The Instigator
WorldWar2Debator
Pro (for)
The Contender
JimShady
Con (against)

Mao Zedong proves communism is politically superior to capitalism

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
JimShady has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 647 times Debate No: 104051
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

WorldWar2Debator

Pro

The establishment of the People's Republic of China is heralded to be the very moment communism was established in China, as well as when China burst forth into the 20th century.

Long been subject to corrupt dynasties and a short reign of tyranny under the Guomindang, the CCP liberated the people through several policies it implemented, especially those by Chairman Mao.

In this debate, I will use evidence of the CCP and Mao, throughout its history from its inception in 1921 to Mao's death in 1976 that demonstrates Communism's superiority in its social, political and economic standpoints.

Con will use evidence to prove that communism failed in China.

Historian views will need to be utilised in proving both contentions.
JimShady

Con

I assume 1st Round is acceptance, but since you made opening remarks, I will too.

Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward was a massive failure, and even Mao admitted to this:

"The chaos caused was on a grand scale, and I take responsibility. Comrades, you must all analyze your own responsibility. "

30-40 million people died from starvation, about 50 million were forced to live in labor camps. The only reason China is prospering is because of 1978 economic reforms that are much more leaning to capitalism then communism.

Check out this graph, and notice how the GDP starts to rise once farms are private property and the free market.
http://theparkmanpost.org...

http://www.heritage.org...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

In the Yenan period of 1936-1949, the CCP was extremely effective at improving the lives of peasants and workers in the province through their political management.

Land and tax reforms made by the CCP revamped the area; poor peasants' associations were formed and they aided in land reform. Wealthy landlords were stripped down to a realistic amount of land. Loans and mortgages' interest rates were forced down from 18% to a mere 1.5%, whilst rents were no more than 25% of a grain harvest, when previously it was higher and led to massive starvation.

Social reform was also enacted; women's associations were formed to aid women unable to feed their own children or having to deal with abusive husbands, whilst education was focused on. The literacy rate in Yenan went from 1% in 1936 to 50% in 1943.

Economic self sufficiency of the CCP from the peasants greatly improved their popularity in China; in their time out of service, Red Army soldiers were encouraged to sow their own crops and plough their own fields, as well as chopping up firewood or making useful goods such as matches, wire, tools, batteries, soap and leather goods. Irrigation channels were also aided by the Red Army, and their self sufficiency campaign is proven in their ability to produce 40% of their own food throughout the Yenan Period.

Political reform sought to divide government into thirds; members of the CCP, other leftist groups and anyone except Japanese or Guomindang collaborators. Along with democratic centralism, mass line was a Maoist ideology implemented so that the CCP could listen to peasant suggestions and criticisms and make policies thereby that was in demand from peasants!

The Red Army had also had rules established to maintain discipline and order, such as 'The Three Main Rules of Discipline':
1. Obey all orders in all your actions
2. Do not take a single needle or piece of thread from the masses
3. Turn in everything captured

and 'The Eight Points for Attention':
1. Speak politely
2. Pay fairly for what you buy
3. Return everything you borrow
4. Pay for anything you damage
5. Do not hit or swear at people
6. Do not damage crops
7. Do not take liberties with women
8. Do not ill-treat captives [1]

These showed how much the peasants were cared for by the CCP, so much more than the Guomindang whose armies raped, pillaged, looted and conscripted by tying men in long ropes together.

So who was the CCP opposed to? The corrupt and difficult life under the Guomindang. It was evident in the 2nd Sino Japanese War who was focusing on the Japanese;

Jiang Jieshi: "The Japanese are a disease of the skin, but the Communists are a disease of the soul."

Perhaps the largest indicator of the difference between the CCP are how the United States viewed them. General Stilwell was in charge of overseeing the GMD, and eventually he stated,

"The Chinese soldier is excellent material, wasted and betrayed by stupid (GMD) leadership" [2]

Even Jiang was forced to admit his generals were incompotence, stating, "I have to lie awake at night, thinking what foolish things they may do." [4]

The GMD's management of the state was not much better; Prices of basic goods rose by 237% from 1942-1944, and 251% from January-August 1945 [6] The power of $100 Chinese dollars in 1937 could purchase an oxen; by 1945 it could purchase only a handful of eggs. The GMD's mismanagement of the economy was disastrous.

