The Instigator
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Communism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,840 times Debate No: 21983
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

1dustpelt

Con

Rules
This debate is for intellectual purposes only. NO VOTING ON THIS!

Waiting for Royal to accept.
royalpaladin

Pro

I accept and would like to emphasize the fact that my opponent and I have agreed to engage in an intellectual discussion. This debate will be a tie.
Debate Round No. 1
1dustpelt

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting. Remember, this is for intellectual purposes only, and will be a tie. Whoever votes will be countered!

Argument 1: Human Rights
Communism is an idealology based on a central power, where the government has all the power. The people has to listen to the government, and the government has all the control. When people protest, events like the Tiananmen Square Massacre happens.

Argument 2: Economy
Under Communism, everyone gets equal pay, no matter what they do. During the time of the USSR, the government set unrealistically high quotas that people could not fulfill. To meet the quotas, people would work as fast as possible, resulting in sloppy products.

Conclusion
Communism is not the correct way to run a country.

http://www.marxists.org...;
http://history.howstuffworks.com...;
http://www.sjsu.edu...;
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
royalpaladin

Pro

Response

Human Rights

The fundamental problem with his analysis is that he is focusing on the standard American interpretation of Communism, which does not accurate describe a true Communist society. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx writes that Communist societies are those in which the state will wither away and in which people will voluntary strive together to protect all peope. This means that Communism is inherently an anarchist ideology and is does not focus on central authority as my opponent believes. His argument rests on societies like China and the USSR, but those societies are not Communist for two reasons. First, the state still exists in those nations, and by definition, Communism occurs when there is no state and we have voluntary collectivism. Second, those societies are plagued by inequality. Communism exists to promote equality, and the societies that he mentions are totalitarian State Capitalist dictatorships. That means that some people are treated as more worthy by the state than others, so equality, and therefore Communism, do not exist.


In fact, a true Communist society would promote Human Rights better than a Capitalist society would because the basic tenets of Communism include respect for all human life and the promotion of human dignity. A true Communist society would work to eradicate poverty, suffering, and violence and would attempt to establish a society in which everyone can fluorish.


Economy
Extend the analysis about how the USSR was not Communist. Rather, it was a state capitalist society. Note that these quotas are similar to quotas that private corporations and factories created in the U.S. during the First Industrial Revolution (prior to governmental regulations) that lasted until leftists protested and advocated reform.



Dangers of Capitalism
Capitalism involves establishing a semi-aristocracy in which laborers are exploited for personal gain. In addition, the lack of any communal or governmental regulations renders unfettered Capitalism dangerous and intrusive. Prior to the existence of the FDA, for example, the meat packing industry packed dead rats, poisons, and other harmful and disgusting materials their meat. Clean water, seat belts in cars, and many other modern conveniences could not exist in an unfettered Capitalist society.


In fact, unfettered Capitalism is not even sustainable; inevitably, lack of regulations, whether moral, communal, or governmental, leads to the destruction of the free market and the establishment of monopolies. John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company is an apt example; his corrupt practices allowed him to seize control over the entire U.S. oil market. The only reason that monopolies do not exist in the modern era is that the United States has taken measures to demolish them.
Debate Round No. 2
1dustpelt

Con

Response

My opponent claims that in true communism, equality would be promoted and countries like China and the USSR are not true communist. However, would true communism work?

Communism strives for the complete equality of all incomes, and therefore, everything. As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job. In an attempt to make more money, people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply. Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero. [1]

Communism's original and most basic principles deal with the rich owners and the workers or proletariats. Unfortunately for Marx's cause, a third order was coming to power and it would prove to be the larger and more powerful than either the proletariat or the capitalist aristocracy. This third middle grounds was completely misjudged by Marx and incorrectly lumped in with the bourgeois rich. Marx's entire theory was based on class struggle and a difference in these classes forcing a revolution to be followed by an "equality" of all classes (the irony: Marx and Engels were factory owners when they published the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital!). The petit-bourgeois, Marx's term for the middle class, was only to further divide the upper and working classes by an irreconcilable rift. In reality, the opposite happened and the middle class actually bridged any "rift," that is to say if there was one in the first place! The arrival of the middle class practically ruins any chance for this revolution as well as any need for it. Further it presents a variable unaccounted for simply because it fits incorrectly into the communist and socialist theory. Strange that people put faith in a theory that completely misjudges the majority of the population! [1]

As you see "True communism" would not work.

Economy
Extend arguments.

Dangers of Capitalism
The same can be said about communsim. Extend arguments from above.

Sources
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com...;

I apoligize for this short response, as I am quite busy lately and have very little time to respond.

royalpaladin

Pro

Concessions

My opponent makes a few key concessions by dropping some of my major arguments.


The first concession is that true Communist societies are those in which the people voluntary choose to band together and work for a communal good. He also concedes the two main impacts from this argument, namely that Communism promotes equality and that the USSR and China are not Communist societies. The second concession is that the Communist societies would promote Human Rights better than Capitalist societies possibly could because Communism promotes respect for human life and for human dignity. Please extend this arguments cleanly across the flow; they will have important applications later in the round.


True Communism

His first rebuttal is that there is no incentive to work in a Communist society; I have four responses to this attack. First, keep in mind that he conceded in the last round that Communist societies are voluntary collectives in which the people strive to promote the well-being of all. Individuals who do not wish to join a Communist society and who care only for their own interests would never join this voluntary collective, while individuals who do wish to promote the good of their fellow men would. Insofar as this is true, the incentive "problem" would never plague Communist societies because the people who join them would bet those who strive to promote the welfare of all. Since Communism is, by definition, a voluntary collective, the self-interested would not be forced to join.


