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

On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+21
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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,322 times Debate No: 29351
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (5)




Resolution "On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism"

better for mankind - increasing the well-being
capitalism - an economic system where the means of production are mainly privately owned and people earn a portion of their income from trade.
communism - stateless, classless society, where the means of production are owned colectively, and the idea of private property is non-existant. Money is also non-existence.

Debate rules:

1. No semantics.
2. First Round for acceptance, and rule and definition clearification only.
3. No new arguments in the last round.
4. Mainly Text-only debate. However, pictures and graphs can be used occassionaly (so long as they are not predominately text).
5. All source material must be easily accessable

For purposes of this debate, I will not debate a "pure" capitalist system. However, I believe Hong Kong and Singapore are model capitalist nations. While I do not support United States model completley, I am most familiar with it and will also use its capitalist institutions as an example.


I accept. I should also like to point out that the burden of proof is shared in this debate; it is not sufficient for me to just display that Capitalism is flawed and bad, I must also display how Communism is superior. I accept my opponent's definitions for "Capitalism" and "Communism". I would also like to make it known that, by these definitions, "Communist" nations, such as the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and others, are not actually Communistic, and therefore, any arguments which criticize communism on the basis of those societies alone are invalid; they were not, nor will they ever be, communistic.

As a final note, for the purposes of this debate, it should be assumed that a Communist society is possible in theory, as we are not debating whether or not such a society is possible, but whether or not such a society, if it existed, would be superior to the form of organization we have now. The pragmatics of it of course are up for criticism, but for my opponent to try and argue that such a society cannot exist is both a fatally flawed argument, and a completely irrelevant one.

With that said, begin your argument.
Debate Round No. 1



I thank CON for accepting the debate. I shall demonstrate that capitalism is a superior model due to a variety of factors. A communist society would be unable to produce the goods and services that society will want. This will lead to shortages and surpluses which are inefficient. The worse example, shortages that are a result of lack of food which cause death by starvation. It furthermore does not provide the mechanism that will increase wealth in society, which increase the well-being of society through increasing life expectancy, happiness and reducing violent crimes.

What is property?

Property is a necessary component in our everyday life because people cannot utilize a resource all at once and resources are scarce. For example, If I am using my computer then I am currently utilizing and nobody else can use it. This resource is also scarce so must be assigned property value. By obtaining property I am guaranteed access to this computer at any time. A system of property rights also ensures that nobody besides the owner can legally cause damages to the property.

What is capitalism?

Capitalism is the voluntary exchange between one another. This occurs because both individuals believe that trade will benefit both parties. Trying to stop voluntary exchange from occurs taxes massive amounts of resources on enforcing the policy, as the war on drugs demonstrates.

1. The Social-Calculation Problem

In a Communist society there is no way to measure the value of goods and services. There is no way to figure out which goods and services should be produced, and which resources should be saved for capital use or future demand. Figuring out how to “calculate” the value of goods and services is also an impossible task, since all goods and services are intertwine with one another due to the many factors that affect prices and there’s also a lot of dispersed information which is nearly impossible to quantify and difficult for any one individual to make predictions on. For example: How many shovels should society produce? Well one would need to know who needs it, why they need it, the resources available to produce the shovels, and what the alternative use these resources can be used instead of making shovels. Knowing how each person values a good or service is also impossible since one cannot know an individual’s subjective preference.

Capitalism solves the problem through a monetary system, with a profit system. What this means is that producers produce more supply if prices increase and the opportunity for profit exists, while consumers consume more if prices decrease. This allows equilibrium to occur in which a quantity is produced at a specific price. Therefore, there are fewer problems with shortages and surpluses in a capitalist society, and people can obtain the good and services they desire based on their own budget. This system of supply equally demand allows welfare between producers and consumers to be maximized. This profit based-system produces information that can never be figured in a communist society. Producers know how much to produce because they are incentivizes to produce items that will create the most profit. If opportunities exist for a good or service to be produces that people demand, then entrepreneurs will take these opportunities in order to obtain a profit. Furthermore, these entrepreneurs can take advantage of specialized knowledge that planners do not know. Since anybody can be an entrepreneur, everyone can take advantage of their own specialized forms of knowledge.

Consumers will also cut down on consumption if the quantity decreases and increase consumption if the quantity increases. Therefore capitalism makes resource-management more efficient then a communist society ever could.

2. Empirical Evidence of the success of capitalism

Empirical evidence has shown that societies that have implemented capitalism have successful grown their economies. A few economic miracles have occurred: The economic miracle of Hong Kong and Singapore are two great examples. These nations were originally poor nation but have become industrialized due to implementing capitalism policies. If one looks at a graph comparing highly capitalistic nation, those nations that rank the best under the “economic freedom index” have higher gross domestic production then nations with low economic freedom and property rights[1].

Evidence of the social-calculation problem occurring also has empirical evidence. Massive famines and starvation has occurred in North Korea[2], China [3], and the Soviet Union [4]. People waited in long lines just to get bread [5].While China (video) remains more capitalistic, it still has communist elements to it. One result that has occurred is that China contains ghost cities which nobody inhabits [6].
Gross domestic production is a net benefit to society because it causes a lot of positive results that benefit society. People that live in wealthier nations tend to be happier [7]. Life expectancy increase as gdp increases, since people have access to healthcare and nutrition [8]. Higher gdp also correlates with a decrease in murders[9].

CON might believe that true communism has not been implemented so since there is no empirical evidence for its failure, she can speculate on why communism will be better. However. It is more likely that communism will not work out as predicted and lead to more suffering. This is because any proof that it will be successful, will be based on speculation. Speculation is likely to be wrong since it is difficult to predict how human motives will interact with one another in a complex world and there are more ways to be right then to be wrong. In order for his system to work, all her assumptions and predictions would have to hold true, which is unlikely to be the case. Now we know that the system of capitalism has improved the lives of billion. Therefore, a priori we should accept capitalism as the better alternative to communism. The system we live in today is the result past suffering and experimentation throughout thousands of years of social engineering.

3. The Tragedy of the commons

The tragedy of the commons is the problem in which that if no individual owns property, there is no incentive to maintain the property. Thus property publically owned degrades quicker. A common example is a bunch of herders that commonly own a field. Each herder has an interest to put a cow on the land, however the quality of the land is damaged as a result and overgrazing occurs. If property is privately owned, then each individual has an incentive to maintain the land, because if they do not then it will lose its value while there is no incentive to maintain public land. As John Stossel notes (video) [10], privately-held parks are better kept and maintained the public parks because the owner has a greater incentive to keep the area nice.

