What is a more successful form of government-Communism(pro) or Capitalism (con)
Debate Rounds (3)
3.free enterprise allows more monetary growth.
3 rules. NO profanity. you MUST list your sources. WIKIPEDIA is not allowed in this debate(can be edited by the public)
Considering the fact that capitalism isn't a form of government, communism is obviously the only option. Capitalism is an economic system. You've never heard of a 'capitalist' political party, because capitalism isn't a form of government. Communism is a socioeconomic system, meaning that it is a governmental and economic system. Since you are advocating capitalism as a form of government, which isn't real, there's not really any ground for you to stand on.
Definition of Capitalism: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Definition of Communism: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
II. We see in communist country's examples of poor living conditions, poor economy, as well as a dictatorship usually suppressing people's certain rights. I will compare 2 country's - the most capitalistic (United States of America) and the most communist( USSR ) ever.
a) poor living conditions. In communist Russia, there were very poor living conditions. "Housing remained a great problem for Stalin"s Russia. In Moscow, only 6% of households had more than one room. Those apartments that were put up quickly, were shoddy by western standards. In was not unusual for flat complexes to be built without electric sockets despite electricity being available - building firms were simply not used to such things."
And even after Stalin. "Throughout nearly all of the Soviet period, urban housing was in critically short supply relative to the needs of the population. The intensive industrialization and urbanization of the USSR in the twentieth century put enormous pressure on existing housing stock, and the Soviet government did not begin to prioritize adequate housing until the late 1950s. At the time of the Revolution in 1917, eighty percent of the population of Russia (and a higher percent in the rest of the USSR) lived in rural villages and towns. By the 1990s, nearly the same percentage was urban. This represents a dramatic shift from country to city, relative to other nations of the world.
Poverty and privation drove people from the countryside, while Soviet official industrialization campaigns encouraged (and sometimes forced) their movement to cities. From the 1920s into the 1950s, a significant number of Soviet families lived in communal apartments, while many lived in worse conditions in barracks or "dormitories" (mass housing for workers). For many families, gaining a room in a communal apartment represented a step up in their housing, especially if they found themselves in the most desirable cities of Moscow or Leningrad. Like Iraida Yakovlevna from "A Room for Her Daughter," many people without housing, especially people from the rural areas, tried to get work as janitors so as to gain a room in the city. In the Soviet Union, housing in cities belonged to the government. It was distributed by municipal authorities or by government departments based on an established number of square meters per person. As a rule, tenants had no choice in the housing they were offered. Rent and payment for communal services like water and electricity did not form a significant part of a family's budget. They did not cover the real costs, and were subsidized by the government.
People's access to housing was like their access to consumer goods in that it depended on their position in society and their place of work. Often, housing (the so-called "department housing") was provided by the workplace. Administrative control over housing and the movement of citizens was carried out by means of the residency permit.
In cities right up to the 1970s, most families lived in a single room in a communal apartment, where they suffered from overcrowding and had little hope of improving their situation. A comparative minority of people lived in "private" apartments or still lived in dormitories and barracks. Although as far back as the 1930s, a private apartment for each family was declared a goal of Soviet housing policy, large-scale construction was begun only at the end of the 1950s. Extensive construction of low-quality five-story concrete-block buildings, dubbed "Khrushchevki," (or "Khrushcheby," which rhymes with the Russian word "trushchoby, " meaning slums), mitigated the situation to some degree. (We've translated this word as "Khrushchev housing" when it comes up in clips.) Nevertheless, the declared goal was not met, even in the 1980s when high-rise projects with private apartments became the main form of city housing. At that time, some cities, including Leningrad, had almost a third of its citizens "on the housing list.' "
Meanwhile the United States suffered minimal poverty besides during the gulf war and 9/11/01 terrorist attacks in NYC.
The USSR government was also extremely aggressive toward groups that did not share the views the state did. From authors and poets who refused to write glorifying the USSR (and later were imprisoned) to religious groups (Christian, Jew, Muslim). Many Jews and Christians were badly and unjustly treated during the 1900s in Russia-"The Jewish population suffered severe discrimination in the postwar years. The crackdown on Jewish community life intensified as the teaching of Hebrew was prohibited, the Yiddish theater was abolished, Yiddish publications were suspended, hundreds of Jewish leaders were arrested (1948), and Yiddish writers were imprisoned. Twenty-four of the more prominent leaders and writers in the USSR were executed after a secret trial in August 1952. In 1953 Joseph Stalin's persecutions came to a head with the so-called doctors' plot, in which nine doctors, six of them Jewish, were accused of conspiring with Western powers to poison Soviet leaders. Thousands of Jews were removed from official posts, particularly from the armed forces and security services, and their role in the Communist Party was reduced. In higher educational institutions quotas were imposed on the numbers of Jewish students admitted.
