The Instigator
Sphynx111222
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
benko12345678
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

communism doesnt work

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 4 votes the winner is...
benko12345678
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,045 times Debate No: 65476
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (4)

 

Sphynx111222

Pro

Let me start by saying that i know a lot about communism.I read a lot of books and watched a lot of movies about it.I want to say that communism doesnt work because when you put something into everyone's property, they abuse it and they will get too big pays even though they dont deserve it!
Im extremely smart and good at debating and i cant wait to hear my enemy.
benko12345678

Con

Well, that was a rather short argument (as well as fallacious). Let's start by establishing a few things.

1. The definition of communism: 'Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods' [1]

2. Let me explain the natural progression of society, something that Marx called historical determinism. You see; society always moves in the way that is driven by social change and class struggle. Preceding communism is socialism, which is the system that you (although poorly) described above. Everything is put into the collective; however, your assertion that the people will abuse it is preposterous. All holdings are put into the collective on the part of the state, the state collectivizes all means of production, enabling for the workers to access it. This simply means that the workers would own the means of production through the state. This simply means that everyone would own everything together. Communism is a period that is enacted after socialism has done its job (collectivizing the means of production). Communism is the final period of social liberation, the final step of historical development. In communism, the state slowly withers away as class struggles are abolished. There has never been, and there never will be, a communist state, because communism entails the absence of a state as a repressive instrument of the bourgeois. A communist state cannot exist as that is in and of itself a contradiction. There can not be a period of communism so long as there is a state.

3. Now we come to the main argument that the right-wing laissez-faire capitalists like you tend to make: 'Everyone receives the same salary' This is absurd. Communism and socialism both entail that the means of production belong to society, not the wealthy bourgeois. Now, I agree, since private property is abolished so is the chance of making extraordinary amounts of wealth. But those amounts are not needed in communist society: in communist society, there is not currency. What you are referring to is socialism. The resolution is fallacious on its own.
Doctors will still make more than sanitation workers; Why? Because they put more into the collective and they get more out of the collective. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, as Marx put it.

That's it for the refutation, now let's get into why capitalism doesn't work and why socialism-communism is an ideal solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The contradictions of exchange and use values. Commodities are produced for their use value and yet distributed for their exchange value. In other (simpler) words, you produce a loaf of bread for someone to buy it and then eat it. You produce it so someone will buy it and they buy it so they can eat it.

2. The law of value creates exploitation. As labour is not inherently worth anything on its own, it must go into the production of commodities, which are worthless without labour. Labour's worth adheres to the worth of commodities and vice versa. Human labour has no value on its own.

I hope you can refute this argument. Judging from your first argument I assume you're new. Allow me to guide you through this miraculous world that is DDO.

Best regards

References:
[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sphynx111222

Pro

Thats stupid! Of course you make the same thing! IF THE GOVERNMENT OWNS EVERYTHING! Socialism and communism are both EVIL AND ARE BEING DONE BY OBAMA! I know a lot about this!!!! I READ LOTS OF BOOKS ABOUT IT!!!!
You do make the same money! Thats what communism is! You're nothing bud red scum! YOU got the north korean flag on your photo????!!!? SHAME ON YOU!
RED COMMIE FILTH!
benko12345678

Con

My dear laissez-faire friend. You failed to refute any of my arguments and thus, I will post them again. Your only argument makes no sense. The government owns a significant portion of the economy in capitalist countries as well, that doesn't mean that everyone has the same salary... Again. I request that you refute my arguments.

1. The definition of communism: 'Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods' [1]

2. Let me explain the natural progression of society, something that Marx called historical determinism. You see; society always moves in the way that is driven by social change and class struggle. Preceding communism is socialism, which is the system that you (although poorly) described above. Everything is put into the collective; however, your assertion that the people will abuse it is preposterous. All holdings are put into the collective on the part of the state, the state collectivizes all means of production, enabling for the workers to access it. This simply means that the workers would own the means of production through the state. This simply means that everyone would own everything together. Communism is a period that is enacted after socialism has done its job (collectivizing the means of production). Communism is the final period of social liberation, the final step of historical development. In communism, the state slowly withers away as class struggles are abolished. There has never been, and there never will be, a communist state, because communism entails the absence of a state as a repressive instrument of the bourgeois. A communist state cannot exist as that is in and of itself a contradiction. There can not be a period of communism so long as there is a state.

3. Now we come to the main argument that the right-wing laissez-faire capitalists like you tend to make: 'Everyone receives the same salary' This is absurd. Communism and socialism both entail that the means of production belong to society, not the wealthy bourgeois. Now, I agree, since private property is abolished so is the chance of making extraordinary amounts of wealth. But those amounts are not needed in communist society: in communist society, there is not currency. What you are referring to is socialism. The resolution is fallacious on its own.
Doctors will still make more than sanitation workers; Why? Because they put more into the collective and they get more out of the collective. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, as Marx put it.

That's it for the refutation, now let's get into why capitalism doesn't work and why socialism-communism is an ideal solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The contradictions of exchange and use values. Commodities are produced for their use value and yet distributed for their exchange value. In other (simpler) words, you produce a loaf of bread for someone to buy it and then eat it. You produce it so someone will buy it and they buy it so they can eat it.

2. The law of value creates exploitation. As labour is not inherently worth anything on its own, it must go into the production of commodities, which are worthless without labour. Labour's worth adheres to the worth of commodities and vice versa. Human labour has no value on its own.
Debate Round No. 2
Sphynx111222

Pro

OH GROW UP AND GROW A PAIR! Youre just a little whiny kid in your mom's basement! Ooooh, stalin was awesome, ooooh, communism is awesome!
OH YEAH!? WELL TELL IT TO THE BILLIONS WHO LOST THEIR LIFES!!!!
Communism makes everyone equal?! Look at the soviet union! EVERYONE WAS POOR! look at north korea! EVERYBODYS POOR!I WONT LET A LITTLE KID LIKE YOU MESS WITH MY FREEDOM! SO I SUGGEST YOU GROW A PAIR AND KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT!

Communism doesnt mean that the state goes away! LOOK AT THE SOVIET UNION! Youre a statist!youre a statist and tyrant!
benko12345678

Con

Well this is probably the fastest debate I've ever had.
I must repeat my arguments from above.

1.The law of value is persistent in capitalism. Socialism is the transitional period of revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat in which the workers own the means of production. The soviet union was never communist, the Democratic people's republic of Korea is not communist.

2. Communism has never been achieved (except in a handful of communes). The sucess of all of those small communes testify to the greatness of communism.

I'm sorry, but your arguments just don't do. I'm afraid I must repeat my arguments from round 1.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Thank you.
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
Ah Good. I'll format an argument based on that then.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
consequential communist
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
Excellent!

BTW are you a Consequential communist, or natural rights Communist?
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Sure! I would be glad!
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
Fantastic.

Should I expect a debate with you at some poi t in the future?
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
With that I agree.
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
As I do to yours. However, I'm certain civil discussion between parties to find truth is possible.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
I still find your laissez-faire ideology idiotic
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
I'd just like to say, that as an actual Libertarian. This man does not represent our ideology. Thank you very much.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: What a joke, a shame that benko didn't debate a more competent debater . It's a sad things debaters in their late 20's come up with such arguments.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were nothing more than self praising and ad hominem attacks.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro simply doesn't have the ability to make an argument. I suspect this is the result of a conservative brain and conservative programming. Pro is a message repeater. Message repeaters cannot support their idea, because it isn't an arrived at idea. It is a programmed response. Poor programming done to Pro.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro goes off on an all-caps crazy tangent insulting con, failing to rebut his points. Thus, con wins.