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

The Marxist vision of a communist society is unrealistic and impossible.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,376 times Debate No: 61077
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I'll be arguing that the Marxist vision of a "true communist society" is unrealistic and impossible.
Round1: acceptance
Round2: debate


I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


The first thing wrong with Marxism is the idea of a moneyless society. This can't be implemented because trading goods and services is done much better with money than without if it was all gone trade and production would come to a grinding halt the economy of the world would cease to continue without money. Second a stateless society is a terrible idea because without any central authority no one would keep order or enforce laws which would lead to
Chaos and a power vacuum. These are just a few reasons why it's unrealistic and impossible.


Thank you again for presenting an interesting topic of debate. Now, on with the show-

Since Pro has not defined the terms used in his opening argument, I will take the liberty to define.

Con presents this definition for Marxism and Communist society: Marxism is composed only of explicit statements by Marx himself on his ideal society (as otherwise, we would be left with dozens of various variants and interpretations of "Marxism", ranging from Marx-Leninism to Maoism).

So, what did Marx say about his ideal Communist society? Let us first start by addressing the political system proposed by Marx: something he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat [1]" or as Engels, Marx's partner in the creation of the Communist Manifesto put it, "the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat [2]"

Would Pro, in saying that Marxist society is "without any central authority", mean that a democratic republic has no central authority or means of order? In any case, Marx was a firm proponent of democracy, as he saw it as the best avenue of ensuring the working class had control over their own work and livelihoods. Not to mention that Marx wanted a strong government run by the proletariat that would instate the "extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. [3]", all of which would require large amounts of central power. Therefore that point is refuted.

Next, let us examine the fiscal policy proposed by Marx, and the claim by Pro that a Marxist society would be money-less. Marx, in his work The Communist Manifesto, rather clearly writes there is to be "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly [4]", not complete dissolution of money. Therefore, that point is refuted.

As both of the Pro arguments have been refuted, the resolution "The Marxist vision of a communist society is unrealistic and impossible" is negated.

1. Section B of
2. A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891. Marx & Engels Collected Works Volume 27, p. 217. "If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat"
3,4. Pg. 26 The Communist Manifesto:
Debate Round No. 2


I lost this one I clearly need to look into socialist ideas and writings a bit more but I do hear the money less ,classless ,stateless thing from communists from time to time.


Thank you for being open minded- Karl Marx was a remarkable philosopher, and his works are still well studied today by many scholars.

Needless to say, academic Marxism (where interpretations of Marx's works are rigorously standardized) is rather different from your average Communist today, who most likely espouse some variant of Maoism or Marx-Leninism (or even Trotskysm once in a while).

Thanks again for an interesting debate- it was a honor-
Debate Round No. 3


leonitus2464 forfeited this round.


The resolution, "The Marxist vision of a communist society is unrealistic and impossible." is negated.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Marzism ALWAYS ends with firing sqads to eliminate those who won't follow the party rule.The soviet union and communist china are prime examples. Have you ever noticed that marzism always have to build fences to keep people in. While free market capitalism ( the earner of wealth decides where that wealth is to be spent)always have to limit those who want to come in and have to build fences to keep them out. I never see people rushing to communist countries to live.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - FF+ concession. Arguments - concession