4. Innovation incentive and productive efficiency

Capitalism incentivizes innovation since those that innovate obtain the profit from their efforts, research and development, and investment they put into R&D. It also creates a system in which producers minimize cost of input while maximizing output through use of prices. Engineers and business administrators are taught how to reduce costs of good and service and how to maximize output. Such calculations would be impossible under communism due to lack of a price system, and since there is no profit system there is no reason to do these calculations in the first place.

Furthermore, since the production method is decentralized, any person can experiment and put their theory to the test based on his/her own special knowledge.






[6] (video 1)




[10] (video 2);



There is much I wish to say, and little room to say it. I will spend this round presenting some arguments, and will begin my rebuttals next round, as well as further develop some of the ideas presented here.

Communism - A Primer

To truly understand this debate, one must first understand what Communism is. In most people's eyes, it is no doubt visions of the iron curtain, and of starving people, lined up at the street corner for a loaf of bread. It is the mass executions, and the state-headed oppression of free ideas. The numerous crimes of the 20th Century.

But this was not Communism, despite what you have been told. This was a form of State Socialism (and I use the term 'Socialism' very loosely), nothing more. These countries were supposed transitional stages into Communism. There were not Communism itself.

So what is Communism then? One can think of hunter-gatherer tribes to gain an understanding. Indeed, such societies have even been called "Primitive Communism" by Karl Marx. The idea is of a society which has no sate, nor socio-economic classes. A society where individuals do not claim "private ownership" over land or items, and where the means of production are collectively owned, instead of privately owned, in the hands of private individuals (Capitalists).

Now, one may take this to mean that Communism is against individualism, and while it is true Communism is a collectivist society of a sorts, it is not against individualism, and in fact, is a far more individualistic society than any Capitalist one. This is because, under Capitalist society, most members of society are not truly free. They are subject to the whim of the market, the whim of the ruling class, and the whim of the state (More on this later). Communism, by comparison, seeks to create a society where individuals are no longer estranged from their labour, and are free to pursue whatever their passions may be. Communism seeks to create a society where economics no longer determines the fate of people, and where alienated labour ceases to exist. This idea is encompassed in the popular slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Contribute what you like, and receive what you need.

Capitalism - A Primer

Now, my opponent has given a short few sentences on Capitalism, but they do not do the system justice, and are far too simplistic in their description, as well as inaccurate. Capitalism is not a voluntary exchange between individuals. It is a necessary exchange. There is no choice in Capitalism, whether or not you will play by it's rules. If you do not trade, you will starve, and you will die. What Capitalism is, is a system in which a select few individuals hold "ownership" over the means of production (factories, tools, and other non-human elements of production), and a great many individuals, work for these people, and receive as payment, a portion of the value they create through their labour. The point of Capitalism is to create a system wherein people are motivated by profit; making more money, and increasing your wealth.


Capitalism is a system of economic exploitation. The most basic way to understand this, is to understand what it means to make profit. Let us presume that you, a worker, produce an object worth $20. You have just done $20 worth of labour. With this in mind, if one sells the object for it's value, you will not make profit, but will "break even". So how does one generate profit? There are two means. (1) Workers are paid less then the value of their labour, and/or (2) you charge the consumer for more than the object is worth. In both scenarios, someone is being ripped off. Exploited. Most often, the former is what occurs, due to it being intrinsically easier. For what can the worker do? They need money, and they do not own the means of production. All they have is their own labour power. They are at the mercy of their employer.

Now you may often hear the term "wage-slavery" tossed around Marxist circles. The idea of the term has it's foundlings in Marx's 'Das Kapital', wherein Marx discusses various kinds of societies. Throughout all human history, in every society that has ever existed, there is a question that occurs that must be solved. In every society, there are those that use their minds and body to transform the land in useful or enjoyable ways (they do work) and there are those who do not. Who is it that does no work? Babies do no work for one. The elderly do no work. Ill individuals may not do work. The mentally or physically disabled often do no work.

This raises an important question: How can individuals, who do not work, survive?

For any given person who does not work, someone must work for them, and produce more than what it is they need (surplus). Marx calls the work that goes into maintaining the working individual 'Necessary Labor', and the work done for the benefit of individuals other than themselves, 'Surplus Labor'.

So, how does a society decide (1) Who will work, how much of what they produce goes to them, and how much of what they produce goes to others, and (2) who will not work, but live off of the surplus labour of others, and how much will they receive? Historically, there have been 5 different arrangements to this problem:

  • Communism - A community of people work together, produce surplus, maintain it, and decide how to distribute it. As an example, my opponent and I decide to grow some food, and decide what to do with it.
  • Ancient - In this case, a solitary individual, not a group of people, performs the work, maintains it, and determines how to distribute the surplus. (I grow some food, and decide how I will distribute what I will not consume).
  • Slave - Work is done by a person or group of people, but nothing they produce belongs to them, but the slave owner. For instance, a slave produces food, and the slave owner determines how much food the slave gets, and how much the slave owner gets, and what to do with the surplus.
  • Feudalism - The work is done by serfs, and some of what they produce goes to them, and some goes to the landlord. The lord maintains and distributes the surplus. For instance, a serf grows some food, a portion of it stays with the serf, and the rest goes to the lord. The lord decides what to do with the extra.
  • Capitalism - The work is done by wage earners, and they do not control, maintain, or distribute. They receive a wage, or salary, and do not own anything they produce; the owner does. For example, some workers grow some food, they are paid a wage equivalent to some of that food, but not all of it (remember, Capitalism seeks to make profit), and the capitalist controls the produce, and determines what to do with it.

The last three arrangements are exploitative arrangements, because the individuals doing the work do not have ownership of the surplus they produce (and in some cases, they do not have ownership of any of it), and are not in control of how it is distributed.

In other words, the non-workers are contributing little to nothing, but are reaping the majority benefits of those who are working.

You will notice that, out of the three latter systems, Capitalism and Slavery are the of the closest relations, as in both cases the workers do not own what they produce, and the owner (Slave holder for slavery, and capitalist for Capitalism) determines how much of what someone produces is given to them (Capitalists, by determining how much they will pay someone for the labour performed). This is where the term "wage-slavery" comes from, due to the slave-like arrangement of the system.

There is much more I wish to say, but I have not the room. I will leave on this note, and allow my opponent to give their rebuttals. Next round I will elaborate further on the merits of Communism, the atrocity of Capitalism, as well as provide rebuttals for my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend all my previous arguments on property, social calculation problem, empirical evidence, tragedy of the commons, incentives, and productivity efficiency


CON does not use justification for Communism such as increased prosperity. Intead CON makes philosphical justification based on unusually definitions of "slavery" and "exploitation" that normal people do not use. I will explain why this is wrong.


