The Instigator
Chimera
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Pitbull15
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Communism works if applied correctly pt. 2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
Chimera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,575 times Debate No: 52036
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (81)
Votes (5)

 

Chimera

Pro

Due to my previous opponent de-activating his account, I have decided to hold this debate for the second time

My argument is that Communism is a system that can work in a way that is humanitarian if used in it's traditional sense, that being defined as:

Communism: the belief in the creation of a stateless, classless, money-less society, where private property (save for personal property) is collectively owned, and the wage system abolished.

First round is acceptance
Pitbull15

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Chimera

Pro


Hello, thank you for accepting the debate

This is a repost of my initial argument in Pt.1 of this series of debates, since my opponent deleted his account, I felt it was appropriate to use this instead of completely revamping it

To strengthen the base of my argument, I will restate the definition that I provided.


Communism: the belief in the creation of a stateless, classless, money-less society, where private property (save for personal property) is collectively owned.

(Also, arguments directly against the thesis stated above that are based upon Leninism and other forms of Statist Communism will be regarded as null and void. Example of an illegal statement:"The form of communism stated by pro is oppressive and corrupt, due to the existence of regimes like that in the U.S.S.R., North Korea, and Cuba")


Now, if we view that an economic system "works" by judging how humanitarian the system is, then Communism in it's traditional sense "works". This system being humanitarian by providing the definition as stated.

1. Money-less:

Due to this system being money-less, it will provide people with the ability to achieve what is needed for their survival, people would distribute to themselves the goods needed for their survival freely. These goods would be produced in factories that reside within communities of individuals who would organize to build these factories based on the collective demands of said organization. There would be no need for people to take more than needed, other than to prevent from having to go and acquire the goods in the first place.

An example of this being a family eating dinner (at least, by Western customs, please excuse my ignorance if i am mistaken). Each family member gives themselves the food needed to sate their hunger, while also being conscious of other family members hunger, and their need for survival.

The benefits of this also include the effect of monetary based crime becoming redundant. Organized criminal activities (such as bank-robbing) would not occur since there is no incentive. Even burglary and theft would become redundant, since people would have no incentive to steal things away from people, since they can acquire an item of the same utilitarian value at the local goods warehouse.

However, other things are neccessary to include alongside the aboltion of the monetary system. The wage-system, being directly tied with the monetary system, would also be abolished. This is called for since the wage system in general is dominatory and hierarchial. It constitues that someone should have power over the livelyhood of another human being, and is a contract that is, if anything, qasi-voluntary. Championing the Leninist ideal of, "He who shall not work, neither shall he eat".

This idea demonstrates that someone must work to survive, which will, naturally, cause humans to want to pursue a job that pays more, instead of what they are actually interested in.

For example, say a man wants to be an artist, well, painting pretty pictures in a capitalist society does not get you bread, so instead, he lives the rest of his unhappy life a hum-drum lawyer who hates his job. Bitter that he must pursue this instead of his passion. This, is the problem with the wage system.

This destruction of the wage-system however, can provide benefits. I will use the U.S. public education system as an example.

In the system, schools hire people based on qualifications and degrees, sometimes even regardless of whether they have a teaching degree. These people are usually those who came in the lower section of their grade at their university or tertiary school. Because of this, these ambitious minds are stuck with jobs that they have no passion for, thus making them not want to be involved in their teaching, and simply hand out packets and not care at all for the education of their students, since they are bitter.

However, people who pursued a degree in teaching, and naturally aspired to teach children in the classroom, are usually naturally better at teaching, their passion fuels their job. Their wages are just an added bonus to the intrinsical incetive they already recieve. So, if this system were adopted, kids would recieve a more quality education due to learning from people who enjoy their job and who also aspire to inspire the next generation of adults.

2. Classless:

If we are to state that the monetary system should be abolished, wouldn't that also collapse the class system along with it? If there is no such thing as wealth, then there must also be no such thing as wealthy, or wealthless. Because of this, there would be no economic exploitation of people, since the monetary system is the base of the house of cards that is the class-system.

However, why fight the class system? Some may argue that those who work harder are those who become richer. I disagree, those who work harder are those who are working in sweatshops in India and China for pennies a day. However, i digress. The main reason as to why we should fight the class system, is that to do so is to liberate workers and allow them to pursue their ambitions, instead of having to sell their body for labor simply to eat bread. The workers, being all of us who sit at the bottom of the socioeconomic caste system.

