The Instigator
DoubleXMinus
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Geekis_Khan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, not to unite.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,260 times Debate No: 3998
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

DoubleXMinus

Pro

The "Communist Manifesto" written by Marx and Engels is little more than a doctrine explaining why the whole world should engage in war. It spends a lot of time telling people what they should believe history really means and then upon the outcome of Marx's conclusions of all of history, it goes on to inform the proletariat that its only option is war. This doctrine spends little time explaining what a communist society would really look like or how it would sustain itself (is it any wonder it's so easily exploited?) because it's too busy plotting people against each other and explaining in detail why we should hate and kill.

The Manifesto is contradictory and full of irony until the only thing that's crystal clear is that it serves to divide, not to unite.

So what I'm aiming to prove in this debate is that "The Communist Manifesto" (1848) is more divisive than it is helpful in the goal of achieving a peaceful society. That's to say, it does more harm than good. Con should want to show how I'm wrong.

Hmm, so we'll see if this works or if I get caught in something that has nothing to do with my original intentions...
Geekis_Khan

Con

Thank you for starting the debate.

First, some observations.

Since this resolution is "The "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, not to unite," my opponent must satisfy both parts of this resolution, that the "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, and that the "Communist Manifesto" does not serve to unite. If my opponent fails to meet one of these burdens, you should default CON.

However, if you want to reject that burden and judge the debate based on which side outweighs the other, CON will still win that.

Also, since we are talking about the unification/division surrounding a communist revolution, this is what the debate should focus on. The success or failure of this revolution and the consequential communist state is irrelevant.

Alright, now, for my case.

My opponent tries to make the claim that the "Communist Manifesto" does more to divide than to unite. Well, it obviously does support some division, otherwise a (violent) revolution would be pointless. But to say that it does not serve to unite is rubbish. What you see in the doctrine of the "Communist Manifesto", whether you agree with it or not, is an attempt to unify the poor masses against the wealthy few. Since we're uniting a lot against a lot, there will always be more unity inspired than division, so you will always vote CON on the simple fact that the CON outweighs the PRO. This defeats the PRO on both burdens, as it proves that the "Communist Manifesto" does unite, and that the CON outweighs the PRO.

Continuing, my opponent talks about how Marx and Engels spend a lot of time telling people "what they should believe history really means". This implies that they are manipulating people into seeing history in a certain light. But this isn't true. Even if Marx's predictions were off (which, when you look at Russia, they weren't), there was still an accurate portrayal of history. Different social groups tend to clash. It really does become inevitable. In fact, 1848 is known as "The Year of Revolutions" in European history. Revolutions happened across Europe from France to the Habsburg Empire to Italy to Germany. Revolutions happen because social groups tend to clash.

But what about these clashes? Who is fighting whom? Look at something like the French Revolution, where many groups were competing with another for control. There was more division there during that time period than one could imagine, and it had a lot of dire consequences.

Now look at the "Communist Manifesto". What is it trying to do? It is trying to unite these various factions against one common enemy. Even if you don't agree with Marx's and Engels philosophy, you cannot deny that it serves primarily to unite. It tries to tell these various groups that they shouldn't be fighting each other; that they should be uniting against the oppression of the bourgeoisie. In this vein, the "Communist Manifesto" does more good than bad, at least from the revolutionary perspective, which is what we are debating here.

I urge you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
DoubleXMinus

Pro

What I am obligated to try and prove more convincingly than you can disprove is this:

The "Communist Manifesto" is more divisive than helpful.
The "Communist Manifesto" does more harm than good.

I specified those two things in my opening statement and those two ends are my only obligations. You accepted that when you accepted the debate. And, because of my approach, I feel like it would be unfair not to accept, the "Communist Manifesto" does *more* dividing than uniting. Let's start with that.

1. "The "Communist Manifesto" divides more than it unites."

