The Instigator
BadKitty
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DoesThouHoisteth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The former Soviet Union was Capitalist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 514 times Debate No: 80137
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

BadKitty

Pro

Round 1 is acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
BadKitty

Pro

A lot of people today think that the former Soviet Union was in fact a communist regime. I would like to argue that it was in fact capitalist. State capitalist to be exact.

Under actual communism all the people of Russia would have equal access to resources and opportunity. In fact the opposite is true. Resources and opportunity were held and controlled by a private class of individuals.

A capitalist is someone who assumes control over what is produced, when its produced, , how its going to be produced, and the means in which resources are distributed to those under his control (employment).

USSR was in fact a state capitalist. A capitalist who controlled all means of production and beat out the competition (as is any capitalist's goal) by eliminating the right to vote. Every capitalist loves a monopoly.

There was nothing "communist" about the USSR. Thank you
DoesThouHoisteth

Con

"Under actual communism all the people of Russia would have equal access to resources and opportunity."
This is a falsity. In the absence of the price mechanism to allocate resources in an economy, an elite group of decision makers must allocate those resources. Thus communism, instead of diffusing power, concentrates power into the hands of the elite decision makers. Compared to the price mechanism, these decision makers are clumsy ie they cannot be aware of the needs of every single state owned firm nor have the knowledge to judge what those firms need. This inefficiency is the main source of poverty in socialistic states.

Your right in saying "Resources and opportunity were held and controlled by a private class of individuals." Yes indeed, by the elite government bureaucrats. The USSR was not state capitalist because there was no price mechanism, no competition, resources were allocated by GOVERNMENT.

You are playing semantics by merging definitions into a word salad.
Debate Round No. 2
BadKitty

Pro

" In the absence of the price mechanism to allocate resources in an economy, an elite group of decision makers must allocate those resources."

This is not "communism" this is "state capitalism" aka Monopoly . Everything a capitalist loves. I am not switching terms. You are calling communism an ideology where one class has power over another. If you actually read Karl Marx you would know he is against class warfare. There is nothing communist about the USSR. Power was at the hands of a few "Employers aka capitalists" and the masses got nothing communal.

There is nothing communist about "Communist Russia". There was nothing communal about it. That is why it is state capitalist. The state is the boss and the people are the workers from which there is no "quitting" because the state capitalistic Russia had a monopoly on labor and the job market.

You are calling communism something that it is not. You have no understanding of what that term means it would appear.
DoesThouHoisteth

Con

Communism: A society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Capitalism implies a price mechanism is allocating resources. State capitalism is thus an oxy moron, a word constructed by the left to imply capitalism in a word salad. What you are describing is merely the government owning the means of productions; a state owned enterprise. There is nothing capitalistic about it. In soviet Russia, the state did not have a monopoly over all goods and services; it OWNED IT.

"Employers aka capitalists." Capitalists are people who believe in the capitalist economy so your equation is false. A person who believes in capitalism (a so called capitalist) could be anyone; an employee, employer etc. You are again substituting irrelevant words into a word sandwich.

"There was nothing communal about it"
OF COURSE THEIR WASN'T. The non bureaucrats were all EQUALLY poor and the government bureaucrats held all the power.
Debate Round No. 3
BadKitty

Pro

"There is nothing capitalistic about it. In soviet Russia, the state did not have a monopoly over all goods and services; it OWNED IT."

Which is what a monopoly is! My opponent clearly has no idea what he is talking about as he doesn't know the definition of English terms.

I would like to think, at think point, I have proven my case but my opponent clearly has zero demonstration of understanding that, words have meanings and he/she doesn't get to change them as he/she likes.

I normally don't like to go out of the way to insult my opponent, as I believe everyone has the right to be an imbecile but you my friend, abuse that privilege.

In conclusion it is clear there was nothing Communal or Communist about the USSR. Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave if you think that is communism. Instead my opponent decides to live on fantasy island of his/her own definitions.

In conclusion "The former Soviet Union was Capitalist" and state capitalist at that. Thank you and have a good day!
DoesThouHoisteth

Con

Don't resort to Ad hominem attacks and PHONY OUTRAGE.

If resources are not allocated by the price mechanism than it is not a capitalist system

You are describing state owned enterprises and trying say their somehow capitalist.

A monopoly and ownership are different. In the soviet union the government has ownership over the means of production. In a capitalist economy most sectors are competitive and monopolies by the private sector are rare. A monopoly in the private sector of a capitalist economy is not the same as owning that sector.

"There was nothing Communal or Communist about the USSR"
Just because the USSR failed to achieve its expected results, economic equality, does not mean it was not communism.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STATE CAPITALIST. A state owned enterprise is not capitalistic as there is no price mechanism allocating resources. What you may be trying to articulate is crony capitalism such as what is occurring in America because of big government.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Topher1989 2 years ago
Topher1989
I'm going to give conduct points to con for keeping his cool despite pro's accusatory statements. Con said: "In conclusion it is clear there was nothing Communal or Communist about the USSR. Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave if you think that is communism. Instead my opponent decides to live on fantasy island of his/her own definitions." Simply stating why con was wrong would suffice. This statement is rude and unnecessary. And this comment was intended to insult. Pro maintained his composure while firmly defending himself and asking con to not use such accusatory language and tactics.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Capital is the means of production. We have fixed capital (tools), working capital (raw materials), human capital (the pursuit of), capital in the sense of assets (the storage of wealth) as in property, food, money, and intangible skills, and political capital (the production of public influence).
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net...

Since the wealth of a nation depends on its capital, the means of production, where most citizens produce something, the question becomes, are not all the different types of government essentially capitalistic? The difference is, ownership and control of the capital.

Any form of governance claiming total ownership and control of the nation's capital, that includes human capital, not only results in distress markets throughout the ages, but also, places their citizens in bondage (slavery) to the government, for example, Communism.
Posted by BillyBobbyIII 2 years ago
BillyBobbyIII
Communism: A society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Stalinism: the ideology and policies adopted by Stalin, based on centralization, totalitarianism, and the pursuit of communism.
-any rigid centralized authoritarian form of communism.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the "state".

Capitalism is not capitalism if it is controlled by the state.

If my memory does not fail me, I'd say it wasn't communism but was more government facilitated socialism. It's kinda grey but it doesn't quite fit capitalism's requirements.
No votes have been placed for this debate.