Yet, the Dixie Mission of July 1944, of US diplomats who were sent to investigate Yenan, noted how organised, highly disciplined and highly motivated the community was. Colonel David Barrett, leader of the Dixie Mission, stated,

"The Communists are in China to stay. And China's destiny is not Chiang's (Jiang Jieshi's) but theirs." [3]

Evidently, before the CCP even took control of China, many Chinese, and modern day historians, note how effectively Yenan was run, so much so than that of the Guomindang.

I will get into the successful Mao period of 1949-1976, and my response to Con's arguments, in the next round.

[1] Quotations from Mao Tse-Tung (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1966) pgs 256-7
[2] Stilwell, by Barbara Tuchmann pg 194
[3] The Rise of Modern China, by Immanuel Hsu pg 598
[4] Modern China, by Jonathan Fenby pg 295
[5] (the source of all my arguments) China Rising, HTAV textbook by Tom Ryan, pgs 90-91, 113-115, 125, 127
[6] The Long Revolution, by Terry Buggy pg 291
JimShady

Con

To begin my arguments, I want to say that of course the People's Republic of China will have some successes. However, I believe that the failures have surpassed the successes. If China operated underneath a capitalist system, I believe it's prosperity could've been much more quick and with less death.

One of the differences between socialism and communism is that communism is largely brought about by the proletariat class attacking and overthrowing the bourgeoisie class, usually with violence. PROC is no different, as approximately 1-2 million landlords were killed by Chinese peasants (who were inspired by the CCP). You could possibly make this an argument for the greater good, but mass murder never is the best option. Under capitalism, their deaths might have been avoided and they could've just been legislated against. We will never know. However, we do know that the PROC made a terrible choice in killing the land owners that could only match, not best, capitalist methods.

As I mentioned before, the Great Leap Forward from 1958-2963 was a massive failure, resulting in the Great Chinese Famine and the deaths of millions. Farmers were denied the free market and were instead forced by the government to work 14 hour workdays and jobs they didn't prefer to do. It's estimated that around 55 million people have died from this leap "forward". Also, it's worthy to note that while the farmers resorted to cannibalism, the communist leadership still had plenty of food to eat. Just look at Mao.

Other atrocities of China include the Tiananmen Square massacre of hundred of protestors.

On the point of economics, I will restate that PROC only started to grow to its massive size once Deng Xiaoping became leader. He introduced economic reform and allowed the free market, once again. Here is another graph that might demonstrate this point more clearly, showing just how effective the capitalist reform in 1978 was for the economy.
http://www.yaleeconomicreview.org...

http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.theepochtimes.com...
http://www.visiontimes.com...
https://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

What Con fails to mention is the rapid industrialization that occurred due to communism. In the First Five Year Plan from 1953-1957, the CCP was extremely successful in bolstering industrial output;

- Steel from 1.31 million metric tons in 1952 to 4.48 million metric tons in 1957
- Cement from 2.86 million metric tons in 1952 to 6.86 million metric tons in 1957
- Raw iron from 1.9 million metric tons in 1952 to 5.9 million metric tons in 1957
- Coal from 66 million metric tons in 1952 to 130 million metric tons in 1957
- Electricity from 7.26 billions of kilowatt hours in 1952 to 19.34 billions of kilowatt hours in 1957 [1]

Clearly communism rapidly bolstered China's growth out of the Korean, Chinese Civil and Second World Wars, and no Con, Mao did not murder 20 million workers to ascertain this progress. Furthermore, workers were allowed an 'iron rice bowl', GUARANTEEING employment, food and sufficient wages, as opposed to capitalism, which dispatches workers once they are an obstruction to higher profits.

In the 1st Five Year Plan, agricultural output also increased 4% each year, showing the ability of Soviet farming techniques in collusion with Mao's.

I will not deny that 1 million landlords were killed by Chinese peasants in consolidating the power of the CCP, but this was done in collusion with Fanshen and the Agrarian Reform Law of June 28th 1950, that gave peasants all over China land reform they had greatly desired.

The means by which the landlords were killed were also not as inhumane as Con puts it; peasants formed 'People's Tribunals' to try the landlords individually for their past treatment of peasants, and this was a vigorous and democratic process; if a landlord had been fair in their previous treatment of peasants, he became one and thusly received his own allotment of land, whereby tyrannical landlords only were killed.

I will further not deny the horrors of the Great Leap Forward, actually of 1958-1961, but Con manipulates true historical processes to further his points. First off, there was actually great revolutionary fervour to massively increase agricultural production, with loud processions outside yelling for higher (admittedly unreachable, but still higher) grain targets.