Marx wanted communists to work with every other political party who opposed the existing societal structure, but of course only with the purpose of extending the communist agenda. From the Communist Manifesto, "the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." Realistically, how many people do you think that will set against one another? Do you think that serves to achieve the simplistic proletarians against bourgeoisie war and that's it? All section 4 of the Manifesto has to declare is, ‘Communists support war! War in Switzerland, war in Poland, war in Germany, war in France, war is good, war is necessary, it's inevitable, communists like war!' All that could ever lead to is mass division, and it did. So therein, 2. "The Communist Manifesto is more divisive than helpful."

--"What you see in the doctrine of the "Communist Manifesto", whether you agree with it or not, is an attempt to unify the poor masses against the wealthy few. Since we're uniting a lot against a lot, there will always be more unity inspired than division…"--

You could only agree with that train of thought if you agree that the Manifesto really only serves to plot those two classes together and nothing else. To see it that way, you'd first have to believe that the world is only made of two classes and two opposing sets of goals… So Geek, is all of humanity and society explained in saying, "There exists the oppressor and the oppressed and that encompasses all." No? Then what the revolution is actually going to achieve is more division than unification. Plus, it's clear the only reason for anybody to unite under this philosophy is for the purposes of war in the first place… Great, let's everybody get together and start a world war!

"Law, morality, religion, are to him [the proletariat] so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests." – Communist Manifesto. Alright, let's attack all of the above mentioned concepts and see how much good comes of that. I just don't see it leading to peace, but instead leading to desperation for peace which leaves an even more vulnerable mass of people to exploit. Which explains why 3. "The Communist Manifesto does more harm than good."

Moving on.

"Continuing, my opponent talks about how Marx and Engels spend a lot of time telling people "what they should believe history really means". This implies that they are manipulating people into seeing history in a certain light. But this isn't true…" I would like to retain the right in this debate to clarify what I'm saying all by myself, thanks. What I mean to bring into question are the conclusions Marx and Engels make based on how they see history. Let me explain…

In Marx's world the only important thing in history is economic relations. His THEORY of history is very narrow and exclusive. I say this because he doesn't seem to find things like religion, culture, ideology or individual human beings historically significant at all… In fact, he doesn't seem to find the above mentioned things important to humanity whatsoever. Clearly stated, "...Communism abolishes eternal truths [such as freedom and justice] it abolishes all religion, and all morality..."

So he's predicting what's going to happen in the future (the war he's describing is inevitable) by selectively choosing what he thinks is most important in the past to pay attention to. It's important to look at this closely because if a person were to reject Marx's interpretation of what history means to our future, then all of a sudden we're given back our free choice in where this world is headed and our personal significance as well.

Lastly (I'm tired of typing) there's this from Geek here.

"Now look at the "Communist Manifesto". What is it trying to do? It is trying to unite these various factions against one common enemy. Even if you don't agree with Marx's and Engels philosophy, you cannot deny that it serves primarily to unite. It tries to tell these various groups that they shouldn't be fighting each other; that they should be uniting against the oppression of the bourgeoisie."

Back that up.

The Manifesto in question *talks* a lot about uniting, but *serves* primarily to divide. That is what this debate is about and it's more interesting this way anyway. Why try to make this into a debate about semantics and literal interpretations? That's boring as hell and a waste of my time.
Geekis_Khan

Con

"I specified those two things in my opening statement and those two ends are my only obligations. You accepted that when you accepted the debate. And, because of my approach, I feel like it would be unfair not to accept, the "Communist Manifesto" does *more* dividing than uniting. Let's start with that."

Well, because you didn't use the word "more" in the resolution, I feel like it would be unfair of you to manipulate it. But it doesn't matter, because I'll win on your grounds, anyway.

LET IT BE NOTED TO THOSE WHO ARE JUDGING BY WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS AND NOT WHAT THE PRO SAYS THE RESOLUTION MEANS THAT THE PRO HAS DROPPED MY ATTACKS BASED ON AN APPROPRIATE AND JUSTIFIED INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION. IF YOU ARE JUDGING BASED OFF OF THAT, THE CON SHOULD WIN RIGHT HERE.