After Stalin's death the situation for individual Jews improved somewhat, but the assimilatory campaign and repression of Jewish culture and religion continued. Anti-Semitism in the guise of "anti-Zionism" became part of Soviet internal and foreign policy. Soviet Ukrainian educational institutions were also used in this campaign; for example, the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR in 1963 published T. Kichko's anti-Semitic pamphlet, Judaism without Embellishment. Only about 60 synagogues survived into the 1980s in the USSR, and, of these, more than half were in Georgia."
Muslims were also oppressed (decrease of Tatars in Crimea) (Arab wars in 1980s) as well as many other religous groups.
In America, religious freedom was upheld and led to an increase in the Muslim and Jewish population (America was already a Christian nation) and America (the capitalist country) also America grew stronger while the USSR collapsed.
Thank you for your time and for participating in this debate.
warren42 forfeited this round.
The Capitalist Party of Georgia wants to offer the people of Georgia an alternative to the two major political parties who are entrenched in such a bureaucratic government mindset, that they can no longer proclaim a credible belief in smaller, less intrusive government, much less implement such an agenda.
The Capitalist Party of Georgia can and will implement an agenda that gives you the freedom to succeed by tearing down the political walls that government builds on a daily basis to deny or restrict your economic freedom. We want America to be the best in everything, but that can only occur if you, not government, are empowered with the political freedom to achieve economic freedom and independence."" And also libertarianism is according to various web sites a capitalist party.
So really I can argue that capitalism is a "form of government" but, instead I will continue to show communism for what it really is. Their were over 100 million people that died because of communist prisons, camps, soldiers, and government, all because they were ordained "enemy's of the state". Communism puts to much power in the hands of so few people. All the rest of the people have to deal with it. Usually, only 6% of the apartments/barracks/living spaces had more than one room for an entire family. Capitalism is better because it allows people to provide for their families based on their creativity, knowledge, and determination to work. Communism is worse because no matter how hard you work, you will always get the same-unless you are a powerful member of the communist political party. For the citizens of the communist country, this mindset--no matter how hard you work, you will always get the same, unless you are a powerful member of the communist political party--gives them less hope and less determination to work. Capitalism really brings more creativity and ideas to the table.
I hope my opponent does not forfeit again!
I'm going to rely on the fact that BY DEFINITION capitalism is not a form of government. America is a democratic republic, not a "capitalism." Now let's look at the only example you provide, the Capitalist Party of Georgia. I'll have three major responses to this:
1. The Capitalist Party of Georgia (CPG) is a single-issue party.
2. The CPG isn't a substantial party
3. Just because something is a political party doesn't mean it's a form of government.
Back to my first response: they are a single-issue party. Single issue parties are a common occurrence. They are prominent in American history: The Free Soil Party (Source 1), advocating that slavery shouldn't move westward, or the Green Party, or multiple parties running for cannabis legalization. They are pushing an issue, not a form of government. Most single issue parties fail, and nobody hears of them, because they have a platform on only one issue.
2. The CPG isn't a substantial party. They have no seats in the state (Sources 2 & 3) nor in the National Congress (Source 4). It's a bunch of reactionaries (conservative form of radicals) that aren't actually competent. Just look at their website: http://www.cpofga.org... Honestly, this isn't even a legitimate party.
3. Refer back to my first response about single-issue parties. Look at the examples I provided. The Free Soil Party existed, but there's no such government system named the "Free Soil" system, nor a "Green" form of government or any "Legalize Cannabis" forms of government. Even if you buy his argument about the Capitalist Party of Georgia, this disproves it being a form of GOVERNMENT.
My opponent also made many claims, yet in all three rounds used a single source, whereas I have provided eight, all supporting my claim. Remember the definitions I made in Round 1. Capitalism is quite simply not a form of government. This means that no matter how bad Communism is as a form of government, since it actually IS a form of government, it's the only possible option.
Source 1: http://www.gilderlehrman.org...
Source 2: http://www.house.ga.gov...
Source 3: http://www.senate.ga.gov...
Source 4: http://www.senate.gov... (See "Party Breakdown" Section)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kylar 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I give this one to Con, but I was convinced both sides had good argument. Conduct was splendid
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.