The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
Mikegj1077
Con (against)
Losing
40 Points

The concept (ideally) of communism is more beneficial to its people than that of capitalism.

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: 2/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,315 times Debate No: 2383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (25)

 

Yraelz

Pro

Communism is greater than capitalism. It helps its citizens in ways capitalism never can. Care to disagree? Give me your points.
Mikegj1077

Con

I am so flabbergasted at your debate position, I fainted. Please give me 24 hours to collect my thoughts and I will reply. Don't go away…
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

Sweet so... Ideal communism.

Government controls all the means of production.

This takes away from competition. For instance right now in our society we may have anywhere from 2 to 20 companies all competing for the same thing. This is highly inefficient.

This control allows a communist government to produce anything more efficiently.

For instance if we look at our current system of competition. We can see that 5 companies may all be attempting to market the same product. In a communism its only the government with the money of all 5 companies. So now instead of wasting money due to competition we can save that money and use it elsewhere.

This efficiency in turn would allow a communist government to dominate the market.

What country with competing technology sectors could possibly compete with a country that can develop new technology with the efficiency of a communism? A communism doesn't have to deal with the competition, it can focus on developing new technologies.

A communism would promote new technologies.

Where as in our current quasi-capitalistic system people are told from day one that the American dream is to get rich under the ideal communist system people would instead wish to help their community. Under a communism the number one goal is to further the community, as to help the community is in turn to help oneself. Any cut in production costs within the community is more money the government can use. People in a communist system will do what they can to promote societal welfare.

A communism would grant its people all of the necessities of life for free.

Food, water, transportation, education, housing, electricity, clothing all free. The necessities would all be run by government and given to the people for free.

Excess money would be used for two things.

A. Given back to the people. It wouldn't even have to be in the form of money, perhaps even token or tickets would work. An equal number for each person that could be used to get luxuries beyond the necessities of life. Restaurants, pets, fancy furniture, PS3 etc..... Everyone has the same allowance, so it comes down to who you are and what you want.

B. Put back into the production in order to develop new ideas. This in turn is used to compete with other countries and pull ahead of them. Leading to the communist government being the worlds #1 most efficient producer in many fields. Thus it is cheaper to buy things from the communist government. Communist government then gets more money which can be used for two things. (Sound familiar?)

I stand open for your contention so that I may rebuttal it.
Mikegj1077

Con

"Government controls all the means of production."

What production? Five women wearing babushkas fighting over a turnip?

"This takes away from competition…have anywhere from 2 to 20 companies all competing for the same thing. This is highly inefficient."

Actually the reverse is the case. Competition breeds efficiency. The less efficient production methods eventually lose out, unlike government, which sustains inefficiency. There's no direct market feedback, no correction, no penalty for bad decisions.

"This control allows a communist government to produce anything more efficiently."

Competition also spawns innovation. You never see new technology from the commies.

"For instance if we look at our current system of competition. We can see that 5 companies may all be attempting to market the same product. In a communism its only the government with the money of all 5 companies. So now instead of wasting money due to competition we can save that money and use it elsewhere."

How does the government determine which production method or product is best without prior competition?

"This efficiency in turn would allow a communist government to dominate the market."

Commie run governments never dominate the market without using slave labor and poor, dangerous working conditions.

"A communism would promote new technologies."

It's obvious that is not true.

"Under a communism the number one goal is to further the community…promote societal welfare."

Number one goal is to hold on to power. Government-industry relations are incredibly corrupt with pay-offs, bribes, a recipe designed more to sustain power than find the most efficient production methods.

"A communism would grant its people all of the necessities of life for free."

Liberty? Freedom of speech and of religion? Timely healthcare services? I've never seem an example of that.

"Excess money would be used for two things…."

To increase military spending and line the pockets of the elites in the politburo.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

Time for my last speech. Thrilling!

I'll be responding to your points 1 by 1 and then I will summarize.

"Actually the reverse is the case. Competition breeds efficiency. The less efficient production methods eventually lose out, unlike government, which sustains inefficiency. There's no direct market feedback, no correction, no penalty for bad decisions."

>>Three things.

1). You're still competing on a world market, thus there is still competition. Your market has to shape itself in order to compete with other competitors in the world market. However it can do this more efficiently because, like I said, the money isn't split between 8 companies of which half are going bankrupt because the other half are running them out of business.

2). Also all things become more efficient with time. People find quicker ways of doing thing, they find easier way to do things, they develop new technology to make the job easier. While competition is a source of efficiency it is not the end all. There are other ways to become efficient.