This argument for abolition of class is brief, for it is hard to describe why egalitarianism is so appealing to us humans. However, to support the oppression and exploitation of the worker and the proletariat, is masochistic in nature, since you are most likely a part of it.


3. Stateless:

The state is the next point of my argument, due to my belief that it is an oppressive entity that is based in corruption. This corruption of the state being divided into two camps, incetivized by money, and incentivized by power.

To demonstrate corruption of the state based on power, I will use Kim Jong Un's oppressive regime in North Korea. Here, Kim Jong Un is the embodiment of the state, an autocrat. He oppresses and makes the people fear him for his personal gain, not that of the people. He places them in concetration camps to keep them productive, all the while emulating bourgeois culture of that in the West. This shows that he refuses to progress the nation that he rules over, due to his belief that he is superior, in fact even godly, to them.

Another example of this is an experiment conducted by Stanford University, on prisoner-prison guard relations. Conducted by Phillip Zimbardo, the experiment, which included 24 white males from the middle-class, showed that as time progressed, the prison guards became addicted to the authority granted to them, and even began to subject the prisoners not just to humiliation and domination over them, but psychological torture [1]. This shows that a clear power incentive exists for those who have authority.

However, there is another incentive for corruption, that being money. I will use the U.S. Government as my example. In America, money is equivalent to free speech, if you give money to a political candidate, it is seen as the same as having a chat with them [2]. This allows for people to, quite literally, buy the candidates they wish to see win. This encourages corruption and working against what is wanted by the people, and the point of the state being that they are there to serve the needs of the people. Therefore, because money is free speech, and political bribery is used as a tool by the rich to ensure their domination over the poorer classes, and keep them under their thumb, the state in this instance is being run only to server the needs of the corruptor. Thus making the state oppressive against the common man.

This shows the state as being oppressive, and that it should be abolished so that the common man may find liberty and equality on his own or through voluntary association for mutual gain.

4. Private Property:

To show the distinction in what the difference is between private property and personal property, I will use this definition:

Personal property: Items that have a certain utilitarian use, that is personal in its basis

The difference between this and private property, is that private property encompases not only personal property, but also things like forests, oceans, deserts, factories, farms, etc. I will start as to why this is wrong from my standpoint by beginning with factories. If factories are things where workers supply labor to input the means of production into the factory, and goods are produced from it, shouldn't these goods be collectively owned by the community or organization of workers that own it? Why should the capitalist who owns the factory own the goods produced when said capitalist will most likely expolit these workers for their labor by paying them pathetic wages to increase his/her profits?

The answer to the question, is that these workers
should own the goods produced, since it was their labor that produced it. Since they all collectively own the goods produced from their combined labor, they all have a right as to what was produced. To put it in simple terms, what produces for society, should be owned by society.

Sources:

[1]- Zimbardo Prison Experiment- http://www.prisonexp.org......

[2]- McCutcheon vs. FEC- http://docs.justia.com......


Pitbull15

Con

I think before I start, the term "humanitarian" should be defined.

a. Concern for human welfare, especially as manifested through philanthropy(1)

With the definition of communism you presented, and the definition I gave of humanitarianism makes them both remarkably simple to understand, so my opening argument will be simple.
So, humanitarianism concerns the overall good of the people, right? But communism seems to be the opposite no matter how it's looked at. It could work two ways: everyone becomes rich, or everyone becomes poor. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, the latter almost always wins out. In communism, nobody has more than each other, whether or not they worked or they were lazy. With this mindset, the rich will bring the poor up, or vice versa. Either way, no one is their own person in this system. If the money system were eliminated, however, there couldn't be any rich people. So in that case poverty would ensue. Essentially what I'm getting at here is that communism, the way you put it, would lead to poverty; and dueto the hardworking rich being dragged down to poverty, more social injustce would rage within the communist society. It simply wouldn't fit the definition of humanitarianism, which is supposed to provide welfare for the people, not poverty.

I look forward to hearing your rebuttals.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Chimera

Pro

'It could work two ways: everyone becomes rich, or everyone becomes poor.'

The problem with this idea is that this is not what communism is about, people would not be either rich or poor.