It is estimated that actually only 30 million peasants died during the Three Bitter Years' Famine, and whilst Mao accepted responsibility for his fault in employing the policy, natural disasters such as locus infestations, excess flooding that ruined crop fields and low rainfall were all out of Mao's reach. He was indeed an incredible man, but he could not predict natural disasters.

Also, even the figure of 30 million is debated to this day, as official CCP sources state that only 16.5 million peasants died, whilst the figures >30 million have been made by subjective economists of the West, out to slather Communism as immoral and crude. [2]

Finally, Mao did not 'have plenty of food to eat' during the Three Bitter Years' Famine, in fact he himself said, "I cannot eat meat" and in fact he DID NOT eat meat during the famine. Zhou Enlai similarly gave up eating meat and eggs himself, thus showing that the CCP DID NOT have contempt for victims of the famine.

This is in opposition to Winston Churchill, who said of the victims of the Bengal Famine that it was their fault for, "breeding like rabbits." So imperialist Churchill is moral yet shows contempt for victims of his famine and is overlooked, but Communist Mao is a monster for cutting off meat consumption and accepting responsibility? Such is the view of the media today, which is absurd.

You actually bolster my argument in speaking about the Tiananmen Square massacre, as that was actually not done by Mao, but under Deng Xiaoping in 1989.

Finally, I want to talk about how the lives of women improved under the CCP. Mao said that, "Women hold up half the sky." and this is evidenced by his Marriage Law of May 1st 1950, whereby he gave women equal rights in education and employment, whilst banning patriarchal actions such as foot binding, polygamy, arranged and child marriages and concubinage. Women were encouraged to involve themselves in society to the equal extent of men.

All these factors showed how much Mao improved the lives of Chinese citizens after his ascension to power in 1949.

[1]Schools Council History Project, The Rise of Communist China in the UK: Holmes and McDougall 1977, pg 46.
[2] https://monthlyreview.org...
[3] Tom Ryan, China Rising 2nd Edition, pgs 158-159, pg 169-170
JimShady

Con

I will address Pro's Round 2 argument and save his Round 3 argument for my Round 4.

"Wealthy landlords were stripped down to a realistic amount of land." No, they were murdered. While some were tried, those who were tyrannical (1 million) were killed instead of incarcerated, as they should have.

Literacy rates and mortgages lowering are indeed good for Communist China, but again, this is nothing that a capitalist country could not do (and probably do it better without massive starvation.

Economic self-sufficiency is expected of all nations, so the fact that Communist China does it (with the help of Soviets) is nothing special.

The Three Main Rules of Discipline and Eight Points of Attention: Again, this is already expected from an army, such as the United States, French or British Army. To do something that is expected does not make communism superior, it simply makes it OK.

To conclude this argument, I just want to state that Communism in China has done nothing special. Growth is expected. While I admit that the industrial output was very good, they had to sacrifice rights of the workers and there starvation. My point is that you can really never overlook how many people died under Mao Zedong's rule and say "That's a good government." The famine would never happen in a modern capitalist country.

"All these factors showed how much Mao improved the lives of Chinese citizens after his ascension to power in 1949."
Someone's life does not improve when he or she die of starvation. The Great Chinese famine is inexcusable, and no matter how many positives Communist China has achieved, they will never surmount this.

I will address the rest of your rebuttal later.
Debate Round No. 3
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

What frustrates me is that Con does not realise that there are sources that confirm that landlords were not slaughtered en masse, but actually trialled by People's Tribunals so they can be testified as to how poor or high standard they were as a landlord. To quote Tom Ryan, leading historian in the Chinese Revolution,

"Fanshen (the policy of land reform) was based on a moderate approach to dealing with the larger and wealthy landowners, and aimed to protect the more productive farms to ensure that food supplies were not disrupted..." [1]

"The Speak Bitterness meetings were emotionally charged - those making accusations openly wept or screamed out in anger, as did the spectators. After the peasants had 'spoken bitter', a People's Tribunal decided on the fate of the accused... The Agararian Reform Law allowed landlords to not only keep their land cultivated by their immediate family but also rented land and fields farmed by hired hands." [1]

This is not your everyday man sitting at home. This is a historian who is openly revisionist and slightly Western leaning, who has even been to China to physically investigate the effects of the Revolution for himself, and through his research even he concluded that landlords were not put through a system of execution such as that of Frenchmen in Robespierre's Reign of Terror, as Con suggests. This is directly sourced from a textbook used to set the Australian curriculum for History Revolutions.