Communism: A-Primer:

While the nations described as communist nations are not the same form of communism that CON advocates, these nations have the same institutions that CON advocates that would predictably lead to the same problems, namely problems of tragedy of the commons, social calculation, and lack of incentives. CON might believe these problems were due to authoritarian regimes, but there is no economic law that states that authoritarian regimes must lead to massive suffering. Qatar is an absolute monarchy[1] yet is believed to have highest gross domestic production per capita in the world. Hong Kong has the 5th highest gdp[2] per capita and was under the rule of Great Britain and the Republic of China. These nations do not have massive famines that occurred in communist nations.

CON uses hunter-gathering societies as an example of communism. However, hunter-gathering societies have many problems with including starvation, disease, and warfare of greater magnitude then modern day [3].

CON complains about dependency on “market-forces” and other factors and that one need to contribute labor in order to obtain material. The laws of market forces like supply and demand exist no matter what. Trying to ignore these economic laws to create a new system is like trying to create an airplane that ignores the law of gravity. The end result would be a disaster.

Of course, any system breeds dependency on either labor or others for resources. This is from the obvious fact that stuff does not come through thin-air. If there are fewer resources, it becomes scarcer and less of it can be distributed to people. This is the “market force” that CON complains about but exists nonetheless under any system. Thus the idea that communism is more individualistic then modern capitalism is absurd.

CON wants to seek a system where people no longer have to rely on their labor to obtain materials. Yet, later on, CON believes that people are exploited because they are paid less then how much they produce. Yet, since labor is not attached to obtaining resources, communism exploits hard workers and non-workers exploit. According, to CON’s own logic communism is a system based on economic exploition, and as such should be disregarded.

Capitalism - A Primer:

CON main argument against my definition of capitalism is semantics. I will correct many of the incorrect assumptions Con makes on capitalism.

Pro states that exchange in capitalism is “necessary”, not of “volunteer”. This is absurd since not everything bought is necessary. If I buy a movie ticket, it’s not necessary. I don’t need the movie, but want to see the movie.

Even if we assume, worst case scenario that the government does not provide social services for you, you don’t have any family or friends willing to help you, you can’t be hired for a minimum wage job, and nobody is willing to buy services from you, then begging to strangers would be enough to earn more than minimum wage [4] in the US. So there is no risk of starvation in capitalist nations like the US.

Yet even the notion, since modern capitalist societies have welfare programs for the poor like food stamps. Hospitals are required to admit patients to the emergency room regardless of ability to pay.

The wealthy in modern times almost exclusively work. CEO’s make millions and some have a net worth of billions, but still work.

CON is incorrect that the wealthy exclusively own capital. Financial institutions like banks produce capital through investing depositor money in businesses. Almost everyone has a bank account. Ordinary people invest their money in stocks through 401ks or using their own money.

Regardless, this ignores the high cost of regulating trade which CON does not refute.


Wage-slavery contradicts CON’s idea that communism is good since in a communist nation, since people aren’t paid their worth under the system, which CON applies is bad.

CON uses the term slavery due to the negative connotation it holds. Slavery brings up negative images of death through overworking, whipping and torture, lack of freedom, and people living in insufferable conditions. Ask any person living in a capitalist nation whether they are slaves’ equivalent to slavery in the 18th century, and the majority would say no.

This would mean that Hollywood actors, pro-athletes, and CEOs that do not obtain their income exclusively through stocks are slaves. In fact, engaging in this debate would be “slavery” since we are not the owners of the website, a for-profit company is, yet are increasing the quality of the website through providing quality debates which increases’s value. Thus, even though I enjoy debating for fun and use the site due to the high-quality debate format, we’re somehow being exploited and a slave.

CON also holds the view that:

a) the price of a product is equal to the value of a product

b) the value of a product is equal to the labor put into it.

I will demonstrate why this both of these are false.

a) First, let’s look at an example of two scenarios. In one scenario, a person is dying of thirst. The water is charged a dollar a bottle. This person values the water much more then the dollar, even though it’s priced at $1, if it cost thousands she still would have paid, because she would die otherwise. However, if she was not dying of thirst, and felt fine, she would not have bought the water, since the water was not valuable to her.

How much a product is valued is how much people are willing to pay for it. Not the amount it costs. People buy or sell a product

People become wealthier, since if supply and demand is in equilibrium, then consumer wealth and producer wealth is maximized [5]. There is no “exploitation” because both are benefiting.

b) Instead the value of labor is based on the productivity of labor. Labor productivity and worker wages are highly correlated:

To demonstrate this, if a piece of clothing is hand sewed, it would cost the same as If it sewing machine was used instead. However, the latter is more productivity. Since it is more productivity, the laborer is going to get paid more, even if the same good is produced. So productivity of the labor, not the value of the good produced matters.

Its also absurd to assume that one person is involved in producing a good, because as economist Milton Friedman notes, it takes millions just to create a pencil[6]

Con’s view on profit is incorrect because her assumptions are wrong. Instead profit is a result of risk-taking, deferring consumption, and rewarding productive innovation and risk taking. These mechanisms, increase the productivity of labor, lower costs, and are thus a generally good thing. Wealth and trade is not a zero-sum game as inferred.

Con states that communism is “community of people work together, produce surplus, maintain it, and decide how to distribute it.”. However, it is not outlined how that process will occur. If a group of representatives do this, it leads to state which Con opposes. I have outlined this problem further in the social-calculation problem. Profit provides the mechanism to distribute goods and services, as well as people voting with their “money”. I explained this previously in the social-calculation problem. Con's definition of capitalism is also wrong based on a misunderstanding of profit, labor and capital. Everyone is capable of owning capital and owning a business to profit.[1][2][3][4][5][6]



As I said previously, here are a few more issue I wish to address. Then I will begin rebuttals and defence of my own arguments.

Need-Based Freedom

One of the greatest problems with Capitalism, is that it turns every day life into a competition, where some will win, and some will perish. By the nature of a competitive system, there must be losers. This is abominable. In such a system, no one is free. This is because Capitalism takes even based needs, and turns them into commodities to be bought and sold. Consider the following:

You are walking down a hallway, when suddenly, you have the need to use a toilet. You rush towards the nearest washroom. As you do, you pass by a friend of yours, who calls out to chat. You reply hurriedly "Hold on, gotta pee!" You go to a washroom and relieve yourself.