If we eliminate the idea of wealth, we simultaneously eliminate the idea of both wealth-y, and wealth-less. If we also additionally remove the state, then there is no class, everyone is on a equal playing field.

'As history has repeatedly demonstrated, the latter almost always wins out.'

I am curious as to know what history you are referring to, since the basic idea of communism has never been truly been tested.

If you are referring to the USSR, the DPRK, the PRC, or any other country that uses an offshoot of Leninism, then your argument is null and void. Leninism does not subscribe to the definition of communism as I have stated, since it involves the idea of a state, let alone a socialist state, being formed for the people to adjust to, then having it magically decay into a stateless society.

'In communism, nobody has more than each other, whether or not they worked or they were lazy.'

This isn't true, in actual communism, the point isn't that everyone cannot have more than the other, it is that everyone inside of a commune has all rights to everything produced inside of the producers of the commune. As I stated, people would go into a warehouse, and distribute to themselves what they need, and later when there is a surplus of goods, what they want.

Now, you may argue that someone will take more than they need, when there is a scarce amount of goods in the warehouse. This is illogical, since this person is effectively committing associatorial suicide. It will effectively dismantle this persons credibility, therefore people will not wish to associate with them since they were greedy.

To answer the laziness argument, this would affect a persons credibility as well. The point of working in a communist society is to pursue your ambitions, however, you would need to organize horizontally with others to achieve your goals. Since association is a must in communism, those who are lazy can be denied association from those who do not wish to work with them due to their reputation. Therefore, laziness would be seen as something that can ruin you, so it would be undesirable to be lazy.

'It simply wouldn't fit the definition of humanitarianism, which is supposed to provide welfare for the people, not poverty.'

The definition of humanitarian[1]:

Humanitarian: having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.

If we view the idea of welfare as being able to supply good fortune, health, happiness, and prosperity, then Communism as described will ensure this, the rich would not become impoverished by the implementation of Communism.

The only thing that would be taken away would be their indivual ownership of collective property. Their survival, liberties, and personal property will still be ensured. In fact, they would be able to pursue whatever they wished to pursue, the only thing that would change is that the poor are on an equal playing field, since there is no such thing as money.

This would actually stop the conflict between the rich and the poor, since the exsistence of a class struggle has been demolished through the abolition of all forms of vertical organization. Thereby instilling an order amongst the populace.

Since there is no strife, then there must be peace, if this peace stays, then the opposing factions repsect each other, if they respect each other, a sense of equality will ensue, since there is a sense of equality, there is no class, and since communism can provide these people with the means of their survival, liberty, and happiness, then it can improve the welfare of the people. Therefore, it is humanitarian.





Sources:

- http://dictionary.reference.com...

Pitbull15

Con

If we eliminate the idea of wealth, we simultaneously eliminate the idea of both wealth-y, and wealth-less. If we also additionally remove the state, then there is no class, everyone is on a equal playing field.
"Well, to start out with, you can't just eliminate ideas; that thought of wealth and the class system will always be there. And also, in other words, everyone would be equal in wealth, right? I'm going to assume you're against capitalism and business competition, but can you really say in good conscience that a system where everyone will always be equal and possibly miserable at the thought of a potentially better life would be better than a society where people can work to earn better lives? This is why I don't believe communism would be beneficial is because no matter what, the people would always be equal; and with the idea of possibly having a better life under capitalism, would be miserable up to their final breaths.
I am curious as to know what history you are referring to, since the basic idea of communism has never been truly been tested. "If you are referring to the USSR, the DPRK, the PRC, or any other country that uses an offshoot of Leninism, then your argument is null and void. Leninism does not subscribe to the definition of communism as I have stated, since it involves the idea of a state, let alone a socialist state, being formed for the people to adjust to, then having it magically decay into a stateless society.
Then how would I be able to reasonably argue against communism without referring to how it's been used in the past? The logic I am using is that if everyone were to be equal, they would have equal amounts of money, food, etc. and no private property. I am saying this is because. Once they get the idea of capitalism and other possible, more free social systems, this would cause frustration and civil uprising and then the downfall of the communist society would follow in time.
This isn't true, in actual communism, the point isn't that everyone cannot have more than the other, it is that everyone inside of a commune has all rights to everything produced inside of the producers of the commune. As I stated, people would go into a warehouse, and distribute to themselves what they need, and later when there is a surplus of goods, what they want.

