The Instigator
labarum
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
DjakobUnchained
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The communist experiment

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...
labarum
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 777 times Debate No: 55060
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

labarum

Pro

Many have argued that nations such as the USSR and China were not true communist states and that if a new nation were to try communism again, they would experience different positive results. For this debate we will apply the scientific method in seeing if this at all likely. Con will be arguing that if a new attempt at communism were to take place that it most likely be a success.
DjakobUnchained

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate possible and am looking forward to a good clean fight. The USSR and China were dictatorships and as such are not true to the ideals of a great workers paradise. If done correctly, I would wager, a communist nation could be not only a success but a utopia.
Debate Round No. 1
labarum

Pro

Lets start off by saying that every government in the history of mankind has been an experiment. The experiment was to try and create a working and stable form of government that would benefit the people. Now obviously this has not always been the case and many have failed. One such experiment was communism in Russia. The hypothesis was that if communist leaders were put into power with the intentions of creating a perfect communist society that it would be so. This is what communists predicted would happen. Communist leaders with the intentions of creating a perfect communist society were put into place in Russia and the beginning of the tests began. The Russian experiment lasted for 74 years and the results of the experiment were stark different to what the hypothesis predicted would happen. Instead of creating a communist utopia, as promised by the creators Marx and Engels, what was created was a totalitarian regime that killed millions. However, as with all proper experiments it must be tested numerous times to see if the results are consistent. Other tests were carried out in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, and south America. In all, 26 nations have experimented into communism under the same hypothesis and all nations have received the same results. A totalitarian regime that has killed anywhere from thousands, to millions. Because the hypothesis is different to the results, does that mean that the results must be wrong? No, the hypothesis is often times different to the actual results because it was only a prediction. A conclusion of such an experiment is then drawn form the results of the experiment. However, some communists would argue that the reason why these nations all had the same results was because of the Soviet presence in the world. In order to see what a communist state would look like without the Soviet Union we must look at the very first communist state, the Paris Commune. This was the first attempt ever at a communist society in Paris. Not only did it lack the Soviet presence but it also had at the time a living Karl Marx and Engels. The Paris Commune lasted 72 days and managed to kill 12,000 people and destroy 1/3 of Paris. Every time communism has been experimented it has proven the exact same results. We can now draw the conclusion that communism when implemented by governments will prove only to create totalitarian murderous regime even when the leaders have the intentions and of creating a utopia.
DjakobUnchained

Con

DjakobUnchained forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
labarum

Pro

are generally giving up or have you just forgotten?
DjakobUnchained

Con

DjakobUnchained forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
labarum

Pro

this has been rather depressing
DjakobUnchained

Con

DjakobUnchained forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
'in favor of learning a more broad basis of how to deal with their collective and individual struggles'*
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
@labarum

Anarcho-syndicalism isn't exactly its own type of communism. If anything, it is a strategy to implement communism just like vanguardism.

Vanguardism is the idea that a master theorist or wise-man is elected (although elections of individuals to power is incredibly anti-socialist) by a majority within a party. This 'vanguard' then educates the proletariat class (which, in the mind of a Leninist, for some reason is incapable of intelligence through free will), and converts them to what is supposedly the 'true socialist school of thought' (which is possibly the most retarded thing I've ever heard). Which is basically a top-down strategy.

Anarcho-syndicalism on the other hand, is more bottom-up. Workers would organize with others who agree with their principles, starting with local groups. These groups would then evolve into larger ones as more workers are recruited.

However, the point isn't to recruit all the workers, it is to organize mass meetings for all workers involved in each struggle so that they [said workers] retain control. Whilst in these mass meetings, the workers (anarcho-syndicalists) would argue on the principles of solidarity, direct action, and self-organization. No leaders are involved whatsoever, all parties rely on the idea that one shouldn't ever convert to a single persons point of view. In favor of learning a more broad basis of their own collective struggles (self-organization).

As for a system of communism that would not require a vanguard, anarcho-communism is the ideal choice. Since it favors anarcho-syndicalism as it's strategy. While also focusing on coinciding the social struggle between the individual and the collective.

