Debate Rounds (4)
Contention 1: Since Communism is a utopia, there requires a totalitarian Government to set up the utopia. But once the totalitarian Government is in, it will stay in until it is overthrown, then the Government will change back to anti-Communist.
Let's take a look at some Communistic Countries over the last century.
Russia: Communist from 1917 to 1991. Totalitarian Government in place through the whole time. Ends up semi-Capitalist.
China: Communist from the 1950s on. Totalitarian Government in place through the whole time. Economy only prospered when they changed to a Capitalist economy.
Vietnam: Communist from the 1950s to ? (depends). Totalitarian Government in place through the whole time.
North Korea: Communist from 1950 on. Totalitarian Government in place through the whole time.
Cuba: Communist from the 1950s on. Totalitarian Government in place through the whole time.
Now name me some countries that Communism does not lead to a Totalitarian Government.
Now let's take a look at some of the consequences of Communistic Totalitarian Governments over the last century.
Russia: Racking famines in the 1920s, at least 20 million killed in Stalin's Purges in the 1930s and 40s, a dead economy, incomprehendably high taxes, and an extremely high Government debt. People lived poorly and in fear.
China: Watches your every move, blocks half of all websites, people mysteriously disappearing from the streets everyday, and an oppressive Government. People live in fear.
Vietnam: Racking famines and two wars that destoryed the country.
North Korea: Racking famines, no civil rights or political freedoms at all, people die from the Government everyday, 30 people in one small house, and no privacy at all. People live in extreme poverty and extreme fear.
Cuba: Racking famines (yet again), toilet paper shortages, and no privacy. People live in fear.
The point I am trying to make is that as good as the Communistic "utopia" may sound, it is impossible to get there for the Totalitarian Government won't go away.
Contention 2: Communism is an economic disaster.
Communism is an economic disaster for two reasons. One, the permenant totalitarian state will always be economically far-leftist, which will destory the economy. And two, since in communist "utopia", no one owns anything, the whole population does, then there is no incentive to start businesses because the whole motive behind starting a business is to make money. When that motive is taken away, there is no reason to create businesses, and thus, no one is employed and major shortages happen, resulting in famine, epidemics, and things of that nature.
"Under communism, all property- especially the ‘means of production’- factories and capital- was owned by everyone- or no-one… the state owned it. This removed much of the scope for human creativity and enterprise. People had no real economic freedom to create a business, they had to fit into the ‘big plan’. This caused people to stop trying hard (unless they had a gun put to their back) and society overall became less productive."
This graph shows the consequences Communism can have on personal wealth and GDP.
TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNISM
.I My first argument is one country, Russia. If you look at statistics, the USSR had very very low crime rates. Where democratic Russia is a mess right now. Capitalism hasn't helped at all, in fact made it much worse there.
.II Again with China capitalism has not helped. China is now socialist, yes not communist anymore but still very far left. My crime argument still is persistent here but less so, communism also made it into a military superpower. The monitoring and such is not wrong, with modern Internet crime being such a problem I understand the necessity for monitoring. Something which I might add would mean that capitalism would cause this, so in a sense this problem is rooted because of capitalism. Therefore leaving communism is the root of the problem, making your argument null and void. Again marking oppressive government non existent, if its in the defense of "Capitalism" which you are defending.
.III North Korea, really? Communist? Yes it declares itself communist but to be honest is it not more like a imperial government. That is a big gap in your argument , since I hate North Korea and have no defense for it.
.IV Cuba, again same system with China. And part of the problem again, is corrupt corporations and Internet piracy crime. Also the US and other countries have spent years sanctions and destabilizing it.
.V Vietnam, the US intervened and quadrupled the problems there. Very simple argument, sorry for the lack of details.
EARLY USSR AND STALIN
.I Why the idea of citing my Stalin argument is appealing, it would be lazy and I owe you a argument here. the Famine was started by the Kulaks class of peasants burning crops, though Stalin did not help. Still another argument is Russia had gone through two consecutive wars between 1914-1923. Costing millions of lives, and forcing famines to start because workers became soldiers.
.II Stalin also had to be aware of the threat of Nazi Germany, a superpower with allies who deemed the USSR their ultimate enemies. They had to prepare for war right away yet again, forced economic plans to set the country back on track were nesccary. And they also improved the country by 100 years give or take, cannot deny the massive success.
.III Stalin's purges, the white warlords and foreign powers had corrupted the military. Yet he is partially at fault since he made some bad descions. This is admittedly a stalemate.
.IV Taxes, how is that bad. Canada, Europe, Asia etc. etc. great places with very high taxes, you need high taxes to have free health care, police forces, courts, military, airports, national defense, and many many more examples.
.I Of course there is economic problems, there is none! And how can a country be so bad if its a superpower, yes it did come at some costs.