Communism involves a classless society where private property is collectively owned. From this definition, I believe that really is the point.
To answer the laziness argument, this would affect a persons credibility as well. The point of working in a communist society is to pursue your ambitions.

I would love to see communist sources stating or implying this.

To answer your last argument, it's about what it would cause that makes it humanitarian; and in today's world, there's no hiding from the idea of being rich for anyone. I don't think it would eliminate any conflict. Rather, I think it would cause more strife and feelings of social injustice, leading to many conflicts.

So with that said, I feel that communism would not be humanitarian as it would not benefit society any more than it is now.
And also, since you have the BoP, I would like to see sources for your claims on communism's humanitarian benefits and its points.


Debate Round No. 3
Chimera

Pro

'"Well, to start out with, you can't just eliminate ideas; that thought of wealth and the class system will always be there. And also, in other words, everyone would be equal in wealth, right? I'm going to assume you're against capitalism and business competition, but can you really say in good conscience that a system where everyone will always be equal and possibly miserable at the thought of a potentially better life would be better than a society where people can work to earn better lives? This is why I don't believe communism would be beneficial is because no matter what, the people would always be equal; and with the idea of possibly having a better life under capitalism, would be miserable up to their final breaths.'

How about we start out with this, if wealth and class are things that were made by man, then they can be eliminated by man. Sure, you cannot eliminate ideas, but you can make their usage redundant and unappealing to the average human by showing them a more effiecient system.

Yet again, you are making the assumption that 'people would be equal in wealth'. This implies that there is money, which there would not be. So, since there is no money, there is no wealth. Things would not be 'bought', they would simply be acquired.

The people would not be equally miserable, if the standards of living are low, then there will be people who contribute towards raising them, because they, like everyone else, do not wish to have low standards of living. It would go completely against human nature to simply sit by and not contribute towards your survival.

'Then how would I be able to reasonably argue against communism without referring to how it's been used in the past? The logic I am using is that if everyone were to be equal, they would have equal amounts of money, food, etc. and no private property. I am saying this is because. Once they get the idea of capitalism and other possible, more free social systems, this would cause frustration and civil uprising and then the downfall of the communist society would follow in time.'

These countries cannot be used as examples of communism since they are not inherently communist. This is due to the inclusion of the state, when communism is primarily an anarchist ideology, a left-wing one at that.

The countries that have been laughingly labelled 'communist' are, in reality, socialist states.

Some communists completely disagreed with the ideas of Leninism and its various strains, as quoted by Kroptokin[1]:

'Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none. He is a madman, an immolator, wishful of burning, and slaughter, and sacrificing.'

Again, as i have said, they do not have an equal quantity of said goods, they just have a collective right to the entire collective of goods, they take for themselves what they need, they would not all be given the same amount of food, since others need more food than others.

If people can aqcuire anything they need without having to sell themselves for labor, then why would they want to rise up against it? They are not being oppressed, they are not being denied access to their means of survival. Therefore, this does not show why they would rise up against it.

You say capitalism is a more free social system. On what basis? Capitalism dictates that one must sell their labor to a capitalist, or else they will not have access to their means of survival. Hence, the 'choice' they make to sell their labor is not voluntary. They must work for a capitalist or starve. At least, in free market capitalism (like that of the Gilded Age) that is.

'Communism involves a classless society where private property is collectively owned. From this definition, I believe that really is the point.'

I think you are confused when it comes to the phrase 'private property'. This does not necessarily mean things like your house, your phone, your computer, or even simple things like your toothbrush. These would still belong to you. However, things that produce should not be privately owned. for example, factories.

As quoted by Marx[2]:

'Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.'

'I would love to see communist sources stating or implying this.'

Ok, I will source Peter Kropotkin's An Appeal to the Young[3] in the sources.

To answer your last argument, it's about what it would cause that makes it humanitarian; and in today's world, there's no hiding from the idea of being rich for anyone.

That isn't the point. It isn't abolishing only the idea of being rich, but also poor. It eliminates class, therefore the formerly rich would still keep their standards of living, and pursue what they wish. Whereas the formerly poor man can achieve just as much as that formerly rich man.

The point is, that as long as there is class struggle, there is strife and conflict daily. Because of communism's elimination of both economic and political class, strife based on class in those categories would cease to exist.

