The Instigator
BEASTxKNIGHTx12
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chimera
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Communism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Chimera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 53616
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

Thank-you for accepting this challenge. When accepting this if you forfeit each turn you will be considered a quitter and will not be loved just saying. USe valuable evidences to support why you support communism. Even if you don't like communism you can still try. Opinions will be accepted if they aren't stupid answers. Thanks for Debating!
Chimera

Pro

I accept the challenge.

Opening Statement:

To begin, I will define the term communism[1]:

Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Thus, all forms of communism have this goal in mind, and are designed to achieve this goal.

However, and even more basic definition of communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society, where private property, with the exception of personal property, is collectivized.

Now, we must acknowledge that communism is split into two main camps, based on their implementation, those being:

Engelian-Marxian/Indirect Communism: Creation of a socialist (socialist, not communist) state through revolution, this revolution eventually expanding across the globe. This state has usually been totalitarian (USSR, Cuba, DPRK) however it has the ability to be democratic. This state would eventually go through a period of atrophy to the point of nonexistence, when it reaches this point, communism has been achieved.

Kropotkinian/Direct Communism: Kropotkin argued for a more direct theory of installment, simple mass revolution that would expand across the globe, then would directly overthrow and abolish government, creating a state of anarchy that would cause the people to organize horizontally, thereby achieving communist without the possibility of dictatorship.

Now, Con has stated that I must provide evidence for why I support communism. I will assume that he means as to why I view communism as a legitimate and worthwhile socio-economic system.

For evidence, I will show that a primitive form of the Kropotkinian system was use by hunter-gatherer societies[2], whereas more modern uses include Anarchist Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War[3], and The Freed Territory in Ukraine after WW1[4].

The Engelian-Marxian system has yet to be actually used in a pure sense. This is due to Lenin advocating for the idea of a vanguard party[5], which is a system ripe for exploitation by the power-hungry, such as Stalin. Although Lenin was one of the few who actually wanted to institute the idea of State Atrophy, most of the other Soviet Premiers simply wanted to maintain the power of the Communist Party's oligarchy.

However, the Engelian-Marxian system could be used in a directly democratic fashion, wohich would be much more effective. With the absence of the vanguard party, and only the presence of the people, then a true dictatorship of the proletariat, as Marx defined it, could occur. The state would wither away since the people would eventually have less and less of a need for a state. Therefore leading into communism.

However, I will make my main argument once my opponent has made theirs.

To my opponent, good luck, and let's please keep this debate civil, and enjoyable.

Sources:

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

2- http://en.wikipedia.org...

3- http://en.wikipedia.org...

4- http://en.wikipedia.org...

5- http://en.wikipedia.org...




Debate Round No. 1
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

"The average person, as George Carlin once observed, is not particularly good at anything. The perfect job for such a person is on the assembly line. But regardless of the governments under which we live, we all have different aspirations. Some people are perfectly happy sweeping floors, but most of us"justly"want more out of life. Not only money, but fame, glory, and a sense of accomplishment. All of these require at least some creative thought. You may want to be a poet or a painter, but these jobs certainly don"t pay the bills"and"Communism"views them as unnecessary and ridiculous. All that matters is building a super-powerful nation"and one of the first obstacles that must be removed is what Jefferson called "the pursuit of happiness."
The most notorious example of forced collectivization is the land reform carried out by Soviets between 1928 and 1933. It was thought that collectivization would maximize the use and potential of the countryside for urban and industrial needs. Russian industry was just taking off, and enormous quantities of food would be required for the workers.
The relative success of the free market economy is a real-world refutation of Marxist economics. The latter never has sufficient information on the market prices of commodities, and therefore cannot properly ration the distribution of a nation"s resources.
The only reasonable criticism of the free market economy is the presence of monopolies, which can raise the prices of their products with little fear of reprisal. But monopolies are just like the central control a"Communist"government exercises on its whole economy; a true free market ensures that there be checks and balances on the price of goods and services.R32;R32;R32;R32;
Masses of resisting landowners"many of them small-scale farmers who worked their own land"died at the hands of executioners. The state"s requisition of crops, livestock, and farmland was paid for by the farmers and by the lower class in general, some ten million of whom starved to death in five years.R32;R32;
Exactly the same atrocity took place in Communist China, between 1958 and 1961. During this time, private farming was outlawed as it had been in Stalin"s Russia, and about 33 million people starved to death in possibly the single most destructive famine in human history.
Several of these entries are related, and the absence of citizens" rights is at the heart of more than one. In keeping with the last entry, Marx advocated ten rules in his Communist Manifesto for the forced redistribution of all land and property for the good of the national community.R32;R32;
This is theft, from the citizens" point of view. They are forced to join the new"Communist"government"whether they like it or not. This, of course, must be done with a "might is right" frame of mind: lots of men with guns show up and take everything you have "for the glory of the motherland," as the Soviets might have said".
These are why I say communism is bad, and now I say I'm ready for your turn.
Source:
http://listverse.com...

