The Instigator
machiavellian
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
BlueSkies
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Equality of 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 1 vote the winner is...
machiavellian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,817 times Debate No: 46473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

machiavellian

Pro

This is an open debate invitation in which I take the side of communism. I am looking for someone to argue opposing positions.
BlueSkies

Con

I accept you challenge. I will be taking the side against communism.
Debate Round No. 1
machiavellian

Pro

Communism supports no unnecessary spending, in that help is not so frugally given and divided amongst to foreign countries. This both decreases chances of being sent into debt and allows for more chances to divide spending amongst in-country resources, like schools, roads, and other miscellaneous places and objects which are public property. The Soviet Union may not have fallen if it was not for the eventual reckless spending of Leonid Brezhnev. Contrary to popular (though ignorant) belief, communism was not originally intended to create an autocracy, as some have depicted it to, but rather to create a government that ran through a mutual agreement between the government and the people. In the communist ideology, even politicians are of no greater standing than the "common" man. Can you say the same about a capitalist system? Obviously, some men are bound to work harder than others, but can you truly convince yourself that any CEO is working three-hundred times harder than a man who is bound to manual labor? Not only are all of the distributed goods equal in a communist community, but in general approximately 0% of the populace is unemployed. One other up-side to this political format is that no one is able to be denied healthcare, despite condition. This means that if a capitalist family would be denied treatment due to low funds and/or a checkered past, the communist version of this scenario could save a life.
BlueSkies

Con

BlueSkies forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
machiavellian

Pro

The lack of a lower class (due to a lack of currency) instigates far lower crime rates, eclipsing many other "safe" communities. This, combined with the increased employment rates, increases overall productivity by ludicrous amounts. Though America, one of the most renowned capitalist countries, suggests that every man is created equal, still some people make next to nothing while others make hundred of millions of dollars a year. In communism, the state actually abides by this statement. Goods are divided equally throughout the community, despite the job they are doing. Every job is important, whether it is physical labor of ruling over a company's production. Many capitalist countries have seemingly forgotten this.
BlueSkies

Con

BlueSkies forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by machiavellian 3 years ago
machiavellian
Zenocitium- Yes, this debate is a bit hypocritical on my part, or at least in that aspect. In doing this debate, I stepped out of my shoes, and attempted to argue for a perfect society, which, as defro pointed out, may be unrealistic. As for your comment, Le.doctor, I will say that they would both deserve the same wage. The labor worker probably works longer hours and toils harder during them. Not everyone can be a doctor, or an artist, for these are positions which are, as all are, limited in availability. I will also say that, in my opinion, the ends do justify the means. In the case of creating a communist society, this may mean killing a few people, or playing political hardball, but in the end it would work out quite well. As Julius Caesar said: ""If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it."
Posted by Le.Doctor 3 years ago
Le.Doctor
@machiavellian So with that in mind, do you think that a doctor who serves the people, and who went to school and went through 8 years of school and 4 of medical residency should be paid the same minimum wage as those who work as manual laborers in the city? Also regarding your argument is was well written and good but the only thing i can say against it is that as a follower of Machiavelli( im assuming that you are) can you say that communism (the end) is the able to be justified trough the means?
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
ZenoCitium
@Defro: Actually, I believe you misunderstood me. Instead, search the term Machiavellianism. Machiavellianists are extremely self-serving and ambitious. They believe in pursuing their motives with any means necessary, including in deceit and manipulation. They give high priority to money and power and low priority to community and family. What I mean below is that this ideology conflicts with the communist ideology. The word communism comes from the word common. It is a classless, moneyless, stateless social order. Communism places priority on the community. In a communist society, Machiavellianism is not feasible.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@machevellian
What you describe is true communism. And it is a very good system, apart from the fact that it is impractical and unrealistic and can never truly form in society due to human nature. You conceded in round 2 that some men will work harder than others and compared it with CEOs. This is an understatement and a bad comparison. It is in human nature to take action from incentives. The CEO might not work hard but his workers do work hard because they have incentives. In communism, if a farmer isn't working hard, another farmer would look at him and think: "This man is not working as hard as I am, yet we are paid the same. From now on I will slack off like him because I have nothing to lose." because he has no incentive to work. This would result in the majority if not all of the population to not work hard, which is certainly harmful for the economy.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@ZenoCitium
Yes and no. I did a quick foogle search and learned that while there are aspects of communism that he is against, there are also aspects that he supports.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
ZenoCitium
WOW. Does anyone else see the irony of a Machiavellian argument for communism?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
machiavellianBlueSkiesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses points in conduct for abandoning the debate. Because he did not post any arguments, Pro's were more convincing. The first sentence he wrote in the debate has a spelling error, so he loses points in that.