Now, in that moment, in that state of urgency, were you free? No, you were not. This is because you have a need. Not merely a want, but a need. And when individuals have needs, they MUST be focused on meeting those needs, and are not free to focus on other pursuits (such as chatting with a friend). Capitalism does much the same thing. There are things people need, food, clothing, shelter, ect., and rather than give them to people, Capitalism denies them to you, unless you work for them. Under such a system, you are therefore not free. Not truly, not fully. You may find ways to incorporate bits and pieces of what you like, if you know what you like (more on that later too), into your every day like or work. But you are not free to truly pursue it. Because you have needs that need meeting, so that is all you can focus on.

How many of you, currently, or previously, worked a job that has nothing to do with your passions? How many of you, due to the need for money, took up work you did not desire, or worked for horrible people, simply to try and survive?

And this is supposed to be freedom? Ridiculous! This system is immoral.

Communist differs from Capitalism greatly when it comes to this. In a Communist society, human being's needs are considered natural rights. They must be fulfilled to be free. As private property is abolished, people are free to obtain whatever it is they are in need of, be it food, medical care, housing, ect. These things should be free to obtain, because without them, we are slaves to them, and more importantly, those who own them, and keep them from us. We are not free.

Fulfillment of Human Satisfaction

It is often said of Capitalism that it improves human well-being, by virtue of competition. businesses want to make money, and they can only make more money by fulfilling the desires of people, and fulfilling them better than rival companies. This, however, is flawed, as in the very proposition, it is admitted that under Capitalism, companies are not, in fact, interested in fulfilling human beings; they are interested in profit, and, by seeking it, just so happen to fulfill people along the way. The problem is, by not being truly interested in serving the needs of people, Capitalism generates much harm. Consider that, for a firm to perform well in competition, one of the things that is required is increased productivity. In other words, more output per individual unit of labour. When productivity goes up, there are two different things one may do. If productivity rises, one option is to reduce work time, and increase leisure time, while keeping the same output as before. Alternatively, output may increase, while labour stays the same. Most people's lives are such that they necessarily seek and benefit from shorter working days, and longer holidays. Capitalism however is biased in favor of the latter; increasing toil. This is because the former threatens to cut into profits, which as you recall, is the goal of any capitalist business. When faced with the prospect of increased productivity, capitalist firms will always either increase output, or, if there is no room to do so in the market, will lay off their workforce, and invest the money they save elsewhere. This way productivity will continue to expand, along with profit, though at the sacrifice of human well-being along the way.

Now, because business are biased in favor of increasing output, they are also biased in increasing consumption. In increasing need. Business are not truly interested in satisfying people's needs, they are interested in creating an endless chase of purchasing consumer goods, so that they can further their own profit. As an example, Alfred P. Sloan, once president of General Motors, once stated "It is the business of the automobile industry to make money, not cars." This is precisely true under a Capitalist system, and it is this truth that reveals why Capitalism is flawed; for if the automobile industry was geared towards serving the interests of the people, and not it's own ravenous hunger for profit, it would make far fewer cars.

So when given an option between fulfilling the desires of human beings, or increasing profit, Capitalism will always be biased towards disregarding the well-being of people, in favor of profit. And this disregard occurs frequently.

Illegitimacy of Private Property

This last thing I wish to touch upon is the illegitimacy of private ownership. One of the most popular criticisms of Capitalism is that, by simply being born into the right family, one can come into great wealth, for doing nothing, while the majority of the population labours for most of their life, only to earn a minute fraction of the wealth that one individual owns. What right does that person, or any person for that mater, have to that wealth and property though? Often times the reasoning is "well, it belonged to so-and-so, and they gave it to me". In other words, they invoke the legitimacy of their private property, by invoking the legitimacy of the one who held it before them.

The problem with this line of reasoning, is it merely pushes the question back. We simply ask "well, what gave them the right to it?" And so on, and so forth, until we inevitably come to the original owners of private property, who first took it from the land. We must ask ourselves what right did they have, to take the land, and turn it private from it's naturally public state? What gave them the right to tell someone "you are not allowed to use these, because I 'own' it"? What justification can there be for such actions? There is none. There is no logical justification for the taking of a public earth, which not only humans, but a plethora of other creators live upon, and suddenly declaring ownership over it.

And if the origins of capitalism are illegitimate, then any modern claim to private ownership is equally illegitimate.

Now, I will begin rebuttals of my opponent' case. I have roughly about 1,200 character left when writing this, so I will be brief, and and anything I do not get to I will discuss in the following rounds, as well as further develop my rebuttals here.

The Social Calculation Problem

My opponent begins his argument by claiming there is no way to measure the value of goods and services. But he then goes on to claim Capitalism is able to do just this, through a monetary system. That is most perplexing.

In any case, this portion of my opponent's argument is not really relevant, as Communism is not a system which requires value to be ascribed to good and services; in fact, it doesn't. The whole point of a Communist society is to destroy the notion of value and trade, in favor of individual pursuit. There is no need to "Calculate" the value of something, when it is not being traded for.

Empirical Evidence For The Success of Capitalism

My opponent attempts to criticize Communism on the grounds of countries such as North Korea, the former USSR, and other such nations. Need I remind him that, as per our agreement in Round 1, these criticisms are invalidated on the grounds that these nations are not, nor were they ever, Communist.

I will have to get to the rest of my opponents argument next round.
Debate Round No. 3


Need-Based Freedom

CON believes that competition is bad because there are winners and losers. However, this is absurd since almost everyone enjoys a healthy dose of competition, since people often compete in sports, and games. CON and I are engaging in competition. There will be one winner and one loser. If CON truly believed that competition itself was bad, than CON is hypocritical in accepted the debate.

CON might complaint might be that “loser’s” lose his or her form of income. However, these people find other forms of income. As stated previously, starvation is simply not a problem in well-developed nations. There are many businesses that go bankrupt but you do not see their CEOs and employees starving in the street.

CON uses an analogy of a person needing to go to a bathroom, and therefore is not free. CON basically wants to take away the urinary system to relieve the need to go to the bathroom. Sure this would take away this need and one can talk to one’s friend. Yet the accumulation of toxic waste in your body would lead to death. As outlined previously, communism cannot provide for the needs and wants of individuals and obtain as much wealth as capitalism. Likewise, CON wants to get rid of “work” yet it is only through work and capitalism that one can obtain a vast increase in wealth which increases quality of life and satisfied desires through the use of a monetary and profit system.

However, even the claim that one “needs” to work for their needs to be provided for is false. Minimum wage jobs are enough for people to survive off of, since in other nations, people make wages significantly less than that and there are still people there. The amount can be obtained simply through begging for a few minutes. The amount “needed” for survival is way less then what people earn in the US. Of course, people would rather work longer hours due to:

a) Their quality of life improving dramatically from higher salaries.

b) People generally do not mind working. More than 80% of US Employees are satisfied with their well-being[1]

Can everyone have their “needs” guaranteed. Of course. The US offers free clinics, homeless shelters, food stamps, and so forth to the poor.