http://www.ask.com...
Chimera

Pro

1st Argument:

'The most notorious example of forced collectivization is the land reform carried out by Soviets between 1928 and 1933. It was thought that collectivization would maximize the use and potential of the countryside for urban and industrial needs. Russian industry was just taking off, and enormous quantities of food would be required for the workers.

The relative success of the free market economy is a real-world refutation of Marxist economics. The latter never has sufficient information on the market prices of commodities, and therefore cannot properly ration the distribution of a nation"s resources.

The only reasonable criticism of the free market economy is the presence of monopolies, which can raise the prices of their products with little fear of reprisal. But monopolies are just like the central control a"Communist"government exercises on its whole economy; a true free market ensures that there be checks and balances on the price of goods and services.R32;R32;R32;R32;

Masses of resisting landowners"many of them small-scale farmers who worked their own land"died at the hands of executioners. The state"s requisition of crops, livestock, and farmland was paid for by the farmers and by the lower class in general, some ten million of whom starved to death in five years.R32;R32;


Exactly the same atrocity took place in Communist China, between 1958 and 1961. During this time, private farming was outlawed as it had been in Stalin"s Russia, and about 33 million people starved to death in possibly the single most destructive famine in human history.


Several of these entries are related, and the absence of citizens" rights is at the heart of more than one. In keeping with the last entry, Marx advocated ten rules in his Communist Manifesto for the forced redistribution of all land and property for the good of the national community.R32;R32;


This is theft, from the citizens" point of view. They are forced to join the new"Communist"government"whether they like it or not. This, of course, must be done with a "might is right" frame of mind: lots of men with guns show up and take everything you have "for the glory of the motherland," as the Soviets might have said".


To begin, I would like to note that the forced 'collectivization' was carried out by a state, whereas communism itself is stateless, as I defined in my opening argument. Therefore, the USSR was not even communist by definition. If anything, the USSR was a centrally planned socialist state[1] that contorted Marx's theory into something they could use to justify the heinous and vile acts they commited in the name of the Russian people.

Other socialist states, like China, also commited these atrocities for the exact same reason. Here is a good parallel to demonstrate as to why they were not communists, if the definition argument was not clear enough.

In the High Middle Ages, the Catholic Church called for massive crusades against the muslims in the Middle East to 'free the holy land'[2]. That they needed to fight in the name of Christendom against the Islamic menace. Does this necessarily mean that these Popes were Christians? That Christ would approve of their jingoistic attitude? No, they are not Christians like Christ envisioned, and by Christ's definition of a Christian (I know, Christ didn't exactly define what a Christian was, just stay with me).

So, if we compare this parallel to communism. We can infer that people like Stalin and Mao were using 'communism' as a guise to justify their monstrous abuse of the people. Promising them the falsehood that the state would eventually wither away and make way for a land ruled solely by the people. So, by Marx's definition, these people were only glorified fascists of the worst kind.

Therefore, we cannot call these people and these countries 'communist' because, by definition, they are not communists.

Also, I would like to point out that my opponent pretty much just copy/pasted his entire argument from the sources he provided. Which is itself practical plagiarism.