Second, Marx notes in the Manifesto that Communist societies are at the "end of history", meaning that they would only exist when humans evolve socially to the point that they no longer depend on petty self-interests for pleasure. Marx notes that in the modern era, Communism could never exist; however, Communist societies will probably exist in the future. History has proven that societies are becoming increasingly open to notions of equality, so it is feasible that at some point, people will be able to forgo petty interests in favor of the welfare of humanity. The impact is that just because humans are not currently altruistic does not mean that they will not be altruistic in the future, meaning that in a true Communist society, the incentive problem would not exist.


Third, Communist societies have a coercive apparatus to deal with individuals who hope to leech the communities' resources. One of Marx's most famous lines from the Manifesto is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In other words, individuals must put into the community according to their abilities, and in return, they receive goods from the community in proportion to their needs. If individuals who can contribute to the community choose to shirk their responsibilities, they will not receive anything from the community in return. However, individuals who are genuinely unable to contribute would be taken care of under this provision. This also solves the incentive problem because it provides an additional incentive for individuals to achieve individual interests by working through the community.

Fourth, Communist societies can solve the incentive problem by allocating respect in a novel manner. According to psychologist Abraham Maslow, one of the most fundamental human needs is recognition; this is the most powerful motivating factor because human beings are social creatures. Conceptions of beauty, sexual morality, sexual desires, presentation, etc. are all influenced by society, and almost everything that anybody has the function of garnering recognition and respect. Economist Thorstein Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption, for example, explains that individuals spend funds on goods and services for the purpose of displaying income and wealth. This, in turn, functions as a means of garnering social recognition. In our society, we allocate respect to individuals who have the most wealth and thus manufacture a positive feedback mechanism by which we promote greed and wanton individualism. A Communist society, however, could allocate respect to the most altruistic individuals and could refuse to grant respect to the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. This would create competition to become the most altruistic and would thus create a positive feedback loop with the end goal of promoting the welfare of others.

His second attack about the bourgeoisie is actually completely false. In the Manifesto, Marx explicitly notes that the bourgeoisie is the reason that capitalism exists, and notes that just as the bourgeoisie ovethrew the noblemen and aristocrats of the Middle Ages, so too can the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie class and create their own society. The bourgeoisie do not act as a bridge between the wealthy and the destitute because they are the reason that Capitalism exists in the first place.

Economy
He extends his arguments from his previous speech even though he concedes that Communism is voluntary collectivism. Since his attacks focused on the USSR and China, which are not Communist societies according to his concessions, there is nothing to extend here. In fact, you can extend the link-turn that he conceded to because they negate his economic arguments from his first speech.

Capitalism
He makes no effort to defend the attacks I made on capitalism; the only thing that he claimed was that the same thing could be said about Communism. Note, however, that my attacks discussed the dangers of unregulated corporations, which would not exist in a true Communist society. This means that the attacks could never possibly apply to Communism. Insofar as this is true, you can extend all of the dropped analysis about the dangers of Capitalism. By falsely claiming that they could be applied to Communism as well, he openly conceded that these attacks were valid criticisms of Capitalist societies. Since we both agree that these are problems with Capitalism, please extend this arguments cleanly across the flow.
Debate Round No. 3
1dustpelt

Con

1dustpelt forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
1dustpelt

Con

Sorry for the forfiet. After reading your arguments, I concede.
royalpaladin

Pro

No problem.

My opponent has conceded. Although we originally agreed to have a tie, I guess that means you vote for me?
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
"Sorry for the forfiet. After reading your arguments, I concede."
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
Buddamoose, it was supposed to be a tie UNTIL he conceded. He specifically conceded in the last round.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Oh dear, please pardon me. That will teach me to take on 7 debates at once.
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
This is a great conversation so far. Pro especially, the argument for communism is being done perfectly. On another note,

@adamdeben: Dude are you serious with that zeitgeist bs? Its just communism in shiny wrapping paper. Except, sickening, and just plain wrong on so many levels. That person you use for your picture, Jaques Fresno, is not a good person. Zeitgeist would result in nothing but a combination of:

1) Plato's Republic - read the book, that is not a good way to run things.
2) Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
3) H.G. Wells The Shape of Things to Come. - Read the book, its a
wonderful read and the premise is a society in which science rules above all else.

Seriously dude, you need to abandon that zeitgeist stuff cause its a terrible idea thats immoral, unjust, and will only lead to an Authoritarian Dictatorship.

If you dont understand why read John Locke's "Treatise of two governments." and his other works, and Thomas Paine's "Common Sense."
Posted by AdamDeben 4 years ago
AdamDeben
sorry it double posted. is there a way to delete a comment?
Posted by AdamDeben 4 years ago
AdamDeben
Communism didn't work, and in theory cannot work.
Evidently, Capitalism doesn't work either and will continue to work less and less as it fails to adapt to technology and alternative energy.

It's either one or the other, OR maybe it's this: An economy without money. It's not as bad as it may seem at first thought. Google, "The Zeitgeist Movement".
Posted by AdamDeben 4 years ago
AdamDeben
Communism didn't work, and in theory cannot work.
Evidently, Capitalism doesn't work either and will continue to work less and less as it fails to adapt to technology and alternative energy.

It's either one or the other, OR maybe it's this: An economy without money. It's not as bad as it may seem at first thought. Google, "The Zeitgeist Movement".
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
Royal, I'd like to debate you on Communism some time in the future.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
1dustpeltroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: counter buddamoose, the con conceded
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
1dustpeltroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This was supposed to be a tie regardless. counter-vote
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
1dustpeltroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
1dustpeltroyalpaladinTied
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: FF