What is ignored is quality. Not everyone is guaranteed the highest quality home, or medical treatment. Not every doctor can be the best, nor are all houses mansions so only a few who have either saved their earnings and/or who brought great wealth onto others can obtain them.

A communist nation cannot “guarantee” that a person will be able to do what he or she wants, because the resources to even do these are limited in nature. If you wanted to be an astronaut, then there first has to be a spacecraft. Clearly there are more people who would rather become an astronaut then spacecraft available.

Fulfillment of Human Satisfaction

CON admits that capitalism can be used to fulfill human’s desire through the virtue of competition. CON’s objection is that they are not the intentions. However, intentions are not the same as results, and one cannot deduce results from intentions. However, CON’s own deduction and my previous statements confirm that capitalism does fulfill human satisfaction.

Working hours AND output have decreased since the industrial revolution, so CON is wrong to state that capitalism leads to longer hours. There’s also no reason why people cannot work shorter hours. There are plenty of jobs that require one to only work part-time jobs. Teenagers often work part-time jobs. Instead people choose long hours. The reason they do, is as previously, most people generally like their job and prefer the tradeoff of more material then leisure. The average hours worked is the US is around 1700 hours a year [2], which out of a total year of 8760 hours, the average person in the US only spends 20% of their time working, so we don't spend all our time working.

As a final note, capitalism is not goal-orientated. While companies try to achieve profit, that does not mean capitalism’s goal is to increase profit. If there were an uncompetetive monopoly, then that company can achieve huge profits. Yet capitalism allows for competition,which hurts a business’s profit.

Businesses simply cannot coordinate to generate more profit through a universal consumerism message. A for-profit company can make an anti-consumerism message for profit, thus hurting the profits of other corporation. For-profit Universal Pictures produced this anti-capitalist propaganda[3]. What’s good for the individual’s profit is not good for the collective profit.

Private Property

In the first round I demonstrated the benefits of private property. One is the “tragedy of the commons” explained in Round 1. Furthermore, through obtaining property, one can be guaranteed use of property and access to it. CON might complain that through use of property, I exclude others however:

a) Any use of property must exclude others since it cannot be used simultaneously

b) I have obtained the property through trade, in which both parties simultaneously benefit. Labor had to be done to obtain it, which contributes to the overall wealth of society. Furthermore, since I had to sacrifice this property at the expense of other goods or services (due to budget constrain) that demonstrates a desire for it.

Property is not simply something that the wealthy have, but any individual can obtain property.

CON complains of the inequality that property causes. However, many aspects of life creates inequality. We are born with different forms of intellectual, athletic, and appearance. Should we try to solve these problems of inequality between them? Perhaps nobody achieves awards for intellectual, athletic, or beauty contests? Disallow competition? Remove consent from sex since attractive people hoard their beauty from unattractive people? Make sure all forms of entertainment get equal amount of views disrespectful of enjoyment?

Laws like inheritance and property taxes remove some of this inequality.

While natural resources and land might not be obtained originally from trade, the current owners likely obtained it through legitimate trade, so it would be unfair to compensate it from them. Trying to trace it back to who obtained it “unfairly” is an impossible task, and does not really matter on practical grounds. It would be beneficial to keep natural resources and land in private hands due to the many benefits of private property which I have outlined previously and the tragedy of the commons.

Often times the government owns these materials first, and then sell it. The “profit” is redistributed through the social services government provides.

The great benefits of property outweigh this minor cost.

Social Calculation Problem:

I spent over a 1000 character space in the first round showing how a monetary system solves the social calculation problem, but CON describes it as “perplexing” which is not a rebuttal. I cannot respond to this since I do not know where the confusing arises. Extend the previous argument from round 1.

Value exists, whether CON thinks so or not (her own aguments rested on the idea of value). Ignoring this economic law is like trying to ignore the laws of gravity to ceate an airplane.

Empirical Evidence of the Success of capitalism:

CON does not dispute that capitalism has success, only the failures I provided because they are not true communism. As stated previously, they share the institutions of no property rights, which leads to the disasters of social-calculation problems, tragedy of problems, lack of productive efficiency, and incentive problems. Authoritarian regimes are not an explanation, since I have shown successful authoritarianism. CON offers no explanation why these institutions failed that is not shared with CON’s own version of communism.

I have also stated that due to the speculative nature of her thesis, it is likely to be wrong which CON does not rebut.[1][2][3]



Time for rebuttles. Allow me to start at the beginning.

What is property?

My opponent claims property is necessary for everday life, because people cannot utilize the same object at the same time. This however does not, in of itself, prove that the idea of 'private property' is necessary. Did we not learn in grade school the idea of sharing and taking turns?

But of course, I recognize this alone is not sufficient, as does my opponent, and so he also adds the claim "and resources are scarce". This however is utter hogwash. There is no reason to think that resources are so low that not every can obtain things they desire. Let us take food as an example. There is easily enough food on the planet at this point in time to feed the globe[1]. One of the most principle reason that everyone is not fed, is the current global economic system (Capitalism)[2].

Now this is only one solitary sample, yes, but my opponent has given us no reason to think that resources are so low that some people just have to go without. Clearly food, the biggest need of human beings, is plenitful enough that everyone could be fed. And with Capitalism being one of the major reasons for why every ISN'T fed, how can is be said that Capitalism is good for mankind? It cannot.

The Social-Calculation Problem

My opponent has claimed that, in a Communist society, there is no way to determine the vale of goods and services. This is because goods and services would have no trade value, due to the lack of a need for trade. My opponent seems to criticize this, but they do not explain why. Why is the lack of value-placement a bad thing? If my opponent wishes to say "because it's necessary", they have not put forth an adequate case for such a claim. And if value placement is not necessary, then why would ot be a criticism?

Further more, my opponent claims anyone can be an entrepenuar. This however is entirely false. As the saying goes, "it takes money to make money." Taking today's America, individuals in the lowest rung of society would have next to no ability to fund their ideas, lt alone come up with ideas to begin with. Not everyone is creative, and has the capability to come up with new ideas that people want.

Finally, this does not even begin to address the moral problem with this kind of system. It can be said that, if something is immoral, it cannot be justified by any means. And I argue that Capitalism as a system is immoral, because of the reaosns I have listed. A society which, in essence, states that you only deserve to live if you are useful, is entirely immoral, and certainly not good for mankind! And this is precisely the kind of system Capitalism is, as declared by my opponent. Those who can contribute, can survive. Those who cannot, or do not, will not obtain the funds necessary to fulfill their needs, and will as a result, live poor qualities of life, and most likely die sooner than other individuals in society[3]. This is abominable, and for my opponent to try and justify such a system is disgraceful.

