The Instigator
Jacob_Bauman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dawndawndawndawn
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

What is better, Communism or 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
dawndawndawndawn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,269 times Debate No: 38286
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

Jacob_Bauman

Pro

Communism is a superior way to run a country under, Governmentally and Economically.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

Let us begin by being clear as to what, we are applying Communism or Capitalism.
All "countries" are, "claimed land on a ball in space, with people and that which sustains people"
land, water, air, people, peace, maintenance
Governing & maintaining a population, so that is does not destroy the rest of the items on the
list, in an economically-effective & sustainable way, is the goal.
Applying communism comes from a decent impulse inside some of the people
but it has not been shown to be effective.
Capitalism has many appealing features & can be much more motivating
for a significant portion of the population & allows for more job-tailoring.
Being that neither is ideal,
does it seem wise to list pro & con for each & weigh the list?
Debate Round No. 1
Jacob_Bauman

Pro

What I'm taking from what you've said is that your basically stating an intro the debate.
So I'll start off stating my opinion about Communism and Capitalism.

Lets start of with economics.
There is no high class in society, only middle, meaning less poverty, less unemployment. The ideal communist worker will work and act to support the betterment of his community, and put personal interests 2nd. Government tries to get rid of private property and distribute its goods equally.
The government owns the companies, so if production needs to be shifted into a different area, the government is capable of doing it quick.
These type of economies are also very stable. Meaning no sudden depression.
I await your argument, by telling me your opinion.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

My opinion is irrelevant.

What is relevant is what really happens.

"There is no high class in society, only middle, meaning less poverty, less unemployment. The ideal communist worker will work and act to support the betterment of his community, and put personal interests 2nd. Government tries to get rid of private property and distribute its goods equally."

How would you ever enforce this?
How would you get rich people to give and live?

"These type of economies are also very stable. Meaning no sudden depression."

Why have they failed?

I am in favor of sharing but I see NO healthy, stable communistic states
and I do see that communism stifles creativity
Debate Round No. 2
Jacob_Bauman

Pro

Well, I see the comments have flared up. They are correct, I do believe that, what I'm describing is Socialism and not TRUE Communism. For this, I am sorry.

So dawnx4, wouldn't you agree?
dawndawndawndawn

Con

OK, let's clear this up.

From your brain, not the Internet,
say exactly what is "socialism", "communism" and "capitalism"
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Let's do one on governing styles in general, good?
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
I've done my share of devil's advocate arguments, but I don't know of any strong ones in favor of Communism. One is forced to commit several logical fallacies to argue in favor of an economic system that has failed so much and so many times as Communism has.

If you've got another debate you'd like to do, let me know. Feel free to PM me.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Chrys, same subject but worded the way that you want to word it, please and thank you
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
@dawn(4):
What would you like to debate?
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Chrysippus, make a new debate and let's do this
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
I'm not entirely certain I ought to vote on this one, as the debate does not appear to be over. R4 ended on an ambiguous note, with every relevant definition in limbo.

The arguments, such as they are, appear to favor Con, who posted the last unanswered arguments. Pro appears to concede the debate in the last round, but not in any formal sense.

As a note of interest to the debaters: The discussion in the comments is strictly irrelevant to the debate. Define your terms yourself at the beginning of the debate, and make sure to use a valid definition, and then this sort of thing won't happen. But even if someone in the comments challenges your definitions, your arguments, or your character, IGNORE THEM until after the debate ends.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Thank you, Miranda. That was well typed!

I'll bet real money that you are smart enough to come up
with an idea that we can all live with, ne c'pas?
Posted by mirandansa 3 years ago
mirandansa
@dawndawndawndawn
{ How would you get rich people to give and live? }
Property would be re-defined with a distinction between personal property (a natural right based on a person's direct usership) and private property (a legal fiction enforcing remote/absentee ownership). The wealth of the rich in capitalism comes from their exclusive ownership of things guarded by the state/private police even when they are not using those things. This would be considered a waste of resources against those who need them for survival, and there would be no ethical justification for its continuation. The expropriation of private property would not result in any one losing access to the things they personally need, as everyone would have the personal property right.

{ Why have they failed? }
What failed is not communism per se but statist attempts to establish what they alleged to be communism. They failed because of their top-down relationship of production & distribution with no democratic control from the bottom. Stalin rejected Marx's concept of communism as a state-less order of self-organizing citizens, and killed more communists than Hitler did.

The Spanish anarchists in the 1930s had a successful libertarian communist economy throughout the country. Unemployment was eliminated, productivity increased, and the standards of living/education/civil liberty improved. They came to an end, not because the economy didn't work, but because it was forcibly dismantled by the USSR-backed Stalinists and the Nazi-backed Nationalists.
Posted by mirandansa 3 years ago
mirandansa
@Jacob_Bauman

{ The ideal communist worker will work and act to support the betterment of his community, and put personal interests 2nd. }
The betterment of the community can benefit yourself as a member of the community. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is a communist principle that can maximize every person's liberty.

{ Government tries to get rid of private property and distribute its goods equally. }
Equal distribution is absurd. Not everyone demands the same goods in the same quantity. True communism is to give everyone equal *opportunity* to satisfy their needs. That is, equal access to the means of life.

{ The government owns the companies, so if production needs to be shifted into a different area, the government is capable of doing it quick. }
True communism is state-less. Collective activities are to be organized directly by the citizens. A centralized top-down state is an inefficient apparatus to respond to local problems.
Posted by mirandansa 3 years ago
mirandansa
Capitalism is a phase of economic evolution. It has had its own role, and it will sooner or later become obsolete regardless of a concerted socialist effort, due to the very revolutionary aspect of all the innovations it brings about. Development in personal computers, the internet, and the peer-to-peer technologies, already began impacting on the capitalist principle of private ownership in the music & film industries, with more and more people sharing goods against the tradition of copyright. Further development in 3D-printing & remote manufacturing will democratize the means of production, expanding non-profit open-source collaboration & common ownership, replacing for-profit proprietary private businesses. People will demand less and less finished heterogeneous products, and more and more raw homogeneous materials, which will give rise to cooperative management of the common resources based on the economies of scale.

The price mechanism of capitalism results in maldistribution of resources. 1/3 of food produced on Earth is wasted, despite the starving population. In 2006, obese people outnumbered malnourished people. Consumers are not rational actors; corporations can manipulate their mind through deceptive advertising, planned obsolescence, etc., prompting them in buying more than they need. Prices allow some people to own stuff they don't consume, and prevents other people from obtaining stuff they need.

This condition is worsened by the fact that the money-less have no say in the market system, as they have no means to participate in any transaction, except picking a master to sell themselves to. And when they are given a job by a capitalist master, they still have no say in how to use their own labor and how they are rewarded. Compare the pay ratios:
1:1034 -- Walmart (owned by an elite minority, internally authoritarian)
1:5 -- Mon<x>dragon (Spain's 7th-largest enterprise, a federation of cooperatives owned by the workers, internally democratic)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
Jacob_BaumandawndawndawndawnTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.