anarchist communism could deal with a zombie apocalypse better than my opponents ideal society
Debate Rounds (5)
anarcho communism: a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, capitalism and private property (while retaining respect for personal property)
zombie: a walking corpse that eats the living and can only be killed by a head shot
my opponent will define their ideal society
first round is stating ideal society and acceptance
anarcho communists cannot accept the challenge
2. because mutual aid and solidarity are the basic theory of anarchism the entire world would mobilize to defend against the zombies think international brigades: http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. because the workers themselves would own the means of production (MoP) they could change production to defend themselves, without a profit motive.
(I assume you mean democracy as capitalist parliamentary)
In his first point, he says that the zombies could be dealt with without having to rely on a military and political command in small individual community. However, in the event of a zombie apocalypse, the order of military and political command is what will save us, as demonstrated in democracy. How? Without the law and order of martial law (which will almost certainly be implemented) citizens will have the ability to do what they want. How many will make a brave stand against hordes of living corpses? How many will instead loot shops and run off with as much as they can, fleeing from the undead? Clearly, without the command of the military and the government, the entire country would fall into disarray.
In his second point, he mentions the International Brigade and how the entire world would come to the rescue. However, the same thing is achievable through diplomatic relations with other countries, such as promises of military support in the event of war or similar catastrophes. Secondly, he claims that these troops would come because of "mutual aid" which is a baseline in anarcho-communism. However, mutual means both parties are benefiting. The country that is being rescued would benefit, but what about the saviors? They would only lose troops to the zombies, who would then become more zombies. I doubt any countries will ride in as the cavalry because of mutual aid, but because they have to.
In his third point, he talks about MoP and how workers can change production to defend themselves. Firstly, not every worker is a master of all trades. Sure they could switch production, but the help would be very limited. You want to forge ammunition? Sure, if you knew how.
I will now move on to the benefits of democracy in the event of a zombie apocalypse.
1. The military
3. Focused development
1. THE MILITARY
The government (which is a democracy) has an army, ready to deploy at a moments notice. These are trained men who know how to fight. The military has access to planes, ships, tanks, and various others that would tip the scale in the favour of humans. However, in anarcho-communism the army doesn't exist any more and a professional fighters working coherently is gone. Now, we have individuals panicking who most likely don't know how to operate a firearm. Clearly, the military would prove a huge asset in the event of a zombie apocalypse. A mob of the untrained is no more an army than a pile of sticks is a house.
Martial law and a government would prevent unruliness from occurring in affected States. This prevents a complete breakdown and utter panic. A frightened panicked mob might riot, destroying the city and fleeing, instilling hopelessness into others. Order will maintain peace and prevent a total pandemic of fear.
3. FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT
In WW2 the Americans cranked out 5 planes a minute. With a centralized, focused government, we could achieve such rates again. Anarcho communism would present no such bonuses as everyone would just be making whatever they felt like which wouldn't help the war effort.
My opponent ignores solidarity, or "an injury to one is an injury to all.", in an ancom society it would be understood that if they get eaten today, we get eaten tomorrow. As for training, all you need to know to kill zombies is how to walk quietly, fire a rifle and use a close quarters weapon. Skills that are easily learned, and in a communist society, most people would be trained in combat from a young age.
I concede that point
In a communist society every worker is a soldier ready to fight, as they will take turns being the workers patrol (volunteer police force), and will have knowledge gained from studying the history of the revolution.
This isn't a mass of mindless workers, this a society of people who rule their own lives, their are no shops to smash, every factory produces goods that are given to those in need. Everyone has what they want, and is always responsible for his own life, actively taking part in the democratic process of his town and workplace.
Solidarity, the entire globe would be able to produce goods and ship them to the affected area, the requests could be made at the speed of light over the internet, and shipped just as quickly
But before I even go on to refutation, I will point out all the flaws in the very system of the two systems that make up anarcho-communism: anarchy, and communism.
First on the list, anarchy. Clearly this system will likely never occur because of the detriments it has to society. In the system of anarchy, there is no law. You can do whatever you please. This would certainly lead to mass-chaos and destruction. You want to kill someone? Go ahead. There is no order, society would fall apart at the seams. When fighting zombies, this system will spell defeat for humans. There would be no coordinated strike, no "creeping barrage", no tactics employed, instead it would just be untrained soldiers controlling their own lives, doing whatever they feel like doing.
Secondly: Communism. We can even look at history as an example. When China joined the World Trade Organization, essentially every major communist nation had vanished. The system completely failed. Why? Because the assumption that everyone can be equal and they should be equal. But we aren't. There are those who are smarter, there are those who are more athletic, there is no chance that we can all be equal. The system failed because we were forcing people to become equal. This is against human nature, we all have ambition, we all have the drive to succeed. At several points during my opponents speech, he seems to refer to just straight communism and not anarcho-communism. I would like for him to clear up those indiscretions.
When we combine these two fatally flawed systems to gether, we in the words of my opponent achieve equality and a utopia. "Everyone has what they want". This clearly is a flawed sentence. How is it possible for everyone to have what they want? I want my neighbours house, and in the system of anarcho-communism according to my opponent, I would get it.
Now on to rebuttals.
Firstly, he talks of how the hierarchial system kills initiative at the bottom of the system. However, a hierarchial system is what maintains order in the world. There will always be those who lead, and those who follow. If those who were followers chose not to follow and take "initiative" and become leaders, we would have a society with too many leaders and no followers. If we have too many leaders and no followers, we would have complete chaos.
