapsing under their own weight as we've seen in the past with China and Russia. Given the countless dead, extreme poverty, and severe oppression, it's impossible to predict that this system can dominate and prevail in the world today.
3. In no time in the history of this planet has there ever been a Free Market, Capitalist enterprise system that became a fully fledged Communist country. Ever.
Capitalism is doomed to fail because of these reasons:
1. Capitalism, at its core, is an exploitative, oppressive system. Under this system, it has led to the wealth and success of nations and the bourgeoisie who control them, which has caused hundreds of millions of people to go deprived and hungry. As a result, countries are weaker for forcing the proletarians to either work like dogs for every morsel they receive or just go hungry, and the likelihood of it succeeding is contingent entirely upon the whims of the wealthy bourgeois and whatever they think will benefit themselves.
2. In every country where they adopt a form of a free enterprise system, although economic prosperity is the end result, it still leaves millions of people struggling and unable to get adequate resources to better themselves. In fact, the very social programs such as social security, food stamps, and welfare that prevent this from being as pervasive in our system and others like it are forms of small-scale communism.
Communism will prevail. However, the reason why communist states have failed in the past are for these reasons:
1. Whenever the government has any real power over the lives and well-being of its citizens, it is a dangerous possibility that insane, corrupt, an/or incompetent leaders will rise to power. This has consistently happened in the past (see examples below), so when the new communist state is created in the future, we need to change it to prevent Stalins and Maos and Castros from being elected. Here is what has happened in every major communist country in the past and to date as a result of bad leadership:
China - Mao starved and killed over 20 million Chinese who didn't agree with his cultural revolution because he was copying Stalin.
North Korea - Kim Il Sung murdered his own citizens to the tune of 3 million, and today, humans there are worth less than nothing due to the hereditary leadership, the lack of fertile farmland, and the crushing trade embargoes placed on that country.
Russia - Stalin murdered people that he expected went against his cause through purges, displacements, and labor camps. This was because Stalin was a ruthless, prideful psychopath. When Lenin was in power, the conditions in the Soviet Union were actually better than the conditions for most people in the united states, but when Stalin secretly assassinated him in 1924 after just two years of Lenin's reign, everything went awry. Though the Soviet Union was instrumental in beating the Nazis, it left Russia a damaged, war-torn country. Instead of investing in serious reconstruction, Stalin invested ridiculous amounts of resources into the Soviet space program, leaving fewer resources to take care of the people and leading to famines and shortages. After Stalin's death, conditions immediately started to improve, and in the late seventies the standard of living living in the USSR was comparable to that of the USA. But then, when we implemented the Star Wars program, Gorbachev started trying to keep up, which ultimately led to the bankruptcy and fall of the Soviet union.
Cuba - In Cuba, there is plenty of food and resources available to the people, and people can grow fat and happy. However, until recently there were embargoes placed on the country that stunted its growth.
2. No first world country is Communist right now, but from the way things are looking, capitalism is starting to fail. Remember that 1.3 trillion dollar bank bailout in the US back in '07? They were able to pull over a thousand billion dollars to help out the rich bourgeoisie bankers, but how much money did they give the poor people when there was 10.8% unemployment? The proletarians are tiring of the shackles of their capitalist oppressors. Thanks to Mr. Sanders, the word "socialism" is acceptable now, and a Socialist USA is looking like a real possibility in the next few decades.
Hail the revolution!
(By the way, CraftyMiscreant, your profile picture is really cool. I am a Trekkie too!)
Furthermore, my opponent claims that "hundreds and millions of people are deprived and hungry," and yet provided no evidence to support this claim. Which first world, Capitalistic society has "millions" that are hungry? Is it all of the Capitalist systems combined, or a few select countries?
Not only is my opponent using dubious terms as a basis for his accusations, but he provides no clear statistical evidence to support his claim. My opponent flat out admits in his second contention that economic prosperity IS, in fact, the end result, but then makes his unfounded assertion that millions are of people are somehow struggling.