"Marx wanted communists to work with every other political party who opposed the existing societal structure, but of course only with the purpose of extending the communist agenda. From the Communist Manifesto, "the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." Realistically, how many people do you think that will set against one another? Do you think that serves to achieve the simplistic proletarians against bourgeoisie war and that's it? All section 4 of the Manifesto has to declare is, ‘Communists support war! War in Switzerland, war in Poland, war in Germany, war in France, war is good, war is necessary, it's inevitable, communists like war!' All that could ever lead to is mass division, and it did. So therein, 2. "The Communist Manifesto is more divisive than helpful.""

It supports war. Yeah. But the war it supports is one of unifying the many against the few. No matter what, there will always be more unity than division. This is an idea you have largely ignored.

"You could only agree with that train of thought if you agree that the Manifesto really only serves to plot those two classes together and nothing else. To see it that way, you'd first have to believe that the world is only made of two classes and two opposing sets of goals… So Geek, is all of humanity and society explained in saying, "There exists the oppressor and the oppressed and that encompasses all." No? Then what the revolution is actually going to achieve is more division than unification. Plus, it's clear the only reason for anybody to unite under this philosophy is for the purposes of war in the first place… Great, let's everybody get together and start a world war!"

I believe that there are primarily the opressed and the opressors. You see, the problem is, the opressed tend to be divided into more groups, based on ethnicity, politics, religion, etc. "The Communist Manifesto" tries to unite these groups against the supposedly oppressive upper class. And furthermore, it doesn't matter if the purpose is war. A war can still unite. Once again, if we're looking to which side outweighs the other, this is clearly the CON.

""Law, morality, religion, are to him [the proletariat] so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests." – Communist Manifesto. Alright, let's attack all of the above mentioned concepts and see how much good comes of that. I just don't see it leading to peace, but instead leading to desperation for peace which leaves an even more vulnerable mass of people to exploit. Which explains why 3. "The Communist Manifesto does more harm than good.""

No, you're missing the point. Those are the institutions which draw those lines of division. By destroying these lines and these institutions, "The Communist Manifesto" attempts to unite groups against the ultimate institution that put thsoe institutions in place.

"In Marx's world the only important thing in history is economic relations. His THEORY of history is very narrow and exclusive. I say this because he doesn't seem to find things like religion, culture, ideology or individual human beings historically significant at all… In fact, he doesn't seem to find the above mentioned things important to humanity whatsoever. Clearly stated, "...Communism abolishes eternal truths [such as freedom and justice] it abolishes all religion, and all morality...""

You just offered a quote where he talked about religion... How is that not important. Furthermore, even if I accept your claim, you haven't proven how his view of history is wrong, exclusive though it may be. You have not proven how his view of conomic classes is inaccurate.

"So he's predicting what's going to happen in the future (the war he's describing is inevitable) by selectively choosing what he thinks is most important in the past to pay attention to. It's important to look at this closely because if a person were to reject Marx's interpretation of what history means to our future, then all of a sudden we're given back our free choice in where this world is headed and our personal significance as well"

Wait... How does Marx's view of history take awway your free choice? What?

Anyway, economic relations tend to be the most important factor. It defines every other factor, and every other factor is related in. Religion keeps the oppressed masses rom revolting. The same with law, morality, etc. Whether you like it or not, everything comes back to money.

"The Manifesto in question *talks* a lot about uniting, but *serves* primarily to divide. That is what this debate is about and it's more interesting this way anyway. Why try to make this into a debate about semantics and literal interpretations? That's boring as hell and a waste of my time."

Alright. Then we'll talk about what it actually does. You have, at no point, given any evidence where it serves to divide. You have given speculation after speculation.