Secondly, he talks of solidarity. He claims that this bond will hold every one together and supplies, troops, whatever is needed will be shipped around the world. However, he also says that every one rules their own life. What happens when someone disagrees with the rest of the group? What happens when someone feels he needs to "leave the pack" and take control of his own life by living away from every one else? I would invite the Proposition to inform me of what happens when dissent runs among everyone. Will that solidarity remain?
Also, solidarity is also found in democracy. You have a bond to your fellow country men, and to your country. This doesn't exist in anarcho-communism as the state has been abolished.
He attempts to refute my point on a structured military by saying that people would be trained from a young age to fight, yet then goes on ahead and says that they learn their fighting skills from being on the volunteer police force. If these contradictions weren't enough, he fails to realize that police officers need training. It doesn't matter if they are on the volunteer police force for years if they don't receive proper training. But of course, they can't receive training as the trainers would therefore theoretically be "better" than the trainees. Wouldn't this establish a hierarchial system? Let's assume for the purposes of the debate that they would receive combat training from a young age. Wouldn't this also establish a hierarchy?
It seems from the third point that my opponent brings up, a serious form of anarchy would take place. "This isn't a mass of mindless workers, this a society of people who rule their own lives". As I have pointed out above, any system of anarchy will crumble.
It seems that the Proposition has made no real refutation to my arguments, as they still stand strong. On the other hand, I have refuted all of my opponents points and pointed out various contradictions in his arguments.
My contentions were:
MILITARY - the government has a standing army of PROFESSIONAL soldiers who could easily combat zombies
ORDER - the government would prevent chaos from breaking out, something that could easily derail a nations fighting efforts
FOCUSED PRODUCTION - a nation focused on one thing: war; could easily manufacture the supplies needed in comparison to anarcho-communism where they manufacture what they feel like manufacturing
For these reasons, Vote Con.
The anarchist militia in the spanish civil war were an army of leaders, with weak weapons and limited soldiers they beat back much better armed soldiers for 3 years. I believe this serves as precedent for how a anarchist army would operate against an enemy that is only strong because it converts the enemies dead.
Evidence for this comes from the IWW strikes, in which workers funded each other while they struck.
Yes, but nationalism excludes members of other nations, meaning that people with a history of national conflict will fight each other.
My opponent misunderstands me would be trained to work in the police, giving them experience. Authority is sometimes justified, usually when it is to make you equal, as with education, where the trainer makes the trainee his equal.
For the military: training of soldiers is for humans, they learn to hit the center mass, not the head. Look WWZ, and the battle of Yonkers.
Anarchy is ordered by the people not people from on top.
The entire world would be war production not one company
I would like to take this time to refute the arguments brought up by my opponent.
Firstly, my opponent speaks of the Spanish Civil War and the International Brigades. The International Brigade was formed by volunteers from around the world. Furthermore, anarchists in France were actually very opposed to the International Brigades through fear of losing territory to Spain. Secondly, there were very few communists present in the International Brigades, the only communists were exiles from Russia. The majority of the troops were American, British, French, and Australian. All were pro-democracy! My opponent should know that the purpose of the International Brigades was to stop the spread of fascism into Spain and spread DEMOCRACY. However, they failed and were defeated. Furthermore, if a completely volunteer army, with little air and artillery support could fight that well, what could a fully trained army, with access to complete air, artillery, and land support could do? Democracy would deal with this far easier as during a zombie apocalypse as they have access to that kind of military.
Furthermore, my opponent speaks of nationalism. However, there is an international community and there would be no doubt that other countries would intervene. During WW2, though Britain and France were opposed to the communist regime of the Soviet Union, they put aside their differences and UNITED against Germany. If they intervened to stop the spread of communism, or fascism, don't you think that they would intervene if the dead rose to live??
My opponent then goes on to say that authority is sometimes justified, yet one of the key ideas in his arguments is anarchy. Authority and anarchism are like oil and water. I would like my opponent to clear up that little contradiction in R5.
My opponent then tells us that for military, humans are trained to aim for the centre mass. This is easily remedied by instructing the soldiers to aim for the head. My opponent then brings up the example of WWZ and the Battle of Yonkers. When I searched up WWZ and the Battle of Yonkers on Google, I found out that WWZ stands for World War Zombie and the Battle of Yonkers was a battle that occurred in August 2013. The examples of WWZ and the Battle of Yonkers carry no weight behind them and cannot be considered a "reliable source" as it has never happened and never will. The example of a fantasy universe cannot be applied to the real world.
I would like to point out that my opponent has still not made any serious refutations to my arguments and they all still stand strong.
My arguments were:
MILITARY – any form of state (such as democracy) would have a standing and professional army which could deal with a zombie apocalypse far better compared to anarcho-communism
ORDER – any form of state (such as democracy) would be able to maintain order in cities which would be key to deal with mass panic by the public. Anarcho-communism does not have that ability.
FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT – any form of state (such as democracy) would be able to focus an entire nations production to war efforts, unlike anarcho-communism. This focused development would be able to produce supplies and armaments far better than anarcho-communism.
For these reasons, Vote Con.
Sources: Usbourne Introduction to the Second World War
ihartman2 forfeited this round.
iwillannoyyo forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.