Con also misinterprets the points I make in Round 2, I was not talking about when the CCP had established control of China, but merely the province of Yenan, in the north. And once again, Con has made an attempt to slather communism by saying that, "this is nothing that a capitalist country could not do (and probably do it better without massive starvation) "

I can guarantee you now no peasants were starving under Mao during his time in Yenan from 1936-1949. In fact, many historians have stated that Yenan was a golden period for Communism in China, so Con's point that peasants were starving is irrelevant in this context. Not to mention, not ALL capitalist countries could do it, as I openly pointed out, Jiang Jieshi's Nationalist government was corrupt and had skyrocketing inflation for basic goods, such as 237% from 1942-1944 and 251% from January to August 1945 [2]

Con also arrogantly points out that all nations are expected to have self sufficiency and an outstandingly moral army, therefore downplaying how brilliantly the Communists ran the nation. If you look at the context, Con will actually realise China was a third country, Agrarian, uneducated backwater that had undergone two corrupt regimes (the Qing Dynasty and Guomindang) and had an economy shattered from Jiang Jieshi's mismanagement and two wars, the Chinese Civil and Second World Wars. Such is Con's blatant ignorance to downplay just how hard it was to transform what China was in 1949, and in just 27 years completely revamp its industry, economy, agriculture and education standards to lay the foundation of what it is today.

Just look at what the CCP did after taking control of the nation. They reformed taxes and made them more equitable, leading to their government revenue doubling from 6.5 billion yuan in 1950 to 13.3 billion yuan in 1951. [3] The massive inflation under Jiang Jieshi, of 85000% when Mao took power in 1949, was a mere 15% in 1951 when Mao wanted to reform wages to equal that of five basic goods: flour, coal, cotton cloth, rice and oil. [4] Con also lies in saying that the Soviets majorly assisted the growth of China; "Repayments were so steep that by 1955 China was repaying more than it was receiving in aid." [5]

In response to Con's argument about the Red Army being disciplined making it unexemplary is utter downplay. In 1931, when the Red Army was established, look at the context around you. You had Jiang Jieshi's Nationalist Government raping, pillaging and looting villages, and conscripting peasants by roping them together against their will and beating them whilst they remained in service. You had warlords who set ridiculously high grain taxes on peasants and mistreated them to the point of death or chronic injury, and you had an Imperial Japanese Army who was raping their way through China such as in Nanking. Perhaps today Con feels that a moral Army is unspectacular, but if he looks at the context he will realise that the Red Army was an extremely disciplined force that punished anyone in service who didn't follow those rules. Rules set by Mao.

I don't know what I have to do to convince Con that 'they (I assume the CCP) had to sacrifice worker rights and their starvation." The Iron Rice Bowl policy literally guaranteed their employment, payment in wages and food. That is utter propaganda what Con has said. Once again, his statement that communism is nothing special as growth is expected is rubbish; capitalism had been tried for 37 years following the abdication of Emperor Pu-Yi in 1911, and utterly failed to fix China's economic problems. Thus, the task of fixing China was actually extremely difficult, yet the Communists did it with ease.

Famines don't occur in modern capitalist countries? That is hardly true, as capitalist countries in Africa have been crippled by massive inflation and starvation. Not to mention, around the same time as the CCP, Winston Churchill let 10 million Indians starve in the Bengal Famine. But you overlook that don't you, because Churchill was that deity that rescued the world from Hitler? Once again, the biased media has been shown to brainwash us that only communism produces famines.

Con's entire debate revolves around his obsession with the Chinese Famine, so much so that he overlooks many positives that Mao did, that I had pointed out. It is frustrating to argue with someone so unable to accept the good that Mao did for China.

You say that Mao killed millions of peasants in the famine, which I will not deny, yet you overlook statistics made out by Chinese peasants living under Mao like Mobo Gao, who stated himself that, "China's population went from 36 in 1949 to 63 by 1976." Mao is that strange figure that killed millions under his reign, yet miraculously doubled his country's population from 500 to 900 million people, and doubled the age expectancy.

Compare India and China leading out from the Second World War; both have similar populations, similar conditions after WW2, and yet communism took over in China and capitalism in India. Who won out? China's age expectancy rose exponentially quicker, as did its population (to the point not being seen before under capitalism). Yet India stagnates and to this day still some live in abject poverty.