Success of Capitalism

My opponent declares that, because the most successfu countries are Capitalist, Capitalism must have made them as good as they are. But there is no logical connection between these two claims. My opponent is attempting to frame correlation as causation. This is fallacious. There could be a plethora of reasons why those countries are doing better. To conclude it is Capitalism based on nothing more than that correlation is ridiculous.

Further more, this argument is meaningless to the debate. As Communism is a society without an economy, to point out economic figures to me is utterly without meaning. Communism is not a society with a different form money management, like socialism. It has no money.

My opponent attempts to criticize Communism on the basis of nations like the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Kora, and China. These nations are not Communist however, as defined in R1. Therefore, this portion of my opponent's argued deserves to be dismissed entirely.

Finally, my opponent has claimed I stated no Communist society has ever existed. This is false. I never made such a claim. My opponent has put words in my mouth. If my opponent wishes to see evidence of Communistic socieites, he need look no further than the often cited Paris Commune[4], or the Free Territory, as evidence of successful Communist societies. These socieites were not toppled by poor economies or a lack of resources, but by violent force of neighboring lands. There are plenty others one may list, but these are the two most widely known.

I would aks my opponent not to put words in my mouth again, as it is poor form.

Tragedy of the Commons

My opponent has claimed that, if one does not own property, there is no incentive to maintain it. My opponent misrepresents my argument by saying "when no one owns property". Communism is not a society wherein "no one owns anything" it is a society in which the public owns everything collecively. Ironically enough, my opponent's own argument plays against them here, as in a Capitalist society, far fewer indivudals can claim ownership of property than in a Communist society. By privatising property, you limit the number of individuals who own it. By making it public, you naturally increase the number of people who own it, which, according to my opponent, shoiuld cause even greater care to be taken of property.

Communism - A Primer

My opponent claims that nations such as the former USSR, China, North Korea, ect., possess the same institutions of a Communist society. No they do not. They do not at all possess the same systems and insitutions. I would appriciate if my opponent would point out these "same" institutions that I supposidly suport. I would also request once again that my opponent not put words in my mouth. My is once again attempting to criticize my argment on the basis of non-communist socieities. His arguments are therefore irrelevant to this debate.

My opponent criticizes hunter-gathere societies, and claims that modern socieites, which are capitalist, are better off. Of course. even the poores sociast nation today is better off than hunter-gthere societies! This is because they are MODERN. They have advanced technologies that allow for greater efficiency and collecting and mainting resources. My opponent is attempting to have Capitalism take credit for advances in technology. This is ridiculous.

My opponent attempts to claim that because of "market forces", Capialism is just as individualistic as Communism. This is absurd however. While market forces influence any society, there is a distinct difference between the structure of Capitalism and Communism. Yes, nature can cause people to have to pursue lives other than their desired work, but the key difference between Capitalism and Communism, is that Communism is influenced by nature only. In a Communist society, if an individual desires to be an artist, so long as resources are plentiful enough, they can do this. In a Capitalist society, even if resources are pentiful, the individual may STILL need to consolidate their desires, due to a lack of being able to possess necessary resources, and due to a lack of individuals who would provide them with resources for their labour. In a Capitalist societiy, if the economic market is such that artists are not desired, one cannot afford to become an artist. This forces individuals to consolidate their desires for the desires of the market, so they may survive. Communism does not have this problem. Rendering it more individualistic by it's inherent set-up.

I will finish up my rebuttles in the next round.






Debate Round No. 4



CON ignores economic concepts like scarcity, value ,and the wealth generating effects of trade that capitalism produces. CON’s trying to create an airplane through ignoring gravity. The result is disaster. Economic wealth is not just arbitrary since it leads to greater life satisfaction, life expectancy, and a reduction in crime.

CON’s only argument is that capitalism is needed to get rid of these evil known as “work”. Of course, not only is this wrong that work is required for survival, but one has to question how a society can become so wealthy without work. Work is not so evil. Lack of material prevents us from doing stuff. I cannot debate unless there’s a debate site. The for-profit companies Juggle and Webcorp made this platform. Capitalism increases material and wages so basic needs and wants can be satisfied quicker.

Con’s own arguments are internally inconsistent. Capitalism is wrong because people are not compensated fully for their wages, yet communism does not seek to compensate people for work.


Private Property

CON believes “sharing” is the solution. However, with a population of 7 billion, this sharing mechanism is increasingly difficult, since I do not know where these people are nor would these people care enough about me to return it It also does not guarantee that I can use the object anytime I want.

There are models of sharing in capitalism. Renting is just a form of sharing, with legal obligation to return it and keep it in good condition.

Just the main idea that there is no monetary incentive to work is enough to reduce resources. CON asserts that capitalism is the cause of hunger without evidence, even though non-capitalist countries tend to have greater hunger problems[1].


I demonstrated how CON is wrong about the nature of capitalism in round 2. Capitalism is simply volunteer exchange that benefits both parties.

The Social-Calculation Problem

CON again bases a system that ignores economic laws. People value things, under any given system. To value nothing is to be a machine devoid of any emotion, not even caring whether one lives or die, since that would be valuing one’s own life. This is absurd. CON’s own theory of “wage slavery” relies on the idea that labor has value. So CON has made no argument in solving the social calculation problem, Con just ignores it.

There would of course be a need for trade, since that’s how stuff efficiently comes into existence. I previously demonstrated an example in which it takes millions of people that do not like one another, coming together to trade, base on market self-interest to make a pencil. Trying to stop this process from occurring would require massive amounts of enforcement resources as the restriction of drugs demonstrates.

Of course, stating that everyone can become an entrepreneur is not the same as everyone will become one. Anybody can seek funding, since there are banks, venture capitalists, and other financial institutions for funding. And they might not be intelligent enough to come up with the ideas, but they have the opportunity to try, which is the point.

These fine points though, ignoring my original point, that the profit and monetary system allows people to obtain the stuff that is valued and avoids major shortages and surpluses. Producers produce material for profit. Profit redirects producers to the stuff that needs to be created. If there’s a profit opportunity, producers will go for it. People pay for stuff they are willing to buy. If sources become scarcer, then prices rise and producers and consumers act accordingly (consumers consume less and producers try to find ways to produce more).

Con states idea that “you will not survive if you are not useful” is not a true statement, as pointed out previously which CON ignores. A person in America can survive simply through begging. But there is welfare and other sources of income. Starvation is not a problem. Furthermore, the resolution is about “what’s better for mankind”, not “which system is moral”, since morality is highly subjective.