Allow me to retort.
According to the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics, students are graduating from College never before seen in human history.
Furthermore, the U.S. is the number one leader in GDP, according to current consumer reports.
Also, there is approximately 14.5 percent of Americans, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, that live below the poverty line, and merely 4.5 percent of the 14.5 live in abject poverty. Granted, any form of poverty is too much, but poverty has been on a decline, and this number PALES in comparison to any other communist country in existence today (no communist country is even 1st first world).
If you compare that with communist countries, you will see they are far worse off, bar none.
In Cuba, it's an epidemic crisis of people dying from starvation. In fact, the U.S. military reports of citizens trying to break into Guantanamo Bay (America's prison for terrorists) to have 3 full meals and a roof over their heads.
In North Korea, every one of their citizens that isn't linked to officials live in abject poverty and/or slavery. In fact, poverty is so bad, some places in NK sell their own feces for food.
In China, and under the communist rule of Mao, 85 percent of individuals lived in abject poverty. When the government opened up to a free enterprise system, however, they have pulled 500 million of its own people out of poverty.
Thus, and to the contrary, incorporating a free enterprise system helps more people than it hurts, unlike a communist system, where everyone is poor. Granted, there will always be a poor class in every economic system, however the free enterprise system raises more out of poverty and into success than Communism ever will.
The fact of the matter is, people have DIED of starvation in GREATER NUMBERS under COMMUNIST RULE than they have in any capitalistic systems combined. My evidence stands to this contention from my previous argument from last round.
In the second half of his argument, my opponent doesn't take any criticism that his communist system is heavily flawed, and blames the deaths of millions on "corrupted officials."
What my opponent fails to realize is that it was the communist system ITSELF that allowed for it to happen in the first place. Kim Il Sung, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Castro were able to murder so many people in the name of "progress" given the fact that the power of the state was allocated to them to use as they saw fit. This isn't something unusual in any communist country. The state uses force in order to do what it wants, thus, these tyrants did exactly what every communist system allows for people like them to do: murder innocents. Therefore, calling every single major communist leader in the past as crazy people completely dismisses the obvious fact that it's the communist system itself that warranted this type of oppression.
Even if I gave my opponent the benefit of the doubt that each communist ruler was coincidentally "crazy," there is no checks or balances put in any one of these systems that would prevent it from happening. Why? When you have massive centralized state power, you can't control for good or bad leaders.
Yeah, Wal Mart pays its employees a pathetic sum, but Wal Mart isn't going to put a gun to your head and force you to work there against your will, and imprison your family if you decide to flee your oppressive government.
In his last argument, my opponent asserts that Capitalism is starting to fail and points to the U.S.'s debt as some indicator that this is going to happen.
According to Focus Economics, the U.S. is in great standing with a rise in GDP and an 8 percent hike in consumer confidence. In fact, Economists think the exact opposite is happen than what my opponent thinks will happen: http://www.focus-economics.com...
Second of all, debt isn't merely exclusive to a capitalist system. Granted, I don't like Crony Capitalism and I do think our Government overstepped its role when it colluded with big industry banks, however this isn't indicative of any collapse. Every prediction of the past of an economic collapse has been false, and furthermore, there is no further evidence that in the unlikely event of an economic collapse, capitalism will be replaced with communism. Just because some workers somewhere in Capitalist societies are unhappy doesn't mean they are communists wanting change.
This stands to reason because:
1. No failed Capitalist country switched to Communism.
2. No economically flourishing Communist country ever existed.
3. Communism calls for the abolition of private property. That computer you're reading this debate on? Yeah. It's not yours. Belongs to the state. There is no evidence in the world that suggests people will turn communist and give up what they've worked hard to earn.
