The Instigator
eleutheria
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Texas14
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 2 votes the winner is...
eleutheria
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 87351
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

eleutheria

Pro

Capitalism has outgrown its necessity and done nothing but intensify the ancient, barbaric feudal relationships it was sanctified to do away with. The conditions of capitalism: states, classes, capital, etc. are obsolete, and thus we must dispel all superstitions - we must reject all external "big others" - that tell us these artificial constructs are necessary.

Consciously rejecting the idealism and cultural dogma that capitalism has wrought is the paramount approach to advancing humanity's mastery over the material world; the outright domination of man over his conditions is his single preordained goal, and communism is the only movement that can fulfill his aspiration.
Texas14

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
eleutheria

Pro

Okay.

Capitalism is an obsolete mode of production; its necessity in industrialization has been superseded by its perpetual failure.

What are your qualms with communism, and why do you support capitalism?
Texas14

Con

Qualms with communism:

1. Tends to fail: Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba

2. Supresses individual liberty: doesn't allow for private property, the government controls everything, people are forced to be equal in socioeconomic status

Why capitalism is superior:

1: Allows for individual freedom: most democracies are capitalist

2: Allows opportunity for upward mobility

3: Despite its flaws, it is the best system in existence.

This is not the entirety of my argument, rather it's a framework since you seemed to be asking for a framework or a summary of my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
eleutheria

Pro

All right:

"1. Tends to fail: Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba"

Communism is not like capitalism; it is not a system, it is not a relationship, it is not a model of organization, it is a process. It is process that will certainly procure systems, relationships, and organization of its own, sure, but defining communism on any of those grounds alone is superficial and juvenile.

As Marx said, communism is not a state of affairs; the only implicit role of a communist movement is the abolition of the present state of things, and nothing more. The intricacies of a communistic society are entirely ambiguous insofar as we are immersed in a real, vibrant communist movement.

What does this have to do with your argument?

The failed communist movements of the 20th century were indeed attempting to manifest communism, sure, but their failures can ONLY be attributed to the conditions within their proximity. This idea that "communism" must alone shelter the blame for the failed movements that simply tried to set it in motion is inane. Take this analogy for example:

If a man crashed his car trying to navigate a drive-thru, would the fault of the crash be with him or the establishment that owned the drive-thru?

Obviously, the fault of the crash therein lays with the man, as whatever caused the crash manifested SOLELY within the confines of himself and his car.

"2. Supresses individual liberty: doesn't allow for private property, the government controls everything, people are forced to be equal in socioeconomic status"

First of all, Marxian literature refers to private property only as a connotation for the ownership of the means of production. A factory owned by a company is private property. A home owned by a family is personal property, and would stand just as legitimately in a communistic society as it would in a capitalistic society.

The only "government" in communism is the one facilitating it. There is no implicit role of government beyond this; furthermore, a communist movement that has realized itself to the fullest extent will be devoid of government in its entirety.

Actually, people are not "forced" into any socioeconomic category. I'm not sure what you even mean by this, so I'll just ignore it for now. Please elaborate more on what you mean by this

All right, now on to the capitalism section

"1: Allows for individual freedom: most democracies are capitalist"

Democracy is a method of governance, and capitalism is an economic model. They are not in any way reliant on each other, so I fail to see how this argument is substantiated by anything other than circumstance.

"2: Allows opportunity for upward mobility"

Au contraire, the reality of capitalism procures quite the opposite effect. Sure, hierarchy within an enterprise may allow for some degree of "upward mobility," as you put it, but that is all within the direct proximity of the business. Who exists outside of that? The people who own it, referred to in classical Marxist literature as the bourgeois.

There is no way a cashier can work their way up from their position to one that actually gives them ownership of land. Sure, they can work their way up in some fashion to a promotion or a job of higher ranking, but there is no way they can actually obtain ownership of land by "working hard."

The intricacies and management of capitalistic businesses actually have little to do with the Marxian critique of capitalism, which is more centered around the idea of class struggle (bourgeois, those who exist outside of that hierarchy, and the proletarians, the one inside that hierarchy).

"3: Despite its flaws, it is the best system in existence."

Care to elaborate on that?

Before capitalism took hold in Europe, I'm sure that feudal lords said the exact same thing. You can't claim that capitalism is superior to something that doesn't exist yet solely because it is prevalent today; sure, the iPhone 6s may be the "best" iphone in existence, but communist movements do not exist in the present. Communist movements exist in the future in order to supersede capitalism and to procure, analogically speaking, the iPhone 7 or some other variant.

Shifting gears here, the philosophical realm was more of what I was attempting to spark debate in here; I am totally fine with this continuing in an political-economic manner, but I would like to at least touch on the philosophical/epistemological sides of both arguments at some point in this debate.

Would you consider yourself to be an objectivist? Or are you aligned elsewhere
Texas14

Con

I'm very busy preparing for a debate tournament at the moment so I'll concede. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
eleutheria

Pro

all righty
Texas14

Con

I'll just keep posting.
Debate Round No. 4
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by domfincrag 9 months ago
domfincrag
im voting for communism once this is over.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bob13 9 months ago
Bob13
eleutheriaTexas14Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 9 months ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
eleutheriaTexas14Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.