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

What is a more successful form of government-Communism(pro) or Capitalism (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 12/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,072 times Debate No: 66107
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Capitalism is more successful for 3 reasons
2.examples 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:;

Definition of Communism:;
Debate Round No. 1


I. Allow me to clarify myself. A capitalistic country (in more formal terms) is really a democracy that allows free market. In a capitalistic economy people are allowed free market, as well as certain rights and freedoms. In a communist country, everything is controlled by the government and people are denied their rights and freedoms.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


Since my worthy opponent has forfeited this round, I will continue to state my arguments. In the first round, my opponent stated that "you've never heard of a capitalist political party, because capitalism ins't a form of government..." Well my friend---"The Capitalist Party of Georgia realizes that wealth and freedom go hand in hand. Capitalism is the engine that drives America and freedom is the fuel. As Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman so eloquently put it, "Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom." That means your freedom to acquire wealth, however you define it, is absolutely necessary if you are to be truly free of government dependence. But sadly, the two major political parties in America don't fully appreciate that simple truth.
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!
Good luck


Sorry for forfeiture, I didn't realize it was a one-day argument period rather than three. I'll accept whatever the voters decide on whether to penalize me for it.
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: 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:
Source 2:
Source 3:
Source 4: (See "Party Breakdown" Section)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by warren42 1 year ago
Thanks, you too.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
True. Sorry about that. but still---Capitalism is better than communism

good job warren42 though.
Posted by gomergcc 1 year ago
*Face Palm* They do understand both are economic systems and not forms of government right?
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Vote pro!
Posted by debate_power 1 year ago
It's true that all social systems center around capital, and there are means in production in communism just as there are in capitalism, but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that communism is "capitalistic".
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
Capital is the means of production. Therefore, all social systems (including Communism) are capitalistic, the difference is, ownership of the capital.

The means of production works best in free-market systems.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kylar 1 year ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I give this one to Con, but I was convinced both sides had good argument. Conduct was splendid