In conclusion, my opponent brought no valid evidence to support his claim that Capitalism will fall and be replaced with communism. Instead, he pointed to the U.S.'s national debt and saying that it is a good indicator of the nation's collapse with no professional economic input of what the U.S.'s projections are for the upcoming decade. Then, he used a slippery slope fallacy saying that after the collapse, workers will unite and install a communist system with no other evidence, data, or a technical approach to show it will happen beyond any questionable doubt. As you all are aware, evidence is mandatory when holding the positive claim, and my opponent brought forth absolutely nothing to support his theory.
Thank you for your time this round. Live long and prosper, trekkie fan.
You want hard facts?
I'll give you hard facts.
"Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth." -Cited from the World Food Programme (https://www.wfp.org...).
As for where these hungry people living in capitalist states are?
Please refer to this handy map:
Note that all the hungriest nations are capitalist ones. Capitalist nations, where food is not a guarantee; if you refuse to work in these nations, they let you starve (not counting the nations where victories of socialism have in fact guaranteed food for all.)
(Also: original, Next Generation, Voyager, Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, Enterprise, or the movies?)
His own sources say the following:
"Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest prevalence (percentage of population) of hunger. One person in four there is undernourished."
"Asia is the continent with the most hungry people - two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years but in western Asia it has increased slightly."
"The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished."
Keep in mind that developing countries are not Capitalist countries, but more so Socialist countries, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America.
Also, keep in mind that the MAJORITY of DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS OF STARVING PEOPLE come from countries that aren't Capitalistic.
Essentially, my opponent lumped together every capitalist country and added together all of the poor people and presented it as proof that Capitalism is bad.
He is using a fallacious argument: post hoc fallacy.
Basically, the fallacy is;
A occured, then B occured.
Therefore, A caused B.
His argument is this:
Capitalism occurred, then poverty happened.
Therefore, Capitalism caused poverty.
This argument is built up on assumptions. It's assuming that Capitalism is the cause of 1st world countries' poverty. This is extremely misleading, since he isn't breaking down the basic components of his argument with well thought out evidence to support it.
It's an assumption that capitalism CAUSES poverty. In fact, every economic system has poor people, and the most disproportionate amount of poor people COMES FROM communist countries. Another possibility would be to assume that heavily regulated government causes poverty. Mass flooding of immigration causes poverty. Artificially raising the minimum wage causes poverty. Natural disasters causes poverty.
Thus, it's fallacious to merely assume capitalism is the cause of poverty, when clearly any economic model has way too many moving parts (except for Communism, since the governing state body makes centralized decisions. Thus, its extremely easy to tell where the flaws are coming from). And quite frankly, its a little dishonest.
But let's see what communism has done to bring about extreme food shortages and starvation:
1. Communist Mao attempted to use what was called, "collective farming," In short, collective farming means the farmer would get paid the same amount regardless of his crop or amount of it. Thus the farmers became complacent, didn't see any reason to work hard and many let their fields go fallow. The local officials then lied to Beijing to cover their butts and said that quota's had been met. The result was mass starvation where up to 60 million people died.
2. In recent communist Russian history, food shortages were literally a norm.
Central Intelligence Agency, "Soviet Food Shortages," Making the History of 1989, Item #182, http://chnm.gmu.edu... (accessed August 11 2016, 6:41 am).
Compare that to any capitalist country. Yes, we have poor people. Sadly, yes, we have starving people. Do we have bread lines anymore? No. Do we have massive food shortages anymore? No. Yes, the U.S. has the everyday, run of the mill fat guy, but honestly, having the freedom to choose your lifestyle is by far better than abject starvation and food shortages.
In conclusion, my opponent has, once again, brought forth no evidence to support his contention that Capitalism will fall, or that Communism will prevail.
Everything he has shown thus far is antithetical to his argument.
1. Capitalism, while having its obvious flaws, is doing fine.
2. Capitalism, while having it's obvious flaws, is doing better than all of the communist countries in the past and present combined. (His own evidence supports both 1 and 2)
3. There is still no evidence brought forth by my opponent that shows and demonstrates how Communism will take over when the overwhelming majority of capitalist citizens are flourishing on a scale never before seen in human history.