3). Competition has its drawbacks. Ever read The Jungle? Do you realize what our meat industry is like at this point in time? People cut corners to make their products cost less. This kind of competition can lead to unsafe products which in turn danger human lives. Human lives outweigh effeciency.

"Competition also spawns innovation. You never see new technology from the commies."

>>Uhhh... Russia? Weren't they competing for world leader with us at one point? Cuba? #1 health system in the world? But no, these are not ideal communisms by far. So two points.

1). How many famous scientists do you know also happen to be filthy rich? I can't think back in history and name very many. It obviously wasn't the money scientists were going for when they decided to invent something, or come up with a new theory. It was their own personal drive to do something that they found interesting. This is the benefit of ideal communism. Each person does what they most nearly would like to do. Yes there are a lot of people who don't particularly have an aspiration and wouldn't mind being the laundry guy for 8 hours a day as long as they were getting payed as much as everyone else, however there are also the people who are interested in advanced physics, chemistry, science, that would enjoy spending their time inventing things. Ideal communism is the most conducive to anybody attempting to develop new technology.

2). Once again instead of having 8 different companies all compete for the same goal we instead have the combined wealth of all 8 that the communism can use to fund developing new technologies. 8x the power of a normal company, just as much motivation to do it (have to beat the rest of the world). Communism has the resources to do this above any other government type.

"How does the government determine which production method or product is best without prior competition?"

>>Three points, three methods.

1). History wouldn't be bad, look to other countries, see what they do/have done best.

2). There is competition globally, if our product doesn't sell well obviously it is not best, we need to change something.

3). Are the people happy? If the people are not happy perhaps the products the communist government is giving them are not up to par.

"Commie run governments never dominate the market without using slave labor and poor, dangerous working conditions."

>>We're talking ideal communism hear, not the communist governments of the past. Notice I specifically put ideal in the resolution. If you didn't want to argue ideals then don't bother taking the debate.

"Number one goal is to hold on to power. Government-industry relations are incredibly corrupt with pay-offs, bribes, a recipe designed more to sustain power than find the most efficient production methods."

>>Once again you are applying your opinion to past examples of "communist" governments. This has no ground in our current debate. My ideal communism would have to start out small with people who agreed that the government was the best type. It takes a mildly different approach to life than your quasi-capitalism. Instead of getting rich being instilled as the country dream, benefiting society as a whole would be the #1 dream.

This is probably the point where you are going to say people are inherently selfish, and always want to be wealthy and the government has nothing to do with people wanting to get rich. I disagree let me show you a couple of other things the government has told you are good and have swayed your opinion.

1. Get rich, American dream.
2. Marry young, have kids, support your wife, it would be shameful if you didn't.
3. Go to school.
4. Go to college.
5. Get a job after school, pay for yourself, get rich.

While I do not think all of the above things are particularly bad they are all good examples of ways in which our society has influenced us. Ideal communism would help some of these, would change others.

1. Help society, be happy, Communist dream.
2. Marry whenever, everyone has a fine standard of living, you don't have to support anyone (monetarily).
3. Go to school, its free.
4. Go to college, its also free.
5. Get a job you want, enjoy yourself doing it, benefit society. Society will in turn benefit you.

So, in summary. In ideal communism each person is influenced by society, much like in our current system, to believe that helping others is a greater goal. Thus the societal norm, the societally excepted thing to do, is to benefit society. Money is not an issue as everyone has a high standard of living to begin with. Thus the system works.

"Liberty? Freedom of speech and of religion? Timely healthcare services? I've never seem an example of that. "

>>Once again your are going off examples not ideals. Liberty is fine. Freedom of speech and of religion is also fine. Timely health care service, definitely.

The number one thing you need to remember though is that this country works on the idea that its citizens support it. If the citizens do not like it, or feel that some form of their liberties are being denied them they have the ability to leave.

However in a system where everyone has a high standard of living. Free education, and can basically choose what job they would like. I see not a great deal of reasons why anyone would bother complaining.

"To increase military spending and line the pockets of the elites in the politburo."

>>Past examples, not ideal. Why would an ideal communism need a military spending? Happy people don't normally invade other people or so I've noticed. Also, what elites are you talking about!? In a system where everyone has the same benefits its a little hard to have elites. In the sense you are speaking of anyways.

So now onto the major benefit of communism.