Sources:

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

2- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

These are things that communism does not have which makes it sucks.
"The redistribution of land
"Equalizing wealth through a heavy progressive or graduated income tax
"Abolishing all rights of inheritance
"Confiscating property from emigrants and rebels
"Factories and instruments of production should be owned by the State
"All credit should be in State banks
"All people are equally obliged to work
"All children should receive free education in public schools
Chimera

Pro

2nd Round Argument:

'These are things that communism does not have which makes it sucks.'

'The redistribution of land'

In a communist society, there is no state to 'redistribute' the land. In fact, in a communist society, all land would be equally owned by all people of the Earth. Nothing like land would be privatized and then cut up and distributed to everyone. You haven't explained as to why this 'redistribution' would be helpful for communism.

'Equalizing wealth through a heavy progressive or graduated income tax'

Why should people be 'taxed' in a communist society when there is no such thing as money?

'Abolishing all rights of inheritance'

Define 'rights of inheritance'. I'm not quite sure as to what you mean.

'Confiscating property from emigrants and rebels'

If by property you mean personal property, then no. Nothing would even be 'confiscated', things like factories and farms (aka, things that produce for a collective) would be collectivized, not confiscated. Personal property (aka, things that have a personal/material use) would still be respected. I don't see why confiscating property would make communism better.

'Factories and instruments of production should be owned by the State'

Really? Having things owned by the state would make communism 'not suck'? So, by that logic, the USSR did 'not suck'? Maoist China did 'non suck'? Marxist-Leninism and it's counterparts don't work for the simple reason that factories and such are owned by the State, when in reality they should be owned by the workers. Having them owned by the state is no better than capitalism, since you will still have a boss who enslaves and exploits you for your labor.

'All people are equally obliged to work'

People are obliged to work in a communist society, it is in their best interests. If they don't work, and they are lazy, then others in the commune in which they live can refuse to give their service and knowledge to them. Therefore, by being lazy, you are only hurting yourself.

'All children should receive free education in public schools'

I'm sorry to break it to you, but this is in communism. It is capitalism (at least, free-market capitalism) that promotes having all schools privatized, effectively cutting off education to the poor and needy, for the benefit of the rich.
Debate Round No. 3
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

BEASTxKNIGHTx12 forfeited this round.
Chimera

Pro

I hope my opponent returns for the final round.

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Con

Sorry I was gone, but communism will never work it has failed every time it has been used. Which proves it will never be truly successful.
Chimera

Pro

'Sorry I was gone, but communism will never work it has failed every time it has been used. Which proves it will never be truly successful.'

This is the most naive statement I have ever heard. Communism has by no means failed every time is has been used. On the contrary, communism (by modern standards) has never once been used.

The USSR wasn't communist, it was a socialist state giving the false promise of communism down the road. China isn't communist, and they are only socialist in name. North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, the list goes on. All of these countries are NOT communist.

If you read the definition that I provided, then you could have concluded that their were practicing various systems of Marxist-Leninism, but failed to get past the first stage of the system, that being a socialist state. State Atrophy never occurred, thereby never creating a classless, stateless, moneyless society, that being a communist society.

Since i'm unimpressed by your final argument, I will go back to your opening argument.

'You may want to be a poet or a painter, but these jobs certainly don"t pay the bills"and"Communism"views them as unnecessary and ridiculous. All that matters is building a super-powerful nation"'

This is possibly the most ignorant argument I have ever heard, one you copied of your source aswell.

If anything, communism as described by Marx and Kropotkin is DESIGNED to help the writer, the painter, the poet and the playwright, the artist and the critic. Communism emphasizes that these people are having to take jobs that disinterest them, which is an astounding tragedy in this post-industrialist world.

If anything, these people shouldn't have to get jobs that apply a trade that disinterests them. All in a melancholy effort to conquer bread. The writer shouldn't have to be reduced to the options of becoming a lawyer, businessman, etc. or having to sell his talent to manufacture sappy greeting cards and pathetic slogans. They should be free to use culture as the catalyst of their designs, without having to fear starvation and exploitation.

Capitalism and fascism are the killers of culture, not communism.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Comrade_Silly_Otter 2 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
BEASTxKNIGHTx12ChimeraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I admire Communism slightly. Pro, for being a bit neater and quite clear on his arguments.