.II Personal wealth is not always good, to have personal wealth you must have homeless people. No homeless people lived in the USSR, it means people have a purpose.
.I Vietnam, Korea, and others are prime examples of the US attempting to police an area. It is not the us business, let the places affected deal with it. An ideological disagreement does not justify it, a country has to have a real threatening reason to invade it.
.II Chile is a country with much richer natural resources and did not face sanctions and invasion. Cuba was also victimized by European powers who have only recently, started to be decent and respectable to it.
My opponent made some good arguments but did not support his facts well enough. I have debunked cons argument, and in a sense almost defended international freedom. Quite ironic.
Russia- Russia may have had very low crime rates when it was Communist, but how do you explain the 20 million people that died in the 1930s due to Stalin's purges? How do you explain the millions that died in the gulag? How do you explain the millions of others that died? That should be counted as crime, only it can't be prosecuted.
Not to mention, they are getting more Communist. "United Russia went from 315 seats in the national parliament to 238, meaning it no longer has a lock on making amendments to the constitution without asking the old Communist Party and the anti-immigrant Liberal Democrats for support. The biggest winner of the night was the Communist Party, going from 57 seats to 92. The ousting of United Russia legislators is a essentially in spite of Putin, the country's Prime Minister and United Russia's chosen one to lead the country, again, in 2012."
China- Yes, China has a Capitalist economy. But they have a Communistic Government. "For example, just about every Chinese bank is state-owned, so the government decides which businesses and individuals will get the most favorable loans. The domestic media are entirely state-owned as well and offer uniformly favorable political coverage. Perhaps the biggest vestige of classical communism is the fact that every square inch of land in the country still belongs to the government. (People and businesses can own houses and other property. Politically, China is as Communist as ever."
North Korea- Yes, North Korea does have an imperial government, but it is communist. "North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist Korean Workers' Party (KWP), to which all government officials belong." North Korea is the most Communistic Government in the world.
Cuba- Cuba definitely does not have a Communistic Government. They are Communist. "Fidel exercised control over virtually all aspects of Cuban life through the Communist Party and its affiliated mass organisations, the government bureaucracy and the state security apparatus."
Vietnam- The US intervened and almost fixed the problems.
All my opponent has done in his contentions is make crazy statements like North Korea and Cuba are not Communist. He has basically refuted nothing since his arguments are wrong.
Point 1: Early USSR and Stalin.
I- "the first of three famines that Ukraine's population has suffered under the Soviet Communist regime, and a famine that, contrary to popular belief, was not caused by drought and crop failures, but by the policies of the Soviet state." The policies of Communist Russia caused the famine because they were taking away the grain and re-distributing it. And Stalin did not even try to help the famine and had to rely on foreign aid.
II- So you are saying that it is ok to take people's farmed grain away and allow them to starve in order to statisfy their territorial hunger? Nazi Germany was not a problem until 1939, 15 years after the famine so they could not be a cause, but even if they were, that does not mean that you should force your citizens into hunger. And what do you mean that they improved the country by 100 years? Communism forced them back not forward.
III- What? Is this an argument? Anyway, Stalin's purges killed 20 millions just in the 1930s. That is a consequence of Communism. Debate that.
IV- High taxes are bad because they ruin the economy, increase unemployment, and decrease GDP Growth. And like you said, these taxes go to pay state-run health care, police forces, courts, military, airports, and national defense. Now when it comes to national defense and the police, this should still be state-run, but social programs like roads, education, and alcohol control should be privatized and national healthcare, unemployment benefits, and welfare shouldn't even exist.
I- What do you mean by "Of course the is economic problems, there is none!"? Isn't that a contradiction? A country can be bad and be a superpower. Look at the USSR. It's economy was in ruins, it's people lived in extreme poverty and constant fear, and there was a totalitarian Government.
II- Personal wealth does not create homelessness. "If homelessness is a product of capitalism then why was there so much homelessness in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Communist China? Homelessness is the product of change and the inability to adapt to those changes. Communism and socialism are far more destructive to the masses than capitalism will ever be." And even if it did, personal wealth adds to GDP Growth and decreases unemployment so it helps everyone in the end. And yes, there were millions of homeless people in the USSR, "In fact, there are homeless people in the USSR. They can be found in abandoned houses, cellars, coal bins, and garbage dumps, around railway stations, or in special detention centers run by the uniformed police of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD)."
Point 4: USA.
I- Vietnam and Korea were the US's attempt to stop the destructive march of Communism in Asia. It is the US's business when Communism starts trying to take over the world. That is a real threatening reason. If we had let the countries deal with it, they would have become Communist. And the only reason that we did not win Korea and Vietnam is because the Government stuck it's butt in the military's business. We would have won if the Military were left to their own devices.
II- Cuba's economy could grow if it wasn't Communist. If it wasn't Communist it wouldn't have trade embargos on it and the economy would be able to grow. Chile is just a economy that can grow.
