The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is Marxism on the rise once again.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 60228
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Hello, in this debate I have chosen the position of an instigator, meaning that I believe that Marxism is on the rise one again and I will be supporting its rise. The opponent will argue against Marxism and against it being on the rise.

Marxism: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx ; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

First round: acceptance
Second round: arguments
Third round: rebuttals
Last round: summarization

No profanities
Forfeiture causes disqualification
Use of sources required


Accept i do.
Debate Round No. 1


-Thank you for accepting my challenge, contender.


Yes, it is happening everywhere and I support it, Marxism is on the rise once again. Before I start supporting this rise, I will give you a few compelling evidence that it is actually occurring.

Jacques Ranciere, a professor of philosophy and a Marxist says, "The domination of capitalism globally depends today on the existence of a Chinese Communist party that gives de-localised capitalist enterprises cheap labour to lower prices and deprive workers of the rights of self-organisation," he then continued, "Happily, it is possible to hope for a world less absurd and more just than today's." Well, sure, a protestation against Chinese human violations is obvious too. China isn't fully based of communism, no. China is actually dependent on the Capitalists because Capitalism is not a political system; it is able to be everywhere because it is an economical system, but specfically it has been prohibited for communist states to use Capitalism, but China is dependent on it because it gives rise to its economy and supports its elite, but not the working class.

Well, it is obvious why people are protesting. Most of us are waking up and finding that everything is not okay. We are overthrown by an economical system known as capitalism, which is one of the reasons we are in this financial crisis. While the rich/the elite are living it big, most of the people out there struggle to find jobs, support their families and live off the minimal wage. Recently, as study has shown that 52% of Germans found that the market was impossible to live off while 43% said they wanted Marxism back (1).


The rise: Well, this is not the soviet type of Marxism; it's the type where his ideas are coming in handy. People aren't necessarily striving for the second communist order, they are just considering to use his ideas in order to help our economical and political system. The Millennial Marxists, in the U.S. have attempted to occupy wall street. And, it isn't only wall street, all over the world Marxists and the people that support his ideas are fighting for the truth and against the throne of Capitalism (2).


Why to support it: Marxism has surely a taste of revolution. Marxism was an idea of Karl Marx; it was used by the working class to overthrow the Capitalist state. Marxism, in other words could be defined as Revolutionary Socialism. Marxism aims to give the working class a taste of freedom [3]. Marxists continuously fight over the bourgoesie, which is " the social formation in which the commdity relation – the relation of buying and selling – has spread into every corner of life (3)."


Marxian Economics: Marxian Economics is concerned about the Capitalist power. Marxian Economics conducted a lot of research why Capitalism will always lead to financial crisis. Marxism also claims that it will inherit more freedom than any economical system would. Marxism will create a Communist Utopia, and there is nothing to be alarmed about; America has been always hypnotized that they had a freedom of choice; it is actually an illusion. Government spying on its citizens slightly excludes that type of freedom. With Marxism there will always be jobs available for people, education for our children, housings will be sustainable, and a vast opportunity for a working class. Also, confidence is the key, "Can capitalist society with its chronic unemployment ensure each citizen the opportunity to work, let alone to choose the work he likes? Clearly, it cannot. But the socialist system makes the right to work a constitutional right of a citizen, delivering him from the oppressive anxiety and uncertainty over the morrow (5).”



My opponent quotes some 9000 year old marxist philosopher. I doubt frenchy there actually does anything but sit in his office and jerk it to Karl Marx's picture all day. Making that argument refuted

Next he quotes some BS poll about muslims aying they want the marxists back. well one a poll only of those who polled. And second they polled germans. Teh Germans are drunkerds. Polling a german is like polling a man with down syndrome, trust me Ive been to germany. They don't know what they want and why. They just drink till they die

The rise: The onlything thats rising is that thing in my pants

Marxism is on the rise according to some jackdaw at the NY times. The new york times is a paper in new york, hardly about it being on the rise. New york is full of liberal socialist marxist cicrlejerking it to marx. As the author does. Thus it cannot be accounted for.

Why to support it: This isn't relevent to the debate, but it fails because the only sources opponent has is some circlejerk Marxist websites then with his economics

There has been no good argument to show marxism is on the rise outside of some circlejerk websites.

<!DOCTYPE html>

<body style="background-color:yellow;">
<h2 style="background-color:red;">This is a heading</h2>
<p style="background-color:green;">This is a paragraph.</p>

Debate Round No. 2


-My opponenet has lost the debate according to the rules. My opponenet has been using excessive profanities, such as, "jerk it to Karl Marx's picture all day" and " The onlything thats rising is that thing in my pants." My opponent was supposed to write out an argument NOT the counterargument. But I will still argue with you just to give something for you to feed off, comrade.

The Rise

First of all, it is happening in New York, there have been interviews with these Marxitst-thinkers. New York is a place full of culture and different minds. Secondly, if you have read the Guardian Marxism isn't only rising New York, there will be a Marxist festival for five days in London, people are protesting in France, Russia and many other countries. Lastly, the Marxist website isn't my only source. I've used sources like, explain the Marxian economy and give an introduction to the the Communist utopia.


A profanitey is using vulger langauge. I did not use any type of bad language just suggestive. One can use all the words like "jerk" and "pants" and no one will get mad, ohhh but put them togeather and we have pro throwing a fit.

Why would you prove marxism is on the rise by interviewing marists. LOL, good Skywalker. Its like interviewing a bunch of non-jedis to prove jedis don't exist. Sure these marists have circlejerk fests, like Marxcon but that isn't because it's on the rise, these Marxists are attracted to that.

Vote me.
Debate Round No. 3


-Either way I have forbidden the use of that language, and telling me that I "jerk off" is considered as a profane language. Either way, my opponent hasn't posted his argument, he is continuing to post counterarguments. I have also noticed that you have ignored some of my arguments. There are people protesting in Russia, France, England, and U.S. There has been a five day Marxist Festival in London.


I didn't say you jerked it. Idk if you even have a pen1s. But I saying that French philosopher is sdoing it. Thus I still am good under rules. And my argument against it was within round 2 rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
Well then, I appreciate your opinion
Posted by Mr.Grace 2 years ago
Should be a good debate Instigator, but I wouldn't touch the Con position with ten-foot, rubber pole. : )
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con trolled
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't take the debate seriously, was just trolling, and basically forfeited on all points that pro presented.