Success of capitalism

CON believes that I am making a correlation =/= causation fallacy. However, nations like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan adopted capitalistic measured when they were poor and became rich afterwards. This removes doubt that it was based on correlation alone.

An economy exists no matter what system exists since an economy is simply the production, allocation, and distribution of resources. Stating that there is no economy in communism would mean there are no resources. But ignoring GDP, I also showed that these nations also have higher quality of life, greater life expectancy, and reduction of violent crimes.

Tragedy of the commons

The difference between “nobody” owning property and “everyone” owning property is semantically. This especially goes against what CON has previously stated about “abolishing property”.

Any personal effort for improving is diffused. Overutilization leads to personal benefits, but social expenses. This is known as the “free-rider problem”[2]

Imagine if everyone were a moderator on It would be a disaster.


Communism- A primer

North Korea has an economic system that did not run on a profit-system and did not have strong property rights, the same institutes CON advocates and which I demonstrated are needed. Authoritarianism is not the explanation due to Hong Kong’s success.

I assume that CON did not have any “true” communists in mind, since CON did not point them out earlier. CON’s example shows a commune that only lasted 2 months. It did not even have enough time to implement policies. Nor does CON show that they were communist since indicators of no trade, abolishment of property, and no work-requirement are provied.

CON provides no objective indicators of their success, while I have used GDP, higher life expectancies, and less crime as indictors of their success.

CON also wants to believe that the success is due to technology, not capitalism. However, due to innovative incentives and providing mechanisms to maximize productive efficiency, it is capitalism’s doing. My pencil argument also demonstrates how trade leads to efficiency.

It seems strange that hunter-gathering societies that existed for hundreds of thousands of years has not been as successful as implementing technology that states and capitalism have.

Any person in their spare time can create art in a capitalist society. The difference is, a communist society will not be productive enough to create the resources (paint, paper, brushes) for this. Why would anybody work in paper production without montary incentives in a communist society? How would the millions of workers collaborate together to create paper which occurs through trade?


In round 2, I have demonstrated the absurdity of the idea. It would mean that Hollywood actors are slaves.

The wage theory rests on the two wrong ideas that:

a) the price of a product is equal to the value of a product

b) the value of a product is equal to the labor put into it.

Instead, consumers buy a product because it is more valuable than its price. The value of labor is based on its productive, not the labor put into it.

Need-Based Freedom

I have dismantled this argument in Round 4.

I have demonstrated that Need-based freedom is also wrong due to welfare. A communist nation cannot “guarantee” that a person will be able to do what he or she wants, because the resources to even do these are limited in nature.

Fulfillment of Human Satisfaction

Argument was rebutted in Round 4.

Capitalism does in fact achieve human satisfaction. CON’s ideas that working hours have increased is wrong. Furthermore, people work more because they don’t mind working and want to obtain material wealth, not because they need to for survive.

Increasing Innovative Incentive and Productive Efficiency:

My argument in round 1 has not been rebutted.




For some reason, when going to post my argument, nearly all of it vanished. It was cut away, despite being under the 8,000 character limit. I don't know why...

I've become completely unmotivated to re-write it. I'll copy and paste what's left of it here.

Please be aware that my opponent has made several false accusations this round.

"CON ignores economic concepts..."

I have addressed the issue of scarcity by pointing out resources are not all that scarce. I used food, our arguably greatest need, as an example. I also pointed out that my opponent's only argument for the "wealth-generating effects" of Capitalism is his comparison of Capitalist countries to nations like China or North Korea. This argument however is irrelevant, as those nations were not Communist.

"Economic wealth is not just arbitrary..."

I agree, and it is for that reason I am opposed to Capitalism, as it restricts whom may obtain goods and whom my not; another point of mine that you did not contest.

"CON’s only argument is that capitalism is needed to get rid of these evil known as “work”."

This is completely false. My opponent is misrepresenting my case.

What I have criticized is the manner in which Capitalism arranges those who work, and those who do not. I have pointed out that in a Capitalist society, those who work are not working in conditions which are profitable to human happiness. Often time individuals are forced to work places where they have no desire to work, or work in conditions that are exploitative or unfair, not due to nature, but due to the set-up of Capitalism. Since economic systems can be altered, by opponent cannot claim that this should just be "accepted", because unlike nature, Capitalism is avoidable.

"...communism does not seek to compensate people for work."

This is, again, false. The difference between Capitalism and Communism is that people do not work out of monetary incentive. They are not aiming for "profit". They are aiming for self-fulfillment, and unlike under Capitalism, decide for themselves how goods should be produced, and how to distribute them. Communism seeks to compensate workers by their dictates, instead of by whomever happens to "own" the means of production.

My opponent has frequently misrepresented my case elsewhere, but I haven't the characters to go over everything.

Let's talk about my opponent's case. One of the reasons this debate has been, in my mind, so unproductive, is that nearly all of my opponent's criticisms have violated our RI agreement. My opponent has repeatedly tried to criticise Communism, by comparing Capitalism to Socialist nations and economies (even going so far as to compare the US to some of the EXACT nations I listed in RI). We agreed not to do this, and yet, my opponent did so anyway on numerous occasions. These arguments are irrelevant. They have no bearing on this debate what so ever.

My opponent has also attempted to, in several locations, be intellectually dishonest in whom he credits for certain merits of Capitalism, such as an 8 hour work day, or minimum wage laws. These institutions that my opponent praises? They are SOCIALIST ideas and insitutions, not Capitalist ones. In essence, by praising these things, my opponent has argued AGAINST his own case.

My opponent also has tried to make certain ouright ridiculous arguments, such as this gem in this round:

"I demonstrated how CON is wrong about the nature of capitalism in round 2."

This exact argument Pro is talking about, was nothing more than a few short lines, to which I gave my criticism to in my following R2 post. Is Pro honestly attempting to refute my argument, by simply pointing at the argument that was criticized to begin with? That makes no sense.

Pro has also violated another one of our RI agreements, that of frequently criticizing the capability of Communism. For instance, in this round, where he criticizes Communism on the grounds that people would not want to share.

Whether or not people WILL do something has no bearing on wheher or not doing it would be BETTER. Please keep this in mind when looking over my opponent's argumments.

There are two final points I really want to drive home. That is the idea of need-based freedom, and that of Capitalism as a system of exploitation. First of all, my opponent's supposid "dismantling" of by need-based freedom argument is unwarrented. They took my position, and misrepresented it, by claiming I would remove the urinary system. That is not at all an accurate portrayal of what I was saying. My opponent also tries to claim that Communism cannot guarentee a person will have thier needs met. And yes, there is truth to this, you cannot guarenteee it 100%. Freak events may always possibly occur. But those are unnatural occurences, and desevre no consideration. Further more, while nature may not be able to be avoided, economic systems CAN be avoided.