I will use this maxim to demonstrate the logic behind this:

If Capitalism is the system used, then there is economic hierarchy.
If there is economic hierarchy, then there is an economic class system.
If there is an economic class system, there is a lower class that is being oppressed and exploited.
If this class exists, then there must be an oppressing higher class, therefore there is a class struggle.
If a class struggle exists, there is instability.
If there is instability, it will eventually lead to civil conflict.

However

If Communism is the system used, then there is no economic hierarchy.
If there is no economic hierarchy, then there is no economic class system.
If there is no economic class system, then there is no class struggle.
If there is no class struggle, then there is stability.
If there is stability, then there is peace.

In Conclusion:

Communism is a system that;

by eliminating money, would allow for more people to have access to the means of their survival;

by abolishing class, would cause civil strife based on economic status to end, since all are now on an equal field, and cannot be subjugated or exploitated;

by demolishing the state, would free people from oppression based on political class, and would give all people the same equal political rights;

by collectivising private property (with the exclusion of personal property), would allow for workers to have more rights in the workplace, and would give all of mankind the abundance that factories produce.

Therefore, if we define humanitarian as[4]:

Humanitarian: having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.

Then communism is a system that fit this definition, therefore it is humanitarian.

Sources:

1- http://www.goodreads.com...

2- http://www.goodreads.com...

3- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu...

4- http://dictionary.reference.com...
Pitbull15

Con

"How about we start out with this, if wealth and class are things that were made by man, then they can be eliminated by man. Sure, you cannot eliminate ideas, but you can make their usage redundant and unappealing to the average human by showing them a more effiecient system."

Is the debate over whether communism is efficient or humanitarian? Because I feel you've failed to touch on the former.

"Yet again, you are making the assumption that 'people would be equal in wealth'. This implies that there is money, which there would not be. So, since there is no money, there is no wealth. Things would not be 'bought', they would simply be acquired."

They would be equal in that they would have no money, so they would be equal in wealth in that sense.

"The people would not be equally miserable, if the standards of living are low, then there will be people who contribute towards raising them, because they, like everyone else, do not wish to have low standards of living. It would go completely against human nature to simply sit by and not contribute towards your survival."

How would they raise their standard of living, then? They don't have money to buy anything, and they can't get any more than what's provided by the suppliers. And also, if you could make the idea of wealth unappealing like you say, they wouldn't want higher standards of living anyway.

"Some communists completely disagreed with the ideas of Leninism and its various strains, as quoted by Kroptokin[1]:

'Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none. He is a madman, an immolator, wishful of burning, and slaughter, and sacrificing.'"

This is argumentum ad populum, and is therefore invalid.

"Again, as i have said, they do not have an equal quantity of said goods, they just have a collective right to the entire collective of goods, they take for themselves what they need, they would not all be given the same amount of food, since others need more food than others."

That's exactly the problem.There's no guarantee that the collective will even be enough. There is still someone running that whole thing, and if he has malicious intent, then that gives me one more reason to think communism wouldn't work.

"If people can aqcuire anything they need without having to sell themselves for labor, then why would they want to rise up against it? They are not being oppressed, they are not being denied access to their means of survival. Therefore, this does not show why they would rise up against it.

You say capitalism is a more free social system. On what basis? Capitalism dictates that one must sell their labor to a capitalist, or else they will not have access to their means of survival. Hence, the 'choice' they make to sell their labor is not voluntary. They must work for a capitalist or starve. At least, in free market capitalism (like that of the Gilded Age) that is."

They are being denied access of pursuit of something more than just what is provided by the warehouses. In capitalism, you may have to work or starve, but if you work hard, you will rise up and earn what you worked for. It's a work ethic, and in capitalism, it is greatly rewarded most of the time. You can buy and sell more than what is just provided for you, which may not be enough. You'd be able to stock up on goods for later and such. This is how capitalism is more free; you work, and then you can make your material dreams come true. In communism, there's no way this can ever happen.

"That isn't the point. It isn't abolishing only the idea of being rich, but also poor. It eliminates class, therefore the formerly rich would still keep their standards of living, and pursue what they wish. Whereas the formerly poor man can achieve just as much as that formerly rich man.

The point is, that as long as there is class struggle, there is strife and conflict daily. Because of communism's elimination of both economic and political class, strife based on class in those categories would cease to exist."