Also, the vanguard is supposed to step down as soon as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (or communism: a stateless, classless, moneyless society) has been implemented. However, the vanguard obviously won't step down, nor will they actually create this society.
Posted by labarum 3 years ago
labarum
Chimera, you are right that the term Vanguardism was not conceptualized by Marx or Engels, but the idea was pitched by the men. It didn't really matter what it was called so long as the general idea was fulfilled

The vanguard seems to me as more of a means to an end. The leaders of the vanguard would be the fore front leaders of a communist revolution and would be necessary in order to organize and opposition to the ruling party of what ever nation that said revolution is taking place in. With out leadership, ever revolution is doomed to fail, therefore, the vanguard is necessary for any communist society to exist. Perhaps after a revolution it can be dispersed for the so called " dictatorship of the proletariat", but it is necessary for some time. From the communist ideologies that I have studied thus far ( Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Kruchevism, Syndicalism, and Anarcho-syndicalism) all with the exception to Anarcho- syndicalism have spoken of the need for the vanguard, and unless Anarcho-syndicalists plan to start their leadership on a different planet then they to would require a vanguard in order to overthrow the old system. What form of communism does not require a vanguard at any point? Also, you are right that communism has never really failed, but every attempt at it has.

.
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
I can admit that the paragraph that you posted can be interpreted as vanguardism, and I can admit when i'm wrong. I was wrong about it not being traditional Marxist doctrine, my apologies.

However, the term itself wasn't conceptualized by Marx, and the idea was only popularized when Lenin was on the rise in Russia.

Also, vanguardism isn't an idea that is supported by all communists. All vanguardism is, is a strategy of many that can be employed to help a socialist/capitalist society evolve into a stateless, classless, moneyless society (that of course being a communist society).

This idea [vanguardism] also goes against Marx's idea of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', that usually being interpreted as a direct/consensus democracy.

Even as a communist, I don't necessarily agree with Marx on everything. He wasn't even really a communist philosopher (in fact, about 95% of his works are actually on capitalism).

However, the point is that communism never really 'failed', all of it's strategies were just not really given fair chances (due to obvious reasons).
Posted by labarum 3 years ago
labarum
Chimera, you seem to be providing either incomplete or simply over used and flawed answers.

First off, the " vanguard party system" is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, known as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies. This is literally, what the vanguard is.

With that being said, the vanguard is about as Marxist as you can get! It is even hinted at in the communist manifesto.

" The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."- had to dig it out of my old trunk to quote it word for word.

But anyways, the vanguard party is traditional Marxist doctrine.

I will finish my other shpeel in a different comment
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
What Pro is failing to take into account is that the 'Russian Experiment' went far off from traditional Marxist doctrine by using the 'vanguard party' system.

As for the Paris Commune, so many people were killed because it was in the middle of a war (the Franco-Prussian war to be precise). Paris was destroyed by the Prussians because they literally burned down about half the city to terrorize the inhabitants into submission. Not only that, but the Prussian Army was much larger and had highly organized troops.

Also, no country has ever been 'communist'. There is no such thing as a 'communist' country. Communism is the state of a society being stateless, classless, and moneyless. The implementation of the system has only been conducted (poorly, if I might add). True, it is a Leninist idea that a party of individuals should control the affairs of the country to move it through all stages necessary for communism. However, not all communists are Leninists. There are many different methods of evolving economics to form a communist society. Only one method (the vanguard party) has been tested, and it has shown to fail. This doesn't mean communism is a flawed idea in it's , just that some of it's revisions are flawed.
Posted by Euruthj.me 3 years ago
Euruthj.me
The scientific method is a way to apply empirical evidence to an observation. Communism is an Ideal out of a book of philosophies and assumptions. Is science really the weapon you want to use against a symbol?

I don't see how this could possibly go well, but OP asked for it. This should be interesting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
labarumDjakobUnchainedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited R 2, 3, & 4. This is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting, because of this, Con loses conduct points. S & G - Tie. Neither made any major grammatical or spelling errors. Arguments - Pro. Con dropped the entire arguments. Pro had the burden of proof and upheld that burden by stating his case and having it remain unchallenged. For this, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. Word of advice for Pro: If you ever find yourself in this situation again you can simply type in "extend all arguments" as they remain unchallenged by your opponent due to him forfeiting the response round. Best of luck to you both in future debates!