Round 4, warp factor 1. Engage.
Red alert. Counter argument approaching. All hands, brace for impact!
I propose the following method of communist food production:
1. People will grow crops, instead of grass, in their yards.
2. Neighborhoods will have their crops collectivized (a fancy word for "pooled together") and sold at a local farmer's market.
3. The proceeds will be split equally amongst the citizens that produced the food.
This system is completely different from the forced collective farming practiced by Chairman Mao's China and the Soviet Union. Though it does indeed incorporate capitalist principles of buying and selling, it does not incorporate the biggest flaw at the heart of capitalism which will ultimately bring it down: the problem of corporate ownership. Instead of one person or a small group of people accumulating the profits from privately owned farms, the money is instead split equally amongst the workers who produce it. Yet, it also does not possess the fundamental flaw at the heart of Stalinism and Maoism: forced work and government regulation of food production, which leads to famine.
I call this model the suburban co-op.
This model of Communism would be much easier to implement across the USA and the World. It probably wouldn't even require a change in US law. Also, the resulting produce would be much cheaper than capitalistic produce sold at grocery stores, and it wouldn't be much more difficult than maintaining all the useless grass in everyone's yard. People would see the suburban co-op model, see that it makes more sense, and decide to participate. Before you know it, the workers would have seized the means of (food) production (non-violently), and Big Food corporations like Monsanto and Con-Agra would be out of business. Food security would be guaranteed for all, and fresh produce would actually be cheaper than fast food.
THAT is how communism would replace capitalism. Not in a violent revolution, not in one monumental burst of effort, but slowly and silently. A peaceful revolution.
Hail the revolution!
His methods of food production is highly flawed and is almost guaranteed not to work. I will walk you through this and show you why.
1. "People will grow crops, instead of grass, in their yard." --Opponent
This argument is a borderline reductionist argument. It seems simple enough, but food production in a "yard" is pretty dubious and inaccurate. No yard is measured equally. Neither is soil.
People also live in cities.
People also live in areas where simple yard harvesting is near impossible.
Most people also aren't experts in agriculture/GMO Science, and pests.
Furthermore, his method matches that of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and any other dictator that wanted to drastically change their society; by using force. Believe it or not, most people (even poor people) don't WANT to spend all day doing intense landscaping. Gardening is extremely laborious to merely yield some food that you have to ration for the entire year. Given the fact that most people lack the skill and knowledge to farm in the first place, this is automatically a formula that will cause great disaster and mass food shortages---again.
History isn't our destiny, surely, but Localized farming is a disaster we can measure. In fact, someone already has when a bill has been put forth in Idaho.
According to economist Steve Sexton, the impacts of local farming (this is in one state, mind you) would be disastrous. He says, "My conservative estimates are that under the pseudo-locavore system (localized farming), corn acreage increases 27 percent or 22 million acres, and soybean acres increase 18 percent or 14 million acres. Fertilizer use would increase at least 35 percent for corn, and 54 percent for soybeans, while fuel use would climb 23 percent and 34 percent, for corn and soybeans, respectively. Chemical demand would grow 23 percent and 20 percent for the two crops, respectively."
I rest my case on the first rebuttal.
2. "Neighborhoods will have their crops collectivized (a fancy word for "pooled together") and sold at a local farmer's market." ---Opponent
Not only would this market method proposed by my opponent is inefficient, but it will also damage our health by my opponent's lack of economic knowledge.
Again, I refer to Economist Steve Sexton: "A local food system would raise the cost of food by constraining the efficient allocation of resources. The monetary costs of increased input demands from forsaken gains from trade and scale economies will directly bear on consumer welfare by increasing the costs of food. And, as we try to tackle obesity, locavorism is likely to raise the cost of precisely the wrong foods. Grains can be grown cheaply across much of the country, but the costs of growing produce outside specific, limited regions increase quickly. Thus, nutrient-dense calories like fruits and vegetables become more expensive, while high fructose corn syrup becomes relatively cheaper."