And there would be social unrest, as people would not be able to reach and make more of their lives. No matter how hard they work, they will never be able to achieve any more.

"I will use this maxim to demonstrate the logic behind this:

If Capitalism is the system used, then there is economic hierarchy.
If there is economic hierarchy, then there is an economic class system.
If there is an economic class system, there is a lower class that is being oppressed and exploited.
If this class exists, then there must be an oppressing higher class, therefore there is a class struggle.
If a class struggle exists, there is instability.
If there is instability, it will eventually lead to civil conflict."

Capitalism in its purest form has never led to civil conflict. People can still work, and their work will be rewarded.

"However

If Communism is the system used, then there is no economic hierarchy.
If there is no economic hierarchy, then there is no economic class system.
If there is no economic class system, then there is no class struggle.
If there is no class struggle, then there is stability.
If there is stability, then there is peace."

When communism was used or has tried to been used, it has always led to more social unrest. So this point would be moot in my view.

"Humanitarian: having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.

Then communism is a system that fit this definition, therefore it is humanitarian."

Except as I demonstrated, communism is not humanitarian.
Debate Round No. 4
81 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
@Kc1999

How are we going to transition to a communist society? How did we transition into a capitalist one? We saw it as a more effective system to feudalism, so, we switched to capitalism. How did we change from a monarchical society into a republican one? We started revolution and overthrew the absolutists.

The point is, eventually capitalism is going to fail, just like every other system before it. Communism is meant to be a system that comes after a socialist global society that would be founded after capitalism fails. Engels said that the state would wither away into a stateless, classless, moneyless society, which would be communism.

There will always be innovations to be made in society, because humans can't make a perfect system. Even communism would eventually fail, but we [communists] believe that it would be the best alternative to capitalism and socialism.

If the means of automation are formed in a capitalist society, then that would just speed up the rate at which capitalism self-destructs. It would speed up the rate at which the world heats up, at least, if global warming is true and capitalists refuse to switch to greener forms of energy, and it would lead to society seeing either communism or socialism (or both) as the more effective system.

Also, a side-note, I don't view capitalists as being 'filthy', I see them [the bourgeoisie] as being victims of the system just as much as the proletariat. They allow greed to poison them, and lose their altruism to a system that inspires selfishness.

As for class-collaboration, I completely oppose the idea of it. Class is what causes war, violence, discrimination, hate, separatism, exploitation, etc. It is a massive issue in society, and we would be better off without it.

Redistributing the personal property of the [former] bourgeoisie or proletariat would solve absolutely nothing. If anything, it would make them feel as if they are being oppressed, which would be counter-productive.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
@Chimera

I'm not convinced that communism can work. How are we going to transition into the communist society? You're saying that communism is a system for an advance society. Plus hear this quote: "creativity is when mistakes are made" Who's going to innovate our society when there are no innovations to be made? Innovation is what keeps history running; the need for change will soon take over stability. On your points about machine, these machines are more costly to run than say "cheap labor" and both could be used by the "filthy capitalists" in order to maximise production.

Anyways, apart from that, you believe in class collaboration? Why not redistribute the property of the people who are exploiting us?
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
@Kc1999

I actually do not support the redistribution of the personal property of the bourgeoisie, I only support the collectivization of the property they 'own' which produces for society. They can keep their materialistic mansions if they desire that, but they cannot keep the factories, land, farms, etc. that they also 'own'.

I also do not support the abolition of personal property, doing so would provide nothing to society. It is utterly pointless and self-destructive to rid people of goods that have only use for individuals.

Steady production would probably be made possible by the automation of factories. Machines can work for longer and more effectively than humans can, so there would be a period where humans would gradually be replaced by machines to work blue-collar jobs. This period of automation could even be made possible by the capitalist society we live in today. So, basically, capitalism will provide the means that will make a communist society more achievable, while also slowly killing itself.

Money, class, and private property don't necessarily keep the working class working. The need for survival, at least in the current system we live in, keeps them working. Most people really only want to work towards things that interest them, and want to pursue the idea of ambition.

Abolishing money would allow them to achieve this without having an extensive understanding of economics. Abolishing class would allow for people to see each other as what they are, equals, and would allow for people to have a fair chance to follow said ambition. Abolishing private property would allow individuals to obtain the means of their survival, and, eventually, the means of their satisfaction, without having to do slave labor for whoever 'owns' the factory.