My opponent spends his entire last speech talking about money and the problems with it. However the benefit of communism don't just entail money, they also have to do with the standard of living. Communism allows for everyone to coexist at a high standard of living. Unlike modern day America where 90% of the wealth belongs to 1% of the population. Instead in ideal communism 90% of the wealth belongs to 90% of the population. This is the largest benefit of communism, it stops people from being in poverty, it prevents deaths. In present day America people die because of greed, this to me is unacceptable.

Thanks, ready for your last speech.
Mikegj1077

Con

On the global market, higher standards of living are at odds with competition. A Honduran woman making 25 cents a day rolling cigars would help her company dominate the market, yet her standard of living would be poor. When worker clamor for higher wages, better working conditions and health benefits, all this acts to suppress their international competitiveness. The unions have destroyed to auto industry in this country, while arguing for higher wages and benefits for its workers--which they got till they lost their jobs, and eventually their benefits. Companies don't run each other out of business. Less competitive companies lose out, as they should. Who runs the inefficient government run businesses out of business? No one. The tax payer is forced to subsidize them.

"2). Also all things become more efficient with time. People find quicker ways of doing thing, they find easier way to do things, they develop new technology to make the job easier…."

Not true. All government run enterprises become inefficient over time. There is no penalty for failure.

"3). Competition has its drawbacks. Ever read The Jungle? Do you realize what our meat industry is like at this point in time? People cut corners to make their products cost less. This kind of competition can lead to unsafe products..."

I don't accept that premise. Only a capitalist country has the financial resources to enforce safe food handling, and even cure the people who slip through the cracks and get sick. We have a legal system that will ensure a high price will be paid for negligence where illness or injury result. Most government run enterprises enjoy blanket immunity from such law suits.

"Uhhh... Russia? Weren't they competing for world leader with us at one point? Cuba? #1 health system in the world? But no, these are not ideal communisms by far. So two points."

Russia has never come close to competing with us in anything, except chess and large rocket boosters. Once we got into the game, we left them in the dust. Cuba's health care is OK if all you want are anal exams and free pills (invented in America). Try to get life saving cardiac surgery or cancer treatment in a timely fashion, if at all. Canada is a perfect example of government run health care. They send their patients here.

"1). How many famous scientists do you know also happen to be filthy rich? I can't think back in history and name very many. It obviously wasn't the money scientists were going for when they decided to invent something…"

Then why do we have all these patent lawyers running around? Who are they representing? Not every scientist is filthy rich because new and useful innovations are becoming harder to find. You will have me believe that the scientists who find a cure for AIDS or cancer will not seek to patent their discovery? How about cold fusion, which would eliminate overnight our energy needs? Think that group might want something big in return? You know they would.

"Each person does what they most nearly would like to do."

Here is where your idealism is false on its face. I want to be a rock star or brain surgeon. Since I don't have the aptitude to do either, I may end up in a muddy ditch or in a field picking tomatoes. I doubt you could find too many in those jobs who like what they are doing, even if that's all they're qualified to do. Want to be brain surgeon instead of a D.O.? Why spend 6 more years in medical school if they both make the same money? You lose on insisting on a wacky ideal precept. You are slipping off the idealism high chair again. Let me prop you back up since at this point you can't determine the difference between the floor and your seat. What you're saying above is that there is an equal offset of talent and ambition such that both jobs will be filled by people who are at least moderately content to be where they are, and no one is sufficiently malcontented to the point where they would agitate for unions or quit and move to America? Where did you get the equal offset so everything fits in so nicely or ideally? People enjoy making money, not inventing things. You continue to misstate human behavior to fit a flawed model. Another ideal premise you've gotten backwards.).

One major reason for the existence of anti-trust laws in this country is limit the ability of large monopolies to squeeze off competition. Monopolies stifle innovation (which cost the company money) and allow for consumer cost increases. As far as motivation, that only comes from the pursuit of the almighty dollar, something that correlates directly with ambition, not the self-satisfaction at inventing something.

"History wouldn't be bad, look to other countries, see what they do/have done best….There is competition globally, if our product doesn't sell well obviously it is not best, we need to change something."

Other countries look here for examples of success. Best? That's a foggy term. Price is a factor. Does this product have lead in it? If so, I may be willing to put up with it if the price is right and a don't eat the dish after I consume the food in it. I'll give you half a point here. Idealism neutral (I'm being generous).

"Are the people happy? If the people are not happy perhaps the products the communist government is giving them are not up to par."