This isn't just a theory, either. This is something that is happening in the 21st century. Look at Zimbabwe. Look at South America. Unskilled, localized farming makes coke products, candy, and other processed foods cheaper than the optimally nutritious food.
There are other issues that would prove a disaster. Many Americans and other people from across the globe would have restricted access to the healthy food they need by living in different climates, and according to Mr. Sexton, Greenhouse storage is extremely energy intensive.
Therefore, having forced localized food growth will cause mass starvation, given the fact that it is
1. Unsustainable (high demand for resources, energy, and actually skilled farmers)
2. Economically disastrous.
"call this model the suburban co-op.
This model of Communism would be much easier to implement across the USA and the World. It probably wouldn't even require a change in US law. Also, the resulting produce would be much cheaper than capitalistic produce sold at grocery stores, and it wouldn't be much more difficult than maintaining all the useless grass in everyone's yard. People would see the suburban co-op model, see that it makes more sense, and decide to participate. Before you know it, the workers would have seized the means of (food) production (non-violently), and Big Food corporations like Monsanto and Con-Agra would be out of business. Food security would be guaranteed for all, and fresh produce would actually be cheaper than fast food."----Opponent
As I have pointed out earlier. People will die. What my opponent fails to realize is that not every house in the world has a front yard, not every person lives in a house, not every person knows how to farm, and no method exists that will allocate the massive amount of resources needed to sustain every ones' living condition.
Furthermore, seizing farmland and major production companies for no justifiable reason? Yes. That's been done before.
I will now provide you two instances that reflect this method, which is nothing new and has proven to fail.
In Zimbabwe (a heavily socialist country slowly becoming communist) is experiencing massive food shortages. White farmers are having their farms seized by black Zimbabweans from Marxist reasoning (Bugoise vs. working class). The people that seized the means of production, however, were unskilled and didn't know how to properly farm, thus, they are heading towards a train wreck of a disaster, and the president is trying to reverse it:
"Zimbabwe"s government has for the first time suggested it may give official permission for some white farmers to stay on their land, 15 years after it sanctioned widespread land grabs that plummeted the country into an economic crisis. ." --The Telegraph
Also, rationing methods have been practiced all of the time in Communist countries. Look at Ukraine and what is formally called Holodomor---12 million dead due to starvation. What was the cause? The Russian government made a new rationing system model and forced people to abide by it, where the government attempted to allocate resources to provide for everyone and shut down the centralized production system which in turn stopped imports/exports. It failed on a disproportionate level. https://en.wikipedia.org...
In conclusion, my opponent gave a less that satisfactory attempt to explain how communism would prevail. He produced a scenario that has already played out to the tune of a major economic crisis and of course, millions dead in the process by assuming everyone is a farming expert, everyone has a front yard, and everyone will be willing to submit to hours of back-breaking labor to meet demand.
Furthermore, my opponent lacked the economic and scientific understanding of the unsustainablilityl his localized farming model actually is, and as I have carefully proven and demonstrated, it cannot work.
"Before you know it, the workers would have seized the means of (food) production (non-violently), and Big Food corporations like Monsanto and Con-Agra would be out of business."---Opponent
Yes. And we have a word for when people take property that was never theirs to begin with;
Thank you for your time.
No, you are wrong. I am not suggesting that we forcibly seize the people's land, or that we "steal" the means of production from the bourgeoisie.
I am suggesting that the people willingly, voluntarily join this cause. If you don't want to participate, that's just fine. You can keep right on eating the crap that stocks the shelves at capitalist grocery stores. No one's going to stop you.
What I am suggesting is absolutely not what Chairman Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin did. They really were all about stealing land and using force.