My opponent has basically made either bad arguments or factually wrong argument. I have debunked all of his argument. And Communism=No freedom. Now that's ironic.
Question to my opponent:
You have sources but no quotes or citations. What are the sources for?
.I " A dynasty is a sequence of rulers considered members of the same family."
North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un
Is the son of Kim Jong-il
Which would obviously be considered a dynasty by definition.
.II Kim Il-sung in his later life created the General Secretary position. Replacing the chairman position. basically boiling down to, Emperor and King. Other Communist leaders in history have had a inner circle of party officials and have had other inputs. Making it an oligarchy, by definition. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Refutes: Stalin did manage the grain distribution but did make a miscalculation.
* Germany was obviously a threat, Hitler took over in 1933. Stalin took over only 5 years before in 1928. He started economic plans since Europe was preparing for war and the Soviet army was crippled.
.I China is a free market economy, a country with billionaires is not communist. This is an example of money and corruption taking over.
.II Again corporations rule China now, the future leader of china is a massive reformer.
I have defended my argument and debunked my opponents. That is proof enough that at least his arguments on communism are misguided.
I- "Of the five remaining Communist states in the world, North Korea is one of only two (along with Cuba) with an almost entirely government-planned, state-owned economy." "One of the remaining Communist countries is North Korea." "Government Type: Communist state one-man dictatorship"
Sorry for the many sources, but North Korea is communist. A dynasty can be Communist, and in fact, it encourages Communism because it prevents elections and a popular vote. Yes, North Korea does have the Kim dynasty, but that dynasty runs Communisticially.
II- The positions of the Executive Branch of the North Korean Government:
"Office of the Premier of the DPRK
Office of the Vice Premier of the DPRK
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of the People's Armed Forces
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of People's Security
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Public Health
Ministry of Post and Telecommunications
Ministry of Land and Marine Transportation
Ministry of Railways
Ministry of Commerce
Ministry of Labour
Ministry of Culture
Ministry of City Management
Ministry of Capital City Construction Development
Ministry of Metal Industry
Ministry of Electronics Industries
Ministry of Construction and Building-Materials Industries
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Forestry
Ministry of Fisheries
Ministry of Oil Industry
Ministry of Land and Environment Preservation
Ministry of State Construction Control
Ministry of Procurement and Food Administration
Ministry of State Inspection
Ministry of Physical Culture and Sports Affairs
State Planning Commission
Director of the Central Statistic Bureau
President of the Central Bank of the DPRK
President of the National Academy of Sciences
Chief Secretary of the Cabinet
Office of the President of the Cabinet Political Bureau
Office of the Vice President of the Cabinet Political Bureau"
The Leader and the Chairman make most of the decisions, but all of these ministries, offices, etc... must have some function. You must remember that too, in the USSR, the president had most of the power. Stalin had absolute power.
Point 2: Stalin.
I- "A week later, even the Ukrainian Bolshevik leaders were begging for food, but Stalin turned on his own comrades, accusing them of being wreckers.""When a comrade at a Politburo meeting told the truth about the horrors, Stalin, who knew what was happening perfectly well, retorted: 'Wouldn't it be better for you to leave your post and become a writer so you can concoct more fables!'""Whether it was genocide or not, perhaps now the true nature of one of the worst crimes in history will finally be acknowledged." And even when Stalin did "help", it was just to keep his country's status up and to save Ukraine from seceding. Read source 5 and debate that.
II- Russia did not know that Germany was a threat until 1939. Russia became allies with Germany in early 1939 and Germany, wanting to take over Russia, launched Operation Barbarossa in 1939 and broke the partnership. Before that, there was no obvious problem to Russia. And the Soviet Army was one of the best in the world at the time. It had millions of people in it with great weapons. It was by no means crippled.
Point 3: China.
I- China does have a Capitalistic economy, but Communism is not really an economic system. China is definitely socially Communistic.
II- Corporations do not rule China because the Government does. Corporations only rule part of the economy.
All my opponent has done is either give facts, give incorrect facts, or give arguments without any sources. Not to mention, in this round, he has dropped over half of my points. I have defended my argument and have already fully debunked my opponent's argument. Not to mention, he only has links, no quotes, and some don't even pertain to his argument and most are to back up facts, not arguments.
.I The USSR under Stalin had leaders of the secret police and his inner circle. They had plenty of power as well, so the system of the bolshevik party in charge still remained.
.II North Korea is a dynastic dictatorship, not a communist oligarchy.
.III China has a free market. Communism is a system of economics, lol i think us arguing this is useless we are on equal ground here.
My opponent has made a good argument but still does not present enough evidence why Communism is so horrible. Any evidence he has presented has become refuted or put at a standstill.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years 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:||3||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments, but Pro had more reliable sources.
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.