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

Would the world be a better place if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed?

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,070 times Debate No: 36765
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I would like to inform my opponent that this debate will be based on my question


The soviet union had a plan if it were to win the cold war. This plan consisted of basic points which involved politics, classes, economy & military. I will start with a BRIEF resume of my arguments to get things started. I would love to develop my opinion later on.


The soviet union was ruled by one party. A one party rule has numerous disadvantages but let's focus on the bright side. Having a one party rule will put an end to political dispute and biased media. The public won't be obliged to hear numerous parties complain about the same issues both presenting solid solutions but none applied. The public won't feel defeated nor weak when it comes to politics. A one party rule will double the feeling of brotherhood between citizens especially between people of different sects and beliefs.


When it comes to classes the Soviet Union had one simple objective : Demolition of all classes.
When the masses (All around the world) aren't faced with numerous classes especially the 'ruling class' the sentiment of brotherhood and love is doubled, even tripled. Inequality disappears and equality is instilled in various fields like the judiciary one.


Economy. Yes, the main weapon of the cold war. A communist economy will reduce unemployment and avoid economical crises like the one in 1929 and 2008.
Equality will be instilled and none could control the working power not even the government.


I've reached my favorite part of my arguments : MILITARY.
One unified military would be enough to destroy any rebellion and protect the mighty Soviet Union. No military invasion in Iraq and other middle-eastern country would be needed. All wealth is shared.

I am ready to expand these ideas with any serious opponent
Good luck


The Soviet Union as you are well aware was inefficient and inept in its one moral mission, which was to bring economic order and stability across the world.

1. The Soviet Union had extensive resources, so much of which remained untapped. Theoretically it was enough to benefit the peoples under its banner.

2. To tap resources the Soviet Union was forced to engage in market economics- which violated its own beliefs (attaining investable capital) against a market economy. Inability to engage in a market system that worked with some efficiency kept the Russian people far behind the west.

3. As consequence, except in wartime when the economy was prodded into action at great human consequences (millions dead in world war 2)- the economy languished.

4. Without a half decent economic system the soviet union had no benefit only severe consequences to its victims (citizens)

5. With few consumer goods (unless you count nuclear missiles and tanks) there was backwardness in the soviet union.

The soviet union was a country demeaning to the rights of man.
1.The soviet union relied on force to keep various peoples under their banner who didn't want to be part oif their system.

2.Karelia, Estonia, Latvia,Poland , East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia were forced to be puppets and colonies if I may dare say to the soviet union.

With no economic benefits to justify tyrannical leadership the soviet union offered only pain to people living within its borders as well as to those in the warsaw pact.
Debate Round No. 1


Had the Soviets acknowledged the fact that full communism isn't an answer it would be still standing on its feet.
Its resources belonged to countries that were completely destroyed which was a huge obstacle for a stable and powerful economy. The Soviets engaged in Market economics for its own good. I'm not saying they didn't violate its own beliefs but it didn't to try and fix what the west destroyed. I still stand firm and strongly belief that capitalism's economy is worse.
he Soviet Union had problems just like the United States, difference is : It tired to fix it.
I admit that the Soviet's economy wasn't good but nor was the US'.
At least the Soviets had an almost steady economy (disregarding the fact if it were good or no)

Capitalism can't work without exploiting others natural resources and without violating basic human rights
For example :
1- Capitalism is the main reason poverty in Africa is worse than ever. Multinational corporations steal poor countries resources for the benefit of its own people. If the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed, the empire would have shared the resources and resulting in more jobs and less poverty.

2- Violation of human rights in Asian countries (Ex: Bangladesh) and in most African countries is caused by capitalism. It's caused by the US' multinational corporations that obliges children to work most of the day for low pay.

3-Capitalism is the cause of the 2008 crises which disastrous consequences

P.S : To anyone who would like to vote after this debate please do it depending on the arguments and the examples that are used not on what you believe. Fair vote.


I very much agree with a few of your statements- I believe that my argument is much in need of qualification.
Full roughshod capitalism was not apparent in the western world during the time at which the soviet union was collapsing. A regulated market economy that respects the rights of workers and consumers is no vice. True it is in need of improvement, but it is what we have to work with.

If I may say so the Soviet Union was like a trust- one that was monopolizing the economy, strictly controlling wages and preventing progress among the people. In the west we have such a thing as labor unions, anti-trust laws and other measures that prevent abuse of a market system. the soviet union was itself a trust and it outlawed labor unions even when conditions in their factories were terrible.

Lets look at China- the Soviet Union in an effective economic transition would look a lot like China. China has a one party system. Its people live in slums and the per capita gdp is nil. When their people protest against the poor working conditions and wages the chinese government cracks down on them. China lets its people be exploited by capitalists and the truth is that both their governmnet and soviet union's government are run by capitalist fatcats who restrict basic human liberties and do not deliver when it comes to the share of economic resources.

The soviet union persisting like china would be a worse scenario with many more ethnic groups resisting the government in Moscow. With the vast mineral wealth in siberia why didn't the soviets succeed in helping the workers of the world? I don't believe the Soviets really tried to help the workers of the world- they slaughtered them in Ukraine, Afghanistan and its other colonies like any other imperialist country and for what- millions of nuclear missiles and not enough bread and butter for its own people.

As wicked as the world is- the soviet union is hardly an exception- in fact it excacerbated the worlds problems with showing the globe that its quest was to dominate the world rather than to provide it with bread and butter. It developed tools to take life away rather than to preserve human life and to let human life be fulfilling when a person knows that he earns his own bread and butter and that no one will take it and give it to someone else.
Debate Round No. 2


I personally disagree with you when it comes to controlling wages and preventing progress among people. The Soviets knew how to imply what Marx and Lennin thought and wrote down in their books. People would earn their living and no one can control the other. People could earn their places in companies just like in a capitalism. Difference is, these people would EARN it and these people would earn money they deserved. Sure, the Soviets controlled everything but it reduced inequality.

In china people could live with one dollar a day. People aren't satisfied with the poor conditions but it's better than being fired because the corporation you work for decided to employ others or just move to another country.

I strongly agree with you that china is controlled by capitalist fatcats because of the sick corporations.
The Chinese government must impose taxes to any corporation that isn't based in their own land so that everyone gets a piece of the cake.

It did slaughter innocent people just like the American troops did in Iraq (1.5 million children died and still counting) just for some capitalist corporation can double and triple their earnings. Let's not forget what the Americans did in Afghanistan. Vietnam and in its own land with small ethnic tribes.

The soviet dominated half of the world and dominated the masses but thing is, you forget the fact that the soviets were facing huge problems. After invading the countries it had to arrange the economy for the countries' own good. It's like one country's people was working hard for another one. Inequality in the Soviet system like in the American one.

But wait.. isn't stealing Africa's resources and giving it away to corporation as bad as what the Soviets did?
Even worse?


grayghost50 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I need a reply so I can't post something new.


grayghost50 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


LebLeft forfeited this round.


grayghost50 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both dropped out...