As for "stealing" land, resources, or anything else from the Big Food companies, I have two objections to that. One is that communism abolishes the concept of private property, but the other is that even if we accept that Big Food has some magical sovereignty over the land they control, we are not going to "steal" it.
"...we have a word for when people take property that was never theirs to begin with;
"seizing farmland and major production companies for no justifiable reason?" -Opponent
In the suburban co-op, we would not try to control any land that any corporation already controls. We won't be taking any new land; we will be repurposing land we already own. Using the yards and lawns we already control. Monsanto and Con-Agra can keep "their" land.
"What my opponent fails to realize is that not every house in the world has a front yard, not every person lives in a house, not every person knows how to farm..." -Opponent
Really? Not every person knows how to farm? Their grass farms ("lawns") seem to be doing just fine to me.
Not every house in the world has a lawn? True. But most houses in the United States do, which is where we are most immediately concerned.
Though, my opponent raises a fair point. Indeed, some people don't have a lawn. A lot of people live in cities or apartments.
But most people do live in suburbs. And as for those that don't, they can still contribute. Balconies. Rooftops. Potential farmland is hidden anywhere with sunlight exposure and occasional rain.
"Gardening is extremely laborious to merely yield some food that you have to ration for the entire year. Given the fact that most people lack the skill and knowledge to farm in the first place, this is automatically a formula that will cause great disaster and mass food shortages---again." -Opponent
Well, lawn maintenance is pretty laborious too, and it doesn't even yield food. "Extremely laborious"? Quite a few of people have repurposed their lawns to serve as food sources. Take a look at this website created by a person who did just that:
Not knowing anything about gardening, not having any skill or experience, she decided to produce 75% of her food straight from her own backyard.
And you can, too.
Read her book, The Quarter Acre Farm, to learn how anyone can repurpose their backyard and join a suburban co-op. Together we can overthrow Big Food and the bourgeoisie!
Hail the revolution!
What my opponent fails to realize is, Government, regardless of the social system and especially in a Communist regime, has a monopoly on force. The only way for the Government to make something happen is through the use of compliance and force.
Let the record show that my opponent has failed time and time again to show exactly how this will be done, especially without the use of force.
"What I am suggesting is absolutely not what Chairman Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin did. They really were all about stealing land and using force."
According to the Webster dictionary---Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property
In a Communist government, there IS NO PRIVATE PROPERTY. The Government owns it all.
One of two things has happened to my opponent:
1. He has failed to properly define what his version of a communist government is ( a fatal mistake on his side of the debate)
2. My opponent doesn't know what Communism actually is.
"In the suburban co-op, we would not try to control any land that any corporation already controls. We won't be taking any new land; we will be repurposing land we already own. Using the yards and lawns we already control. Monsanto and Con-Agra can keep "their" land."
My contention stands. This is still stealing. Just because it isn't a family's land, or that it isn't some "mom and pops" property doesn't justify taking the land against the owner's will.
My opponent assumes that just because it's owned by big business, that it's OK to take their land based on the assumption that that big business is somehow immoral. This brings me to two points on this:
1. At what point did the Monsanto family become inherently immoral where we can justify taking their property?
2. Businesses, whether big or small, are the legal and rightful ownership of the businessperson that STARTED that business. They got capital to start it, and they incurred all of the risk in order to get it running. Those big businesses would not have been successful WITHOUT the use of Capitalism, so essentially, my opponent wants to seize the success of businesses and piggyback off of the Capitalist system that made it successful in the first place.
"Really? Not every person knows how to farm? Their grass farms ("lawns") seem to be doing just fine to me."
My opponent fails to realize is that not everyone owns grass, and grass itself is very low maintennence.
Growing food to consume safely takes a lot of harvesting, hard work, and a scientific understanding of how to use the proper nutrients of your land for maximum yield. So yes, not everyone knows how to do this.