Others, who wish to have a quieter life, and be things like painters, writers, sculptors, etc. Wouldn't have to sell their labor in order to obtain their means of survival, and would be able to pursue the
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
@Chimera

You do support the redistribution of the property of the bourgeoisie correct? Then defend that; how is that not robbery?

And also explain to me how production outputs could be kept at a steady rate when communists express the desire to abolish such things as money, class and private property (as distinct from personal property, which would also be in name, abolished), which in effect keep the working class working?

@Conservative101

Communism is defined as a stateless, classless, moneyless society. So in reality, the "commies" (aka USSR, China, DPRK) weren't really commies, but socialists. Stalin, in fact, only payed lip service to the creation of the communist society. There were only three Soviet premiers, Lenin, Khruschev and Gorbachev, who believed in the creation of a true communist society.
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
@Conservative101

Communism cannot be compared to countries like North Korea. Not even the USSR can be qualified as being communist. Mainly because they never claimed to be such. They are/were socialist states, not communist countries.

In fact, the term 'communist country', is itself an oxymoron. Communism calls for the abolition of the state and the status-quo in favor of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. That being a direct democracy based on consensus.

Also, communism wouldn't take away personal property. It would collectivize forms of private property that are not personal, such as factories. Things that produce for society would be owned by society.

However, if you had a farm that produced enough for you and your family to eat and be happy, this wouldn't be taken away from you. Or if you had tools that only you use to produce artwork and other goods, these wouldn't be taken either.

Also, even though they were statist scum, the Soviet Union was by no means behind in technology.
Posted by Conservative101 3 years ago
Conservative101
In communist countries, there are almost no human rights. The economies are bad as well. North Korea for example, has hardly advanced in technology and keeps out nearly everyone. The government controls you, your life, your property, your business, etc. Why would you be communist?
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
@Jevinigh

Also, if the term 'True Scotsmen' is defined before the claim that they are 'No True Scotsmen' is made. Then they are indeed, not 'True Scotsmen'

The systems that Lenin and Mao employed did not follow the definitions and parameters set down by Marx and Engels. The definition for the term 'communism' was made long before the October Revolution.

Therefore, there is no 'No True Scotsmen' involved, since the Scotsman is indeed, not a True Scotsman.
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
@Jevinigh

To an extent, I can agree with you.

However, so is practically every other ideology in the world.
Posted by Jevinigh 3 years ago
Jevinigh
Advocates of Communism today are poster children of the No true Scotsman Fallacy.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 3 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
The "belief" in the practicality of communism depends on the "belief" that people are inherantly good and will remain good under the right circumstances. The error is in the fact that people are inherantly evil and there will always be people who will seek power over others for personal gain. Communistic beliefs, promises, and pursuits always result in a class of rulers who must become oppressive to maintain their leadership. The communist belief is self-delusional and sold always through the price of blood shed for an end that is supposed to justify all means of accomplishment.through delusional promises. Communistic promises, beliefs, and practices always have been a great evil and always will be as long as they are promoted and upheld by people of the world.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
ChimeraPitbull15Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments that were more relevant to the topic of the debate.
Vote Placed by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
ChimeraPitbull15Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used better sources and backed up his arguments.
Vote Placed by mmadderom 3 years ago
mmadderom
ChimeraPitbull15Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments and better premise on Con
Vote Placed by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
ChimeraPitbull15Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made much better arguments, for he generally wrote more and his arguments were simply stronger. Pro also used more sources.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
ChimeraPitbull15Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: "An example of this being a family eating dinner (at least, by Western customs, please excuse my ignorance if i am mistaken). Each family member gives themselves the food needed to sate their hunger, while also being conscious of other family members hunger, and their need for survival." This really isn't a conduct vote. It's a minor argument vote. The problem ultimately was this analogy fell flat. There is no need to believe a commune must be like a family. The fact of the matter is the means of reproduction in a commune do not match those of a family. In a family, individuals in previous generations consent to produce future generations, and previous generations are expected to mediate between future individuals. In a commune, this individuality is erased. In families, youth are checked by elders when they claim to need help when they're actually being lazy. They're also checked when they claim others are being lazy. In a commune, laziness becomes a popularity contest.