And if they are really unhappy they'll risk their lives, as they've since WW2, in streaking the mine fields and jump the razor wire. A few may even chance the 90 miles of shark infested water on a raft to get to Miami. Others took the controls of our abandoned helicopters and landed in the water next to our navel vassals in 1975. Millions never got past the long ditches they were shot into under Pol Pot. Lot's of choices. But I know. That was not pure communism, just communism in its half-as sed form.

"We're talking ideal communism hear, not the communist governments of the past. Notice I specifically put ideal in the resolution. If you didn't want to argue ideals then don't bother taking the debate."

What's your communist government of the future? You are a lazy debater. Your concept of communism only works if it's never implemented. Therefore, you don't have to reply to examples of communism's failures. Ideal communism is exactly what I have been arguing against. Your ideal communist model has been implemented over the years. Upon implementation, it immediately begins to fail: The scientist working on a new propulsion system for a new generation jet fighter starts to slack and thinks of other ways to make money, even thinking the unthinkable: taking his expertise and life accomplishments and defecting to the west where his skills will be rewarded. Our scientist's boss understands what is going on and begins an increment of incentives in various forms. The way the ideal commies address this is by a mix of threats and under-the-table stipends which will bring our bright scientist up to par with his western counter part, and make him feel he is being appreciated, or dead if he tries to bolt. None of this is ever spoken. But everyone knows the deal. Capitalism is self-correcting, either by occasional intervention by the government in the form of anti-trust law, or by the free market.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
an ideal situation is always by definition the best
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
An ideal divorced from reality is not a good ideal- it is a floating abstraction and thus inideal.
Posted by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
the key here is that the debate is about the idea and not the implementation.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Benefits to society = benefits to the individual.
""
Government controls all the means of production.
"
Contradiction. Everything is ultimately part of the means of production of something. Including human bodies. Slavery is not a benefit.

"Quakers and other small groups already have this happening. Yes, yes I can.
"

The concept of communism does not entail religous fanatics of the sort that voluntarily associate like this. It entails force last I checked.

And I haven't seen that much production out of your average commune.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
"That's an absurdity, because the supposed benefits to "society as a whole" cannot be known."

>>Benefits to society = benefits to the individual.

"You cannot motivate people in the manner you describe."

>>Quakers and other small groups already have this happening. Yes, yes I can.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"It takes a mildly different approach to life than your quasi-capitalism. Instead of getting rich being instilled as the country dream, benefiting society as a whole would be the #1 dream."
"

That's an absurdity, because the supposed benefits to "society as a whole" cannot be known. The only happiness an individual is capable of enjoying (capable of knowing as such) is their own, the servitude of all to all is not an ideal but a mockery of ideals based on a mockery of reality. You cannot motivate people in the manner you describe.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Start with this paragraph:

"Once again you are applying your opinion to past examples of "communist" governments. This has no ground in our current debate. My ideal communism would have to start out small with people who agreed that the government was the best type. It takes a mildly different approach to life than your quasi-capitalism. Instead of getting rich being instilled as the country dream, benefiting society as a whole would be the #1 dream."

ending with this one:

"So, in summary. In ideal communism each person is influenced by society, much like in our current system, to believe that helping others is a greater goal. Thus the societal norm, the societally excepted thing to do, is to benefit society. Money is not an issue as everyone has a high standard of living to begin with. Thus the system works."

That entire section is addressing your motivational issue.

You can fight ideals with ideals Kleptin. =)
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
This debate is invalid. An ideal ANYTHING would win over anything else.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Also, "mindless worker" is a contradiction in the modern world :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Plus, I would argue that in a capitalism, ideally or no, you are a wage slave, you do what the job wants, or you lose or job and therefore your income, which...You become a mindless worker, selling your labour to a company that cares nothing about you and only provides good working conditions because it is the law and the GOVERNMENT makes them do it.
"

You are ignoring the fact that a. the self employed exist. b. You choose which company to work for if you do not employ yourself, and c. you have no clue whatsoever the word capitalism means if you think the government can "make" people provide certain working conditions in it. The reason for providing good working conditions- is to recruit good workers. If a government mandates working conditions, it is not capitalism. It is socialism (communism being one variant of it) or keynesianism (a state of war between government and producer that the government happens to be winning.).

And yraelz, I see nothing whatsoever you are talking about. Quote these supposed paragraphs, I don't see them in your argument. Unless there's an ignoratio elenchi here?
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 7 years ago
kristoffersayshi
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Ithuwakaga 8 years ago
Ithuwakaga
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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 THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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 Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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 
Vote Placed by OyVey 9 years ago
OyVey
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
YraelzMikegj1077Tied
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