I urge you to vote on the CON.
Debate Round No. 2
DoubleXMinus

Pro

"LET IT BE NOTED TO THOSE WHO ARE JUDGING BY WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS AND NOT WHAT THE PRO SAYS THE RESOLUTION MEANS THAT THE PRO HAS DROPPED MY ATTACKS BASED ON AN APPROPRIATE AND JUSTIFIED INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION. IF YOU ARE JUDGING BASED OFF OF THAT, THE CON SHOULD WIN RIGHT HERE"

My debate topic was, "The Communist Manifesto *serves* to divide, not to unite." First of all, I didn't say it doesn't unite at all, and second, that was my topic. There is a difference between a debate topic and a resolution. As I have already said, I specified what I wanted this debate to be about in my opening statement, "So what I'm aiming to prove in this debate is that "The Communist Manifesto" (1848) is more divisive than it is helpful in the goal of achieving a peaceful society. That's to say, it does more harm than good. Con should want to show how I'm wrong." Therefore, I haven't dropped my argument at all, so can we get back to the debate?

"It supports war. Yeah. But the war it supports is one of unifying the many against the few. NO MATTER WHAT, there will always be more unity than division. This is an idea you have largely ignored." – That is a very simplistic view and you have no way of proving that "no matter what" there will be more unification than division involved. That's pure "speculation". And you say, "*The* war it supports…" that gives the impression it supports only one war when it supports "every" war as I have clearly shown. Do I need to bring up World War I in an attempt to sort of draw you a picture of how that divides more than unites? I haven't ignored anything, lol it really is you coming at this from a very largely ignorant point of view.

"I believe that there are primarily the opressed and the opressors. You see, the problem is, the opressed tend to be divided into more groups, based on ethnicity, politics, religion, etc. "The Communist Manifesto" tries to unite these groups against the supposedly oppressive upper class. And furthermore, it doesn't matter if the purpose is war. A war can still unite." And "No, you're missing the point. Those are the institutions [law, morality, religion] which draw those lines of division. By destroying these lines and these institutions, "The Communist Manifesto" attempts to unite groups against the ultimate institution that put thsoe institutions in place."

(You haven't actually read the Manifesto have you? Because all you've done this whole debate is repeat a very broad and foggy idea of what it actually is.)

Anyway, I'm glad to read of your opinion that I'm missing the point; my opinion is that you're missing the point. Good to know we've gotten that outta the way, shall we continue? The Manifesto demonizes every "institution" I have mentioned thus far such as: Freedom, justice, law, morality, religion, and so on (which I've actually provided proof of, what a concept – but again, you haven't really read it, have you?) Now, it's a nice idea that once all of these are out of the way -- or abolished -- we're finally left with only two classes against one another in the ultimate war leading to communism, but that's an unrealistic view of the world to say the least. Yet, only if the abolition of all those "nasty" things actually accomplished that goal would there be more unification than division.

It's dangerous manipulation of a downtrodden people that's really going on here, this is my whole point. Section one (part 2) of the Manifesto is primarily used to get the proletariat to believe Marx deeply sympathizes with their hardships(1), which naturally gains him their trust. He really understands them, it's like he's one of them, they're convinced he really cares. After he's done pandering and the working class is left burning for more, he delivers exactly what they want to hear next… a promise of salvation.(2)

(1) "…Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself."
(2) "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. " (That's a great catch phrase, I like it. I really hear the crowd cheering loudly after that.)

So, he tells them who (the bourgeoisie) and what (all the above mentioned institutions) is to blame for their plight and promises a better communist world if only they do what he says (support every war that claims to be revolutionary there is and in the absence of morality, too.) Lol, wow. Isn't it ironic that politics is one of the things he's so against? What has always been the outcome of this kind of manipulation? Hmm… things like the Holocaust perhaps? (But those SS Germans were in fact united against those repulsive Jews so nevermind, I guess.) No, this crap will divide more than it will unite. It's simple war-mongering.