I have provided statistical evidence backed up by quotes that Mao has done good, from objective sources such as historians of Western Liberal political viewpoints, as well as people living under Mao's reign, yet all Con has done is recite like a parrot that Mao had a Great Famine and must therefore be bad, so much so his arguments turn into an ad hominem attack on Mao by stating that, apparently, famines occur in every facet of his society, throughout his entire years leading China.

[1] Jack Grey, Rebellions and Revolutions: China from the 1800's to 2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) pg 189.
[2] Jonathan Fenby, 'The Man who lost China' BBC History Magazine (November 2003) pg 6
[3] John King Fairbank, 'The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985 (London: Picador 1988) pg 285
[4] Tom Ryan, China Rising HTAV textbook 2nd Edition, pg 123, 152.
[5] Tom Ryan, China Rising HTAV textbook 2nd Edition, pg 169-170
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Debating_Horse 3 months ago
Debating_Horse
Mao Zedong??? I'm dyin!!
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 3 months ago
WorldWar2Debator
I'll respond to each point individually

1: Well of course it was taught as evil. Capitalism as a system, is it not the pursuit of wealth past thoughts of morality? Is it not the exploitation of the hard working labourer by the capitalist upper class? From communist viewpoints, it was always going to be taught that way, not to mention that capitalism demonises communism in an equal, but more subtle manner.

2: The collapse of the USSR was about as capitalist and undemocratic as possible: despite a national referendum that was taken by the people that clearly showed their desire to remain as the Soviet Union, Yeltsin and Gorbachev, along with a few bureaucrats, went up to a chalet somewhere in Russia and simply signed a piece of paper that ended the USSR.

3: As I have shown in my arguments in the debate, communism has been a system that has restored third world nations, such as Russia and China, in laying the foundation for the 1st world superpowers that capitalism simply wants to snatch responsibility for. Stalin and Mao's Five Year Plans (bar the failure of the Great Leap) were the key reason for this.

4: So there are few communist nations today? That does not mean it is an illogical and evil concept. Atheism hugely is outnumbered by religious believers, but any modern scientist or modern logician will tell you faith in a deity is illogical.

I see that in some sense communism has failed to work in some areas and have thusly collapsed. But to take a subjective viewpoint that communism has utterly failed everywhere and is inherently totalitarian is nonsense.
Posted by cakerman 3 months ago
cakerman
you definitely seem to hold more knowledge on the subject than I do and as I said, I love history so we should chat sometime, I could learn some valuable things from you.

Btw, I only say that Communism is inherently totalitarian because I don't believe that there has been a communist country that wasn't totalitarian
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 3 months ago
WorldWar2Debator
I'll respond to each point individually

1: Well of course it was taught as evil. Capitalism as a system, is it not the pursuit of wealth past thoughts of morality? Is it not the exploitation of the hard working labourer by the capitalist upper class? From communist viewpoints, it was always going to be taught that way, not to mention that capitalism demonises communism in an equal, but more subtle manner.

2: The collapse of the USSR was about as capitalist and undemocratic as possible: despite a national referendum that was taken by the people that clearly showed their desire to remain as the Soviet Union, Yeltsin and Gorbachev, along with a few bureaucrats, went up to a chalet somewhere in Russia and simply signed a piece of paper that ended the USSR.

3: As I have shown in my arguments in the debate, communism has been a system that has restored third world nations, such as Russia and China, in laying the foundation for the 1st world superpowers that capitalism simply wants to snatch responsibility for. Stalin and Mao's Five Year Plans (bar the failure of the Great Leap) were the key reason for this.

4: So there are few communist nations today? That does not mean it is an illogical and evil concept. Atheism hugely is outnumbered by religious believers, but any modern scientist or modern logician will tell you faith in a deity is illogical.

I see that in some sense communism has failed to work in some areas and have thusly collapsed. But to take a subjective viewpoint that communism has utterly failed everywhere and is inherently totalitarian is nonsense.
Posted by cakerman 3 months ago
cakerman
I think you've misconceived my paint, I am not talking purely about death tolls (as capitalism would 100% of the time be obscenely higher due to it's popularity) I am talking about the pure amount of fear that the people had. I will label my points clearly.

1: Capitalism was taught to be an evil, and thus any attempts to vote capitalism in, or any mention of adopting capitalism were met with shunning by everyone you know (who isn't also on your level of thinking) or a knock on the door from the secret police.