My opponent has not been able to justify the lack of freedom under Capitalism (except by pointing to Socialist institutions). He has not actually addressed the problem of creating a winner/loser system out of peoples livelihood. He has not actually addressed the problem of people not having their needs properly met under Capitalism. This is because, he can't. Capitalism NECESSITATES this kind of system. Capitalism NECESSITATES inequality, and suffering. Without losers, you cannot have a competative system. Pro ignores this, because he knows it would be damning to his case. He tries to work around, by once again, pointing to things like homless shelters, or health care, or other such things. But these are all, once again, Socialist ideas. My opponent cannot have Capitalism take credit for Socialist institutions.

Capitalism leaves you in chains, forcing most of the population to constantly worry about meeting their needs on an unecessary level, and therefore, rendering them in many situations delayed or entirely incapable of pursuing thier intersts. By forcing one another to compete to satisfy thier basic needs, Capitalism prevents people from actually being free. This is barbaric.

My opponent also glosses over the fact that Capitalism is a system of economic exploitation. Indeed, rather than try and refute it, he tries to JUSTIFY it, by pointing out the success of Capitalism to Socialist nations. He has not tried to argue the fact that Capitalism is, by virtue of it's set-up, a slave-like system, where workers are forced to sell themselves to "owners", and only recieve a fraction of the value their labour generates. This is, as it has been called, slavery. Wage-slavery. This form of rampant expoitation of the working class is immoral. It cannot be reasonably justified.

My opponent has also failed to adequaely counter my argument about Capitalism being biased towards decreasing human well-being. Because Capitalism seeks to gain profit, not meet human needs, it is neither truly interested in meeting the needs of it's workers or consumers. When it comes to the issue of extending toil or extending leasiure time, Capitalism will ALWAYs be biased towards the former, just so it may increase profit. Likewise, Capitalism will never truly meet the consumers needs efficiently, due to the fact that meeting a need is detrimental to profit. This systems is set up in such a way that meetings needs is secondary to making profit.

Communism does not suffer from these problems. The whole idea of Communism is that it is a society wherein everyone is free to develope themselves as they choose, and everyone's needs are met as a result of the lack of constraints on aquiring goods which meet needs. How anyone can say that this form of system is inferior to one which actively denies people access to needs for arbitrary reasons, is completely illogical.

Whether or not my opponent, or any of you, think that Communism is possible, has no bearing on whether or not it would be BETTER. Yes, it would. There is no doubt about it. A system that necesitates losers will ALWAYS be worse for human well-being.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Didar 3 years ago
In capitalism individuals decide how they will spend their own money on what they want. Nobody tells them where to spend it. So if you want to make widgets you get the money, the workers and capital together to make them. You expect, being the entrepreneur, to make a profit. It is important to understand what is profit to an economist. One takes total revenue and subtract total costs including what one could have earned working for someone else doing the same thing. If there is money left over that is your profit. You receive a profit not because you worked for it but because you took the risk of putting together land, labour and capital. If things had been different you could have lost your shirt making widgets and you would have been better off working for someone else. With capitalism it is a very efficient way to allocate resources. For example if people want jeans to wear then someone will take the resources needed and produce them. I know of no one who produces saddles for snails and as a result there are no scarce resources wasted producing them.

With communism it is the government that decides how those scarce resources are employed. With capitalism it is the price system that allocates these resources and as a result they will be employed where one is willing to pay the highest price. In communism the government might decide to produce widgets. If no one wants them then that is a terrible waste of resources. In communism if the government doesn't have the money to pay the workers they can't just move to another job because the government tells them where they will work. In the Soviet Union the old joke was "the government pretends to pay us and we pretend to work".
Posted by Urbanninja15 3 years ago
For there to be true and totally complete communism, wouldn't every individual have to supply everything for themselves and for everyone else?
Posted by alpha3031 3 years ago
i feel communism is impossible. people always want property.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 3 years ago
...pffft. XD
Posted by babyy 3 years ago
Hello dear, my name is Teresa, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail(teresa.edmond (at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by darris321 3 years ago
I just have to say "whom" is not just a fancy way saying "who".
"Whom" refers to an object. You can't use it as a subject.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 3 years ago
Why can you not compare the objective history of say, America circa 1776-1913 or Hong Kong during English rule with the theories of anarcho-syndicalism? This is frankly a specious criticism.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
Chaos tells me that in communication with Darkkermit that they agreed that the debate was about capitalism versus a non-existent fantasy of stateless communism, ad no ties to reality were implied. I interpret that as a story writing debate, which I wouldn't judge. Obviously a fantasy cannot be compared to reality.

So, Darkkermit, was that the intent of the debate?
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 3 years ago
I'm not going to vote since I'm sooo horribly biased but nice to see an accurate explanation of the calculation problem on this website!
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 3 years ago
"After accepting the debate Con attempted to change the meaning of the resolution"

The resolution had nothing to do with which society was possible. No where can that be inferred. Explain how I "changed the meaning of the resolution". What was the original meaning then?

Further more, why was this never contested by Pro?

"At the very least, this is debating the semantics of the resolution, which Con agreed not to do by accepting the "no semantics" rule of the Instigator."

It wasn't semantics. You have no basis to make such an accusation.

"From Pro's R2"

Pro made no such assertion, and accepted everything I stated in R1, by never saying "I disagree to adhere to this". You have no grounds for your criticisms. You are making a biased vote.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I second everything Roy said and my reasoning for voting is the same as him. Also, "The last three arrangements are exploitative arrangements (one being capitalism), because the individuals doing the work do not have ownership of the surplus they produce (and in some cases, they do not have ownership of any of it), and are not in control of how it is distributed." This is simplistic, sophist logic.
Vote Placed by Contra 3 years ago
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: This was a good debate to read, that was intellectually supported on both sides. Pro did a great job of explaining how Capitalism channels natural human incentives, and directs them so that these natural instincts self organize an economic system in which everyone prospers, though not at the same degree. Con had some good arguments, but ultimately her arguments did not say how they would be an improvement over Capitalism, and the biggest errors on her side were regarding human incentives and motivation. How is communism better than capitalism when it comes to productivity? Con never proved this point, while Pro did.
Vote Placed by BigSky 3 years ago
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: Pro made better arguments
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has no real evidence to support his contentions, so he was forced to argue a fantasy against reality. There are many fantasies that are better than the real world, unfortunately they are no more than fantasies. Without any tie to the real world, Con could not produce any sources, whereas Pro had data to support his case. This was not a close debate. Reality wins.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
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: RFD in comments