"You just offered a quote where he talked about religion... How is that not important. Furthermore, even if I accept your claim, you haven't proven how his view of history is wrong, exclusive though it may be. You have not proven how his view of conomic classes is inaccurate"

I don't understand what you're getting at with that first sentence. Marx believes religion is unimportant to humanity and history so therein, perfectly abolishable. And I have already said that my problem with Marx's theory of history is the conclusions he draws from it. He leaves all the above mentioned institutions out of everything he's reporting (which you've agreed) and his whole point in going through history is to explain why the proletarian war against the bourgeoisie is unique, inevitable, and why it will finally lead to communism(1). This is my problem with his theory of history. I don't need to prove that his view of economic classes is inaccurate because I never claimed that they were.

(1)http://www.wsu.edu...

"Wait... How does Marx's view of history take awway your free choice? What?" If he uses his theory of history to spell out how he thinks a war between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie is inevitable (which you have not contested) and people swallow his version of what history predicts; how is that not molding the people into believing what he wants? If you would agree that it is, then it's ultimately Marx making the decisions and choices, not the proletariat involved.

"Anyway, economic relations tend to be the most important factor. It defines every other factor, and every other factor is related in. Religion keeps the oppressed masses rom revolting. The same with law, morality, etc. Whether you like it or not, everything comes back to money." That's a nice opinion, would you like to try and back it up or drop it? Also, what does that have to do with the problem I'm taking up with Marx's history lessons?

"Alright. Then we'll talk about what it actually does. You have, at no point, given any evidence where it serves to divide."

Communism really took hold (communism born of Marx's philosophy) after World War II… now, were people more united or were they more divided? So, what did it actually *serve* to accomplish so far? More division than unification. How is history not my aid in black and white to that end?

"You have given speculation after speculation."

You, sir – have given no proof of anything you've said and this whole debate from your end is nothing more than your opinion on a doctrine that you most likely haven't even read (With the delicious chaser of more of your backless opinions). You're exploiting the complexities of said doctrine and have narrowed this whole thing into a waste of time. Votes for you would simply be people taking your word for it and nothing more.

Furthremore!... Lol, I don't like you very much.
Geekis_Khan

Con

Geekis_Khan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by multislack 8 years ago
multislack
I do have to whip out a toy afterwards. I guess it's open to interpretation?
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
HaHa...

Well, I thought it was sarcasm...

Unless you really like when he URGES you to vote CON
Posted by multislack 8 years ago
multislack
Is this sarcasm?

This is totally 25 character or more.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
A clear Pro vote...

Anyway multislack, why are you hating on Geek? What's not to like about him URGING you to vote CON?
Posted by multislack 8 years ago
multislack
Being called on bullshit rhetoric is always embarassing. I would have left too if it became known that the only way I could win debates is by continuously begging for the voters to back me. BLABLABLA SEMANTICS BLABLABLA VOTE THIS WAY BLABLABLA OMG I'M NATIONALLY RANKED AND THEREFORE AM A MAST DEBATER.

Anyways...
Posted by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
I hope you don't take offense in that other debate, I wasn't trying to belittle you. I appreciate your intelligence and what you were after was unique as well. It's just, getting caught in that sort of thing is frustrating and I see it as undermining the original point as well.

Lol, I mean -- just look above ^ , you know?
Posted by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Yes, he still had his account six minutes before I posted here... He was enduring some criticism in another debate and he must be sensitive, cos seems he defended himself one last time and then closed his account for now.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
He either left or the site booted him.

Geekis_Khan still had his account yesterday...
Posted by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Did con just leave the site, then?
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
Need to read this one.

This comment is now over 25 characters.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
DoubleXMinusGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 8 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
DoubleXMinusGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
DoubleXMinusGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
DoubleXMinusGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
DoubleXMinusGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by multislack 8 years ago
multislack
DoubleXMinusGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
DoubleXMinusGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 8 years ago
GaryBacon
DoubleXMinusGeekis_KhanTied
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