2: There was no such think as voting communism out, party members that tried to dissolve communism (using the collapse of the USSR in 91 as a good example) were met with harsh retaliation, and most times death or exile. The only reason the soviet union fell apart is because communism was failing itself, and due to the lax nature of the last couple leaders

3: Communism as a system of economics itself is a failure, and thus drops supporters like flies

4: It is easy to point out all the deaths due to capitalism when there are only what, 4 or 5 communist states still in existence today?

who knows, I might very well be wrong. You have a vast knowledge base and I'm always willing to learn, I've been really interested in WW2 history for a while now and you seem like a good person to talk to for learning more, message me sometime, like I said I'm always willing to learn if you;re willing to talk about it
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 3 months ago
WorldWar2Debator
Cakerman, I think you'll find that your view is totally revolving around your interpretation, as painted by Western viewpoints. Of course they will be more critical of Mao and Stalin, they have to make it out that capitalism is the supreme political and economic ideology to rule the world with.

But what if I told you that peasants such as Mobo Gao lived under Mao, and heavily criticised Jung Chang and Halliday, two Western historians who have pretty much made Mao out to be Hitler x Leopold II? Mobo Gao was not an elite bureaucrat, nor a privileged CCP official, but a peasant!

And why is it that the deaths under capitalism have been overlooked? We all are quick to rattle them off: Stalin 20 million, Mao 60 million, Pol Pot (who I refuse to accept as a Communist) 3 million, but we forget the famine of Bengal in India under Churchill, the slaughter of Africans under Leopold II, the mass genocide of Jews under Hitler, the rape of Nanking and the mistreatment of South East Asia by the Japanese Imperialists, and many more. Even in modern society, 21000 children die from starvation everyday under capitalism, yet the only famines we remember are 1921 in Russia (unfair even, as Russia had undergone 7 years of war that destroyed the economy) and 1958-1960 in China (also unfair as natural disasters and crop failures were unavoidable)

Communism is not intended to be totalitarian, and recounts by people living under communist leadership will point out that it wasn't as dark as capitalist Westerners paint it to be. Stalin for example we know not to be power hungry, as he had tried to resign 3 times as leader of the USSR, and Mao resigned and accepted responsibility for the failure of the GLF, despite dispute of his fault.

And who's to say capitalism does not put people in fear? Money does things to people, and it creates a class of people who fear being unable to feed their children, or being sacked, or as a minority refugee. It is absurd to paint only communism as ev
Posted by JimShady 3 months ago
JimShady
Damnit, forgot about the 24 hour time...
Posted by cakerman 3 months ago
cakerman
Communism definitely isn't superior to capitalism politically. This is shown clearly by the fact that most communist nations have either collapsed or adopted capitalism in their economies, a communist nation that only communicates with other communist nations already makes it exceptionally bad as far as the political side, Mao single-handedly was probably the cause of more deaths than Stalin in the United Soviet Socialist Republics.

I will refer to the fact that the face of Mao-Zedong being one of the most widely recognized faces on the planet definitely works in favor of the political side of Communism, but that's standard for most Totalitarianist nations, and by that I mean the widely known "cult of personality" that communist nations are associated with.

I will now refer to the fact that whether it's peasants living on Mao's collective farms or a russian farmer living on the countryside 500 miles away from Moscow that everyone constantly lived in fear. Communism was a nasty thing politically as far as the fear in the populus goes, and it's main success in politics was making sure that the people couldn't vote it out. You had the select few Chinese people that believed that Communism was all that and a bag of chips but a vast majority of citizens that lived under Mao or Stalin's rule will tell you just how awful it truly was. Creating a brand of fear that plays on making people afraid to even think negatively about their leader is how you create a fake success in politics, Mao wasn't a master at politics, but he was a master at using communism to make sure that he looks like a political genius.

Such as the citizens of DPRK are brainwashed into thinking Kim Jong-Un doesn't have an a$$hole or how Kim Il-Sung scored 18 points in a game of 18 holed golf, communist politics are a facade, they aren't real. There is no success when there's no need to be successful.
Posted by JimShady 3 months ago
JimShady
I getting mad because you are being a jerk. There is no need to be one. This is not my specialty topic, so I'm not going to do as well as you would most likely. That being said, I require no insight from you, or comments, so please, silence.
Posted by Bennett91 3 months ago
Bennett91
Although I suppose it's only notable in round 3 and we'll see in round 4. Although Pro, not to say your sourcing isn't legitimate, but it's always helpful if your sources are clickable links so they can be further examined. Just my opinion.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.