"But most people do live in suburbs. And as for those that don't, they can still contribute. Balconies. Rooftops. Potential farmland is hidden anywhere with sunlight exposure and occasional rain."
Factually incorrect. Only 25 percent of Americans live in Suburb areas, according to American Consensus Bureau.
Also, and like I pointed out earlier, allocating the proper soil and resorces to plant in a place where it wasn't meant to produce food for a population is extremely costly, dangerous, and unsanitary. The buildings in cities weren't designed to produce food, and it would take the advice of engineers to make sure buildings can sustain such a crazy idea.
But if Engineers don't want to participate in your system, what would the Government do? Oh. Use force.
"Well, lawn maintenance is pretty laborious too, and it doesn't even yield food. "Extremely laborious"? Quite a few of people have repurposed their lawns to serve as food sources. Take a look at this website created by a person who did just that:"
The evidence that my opponent put forth by showing the testimonies of people that have started their farm doesn't disprove the fact that gardening is a laborious task. If I put forth testimonies of successful engineers and how happy they are to have graduated, does that prove that math and physics is easy?
No it does not.
Also, doing something for a hobby is drastically different then being forced to do something that needs to feed other people.
And since anecdotal material passes for evidence, then I would happily oblige to show you why gardening is very grueling labor:
First sentences of the article:
"It"s relentlessly boring, repetitive, back-breaking work that no one in their right mind could really enjoy. So what keeps us toiling in the borders, asks Anne Wareham"
And this is but one dissenting opinion. The fact is, not everyone will be WILLING to garden their yards in the first place. The only way you can get this to work is if you force people to labor, and we all know that is slavery; forcing people to work against their will.
My opponent asserted earlier that if people didn't want to garden, they can still use the centralized grocery stores. How? IF communism took over, then employees wouldn't be paid for the labor or worth. How can you have a store stocked and operating if the system has been overthrown and we don't have any flow of currency that pays its workers what their worth? It wouldn't work.
Finally, allow me to critique my opponents position. If I were to argue this position, it's not localized farming that will make this system work. Technology will. Humans are prone to error and most are extremely unskilled and it takes an extremely long time to even learn a task, let alone complete it. If we were to feed millions of people, we should first work towards massive over abundance where labor by humans is replaced with automation---This is an economic angle that I think my opponent should have taken. If we have an overabundance of resources, then the value of those resources drop completely. The best way we can minimize labor and up production in terms of food would be aquaponics. https://en.wikipedia.org...
You can have these centralized by city, have them separated by stories of different produce, and it has very low maintenance and less water needed to sustain a big yield after a successful harvest.
In our society, we don't need more unskilled labor doing tasks that will hurt people. We need more technology, automation, and science.
This was my opponent's biggest flaw: His argument lacked a technical approach. Capitalism and Communism are both technical creations. They rely on resources, infrastructure, distribution, and labor. A well thought out technical approach instead of an ideological one that mirrors the murderous regimes in the past isn't going to win him the debate (I think).
In concluding this debate, my opponent gave weak contentions in how Communism will prevail, and how Capitalism will fall. The truth is,
The only way governments get anything done was by force, and if most people won't be willing to submit to labor they don't want to do, with property that is no longer theirs, then threat of force is the only way to make it happen.
Localized farming on a national level is an appalling idea. Like I asserted before, it will cause massive shortages, and the energy and resources needed to execute such a plan is astronomically insane. In essence, he's heavily lacking in the "nuts and bolts" of his plans and makes grand assumptions to get to B from A.
Furthermore, my opponent never gave sound evidence that Capitalism will fall in the first place. He gave vague economic charts, one of them which countered his main point to begin with (see round 3 for further details).
Thank you for your time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 6 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Strong debate. I will list arguments and who won each. Ease of corruption-Con Con proved that even if every communist leader was actually crazy, it seems easy for such an individual to come to power in a communist system as such a system has few checks on power. Cont. in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.