The Instigator
miguel_almeida
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

should communism be banned?

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...
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,321 times Debate No: 73472
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

miguel_almeida

Pro

So, I always wondered why people banned nazism in a lot of nations (including mine, Brasil) but comunism is still "living". Since comunism is just as bad, or even wrost, killed more than nazim, tortured and made "experiments" as bad as the above.. well, you know all that rotten stuff about comunism. and yet, is still living and breathing...
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

First of all, I would like to thank Pro for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic.

Second, I would like to start off [since you didn't] with providing definitions for the words in the debate that are key to the topic itself.

"Communism (from Latin communis " common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social ."

[1] Communism in History?: It is laughable for an individual to believe that Communism was truly a system that was used / existed in the political world at some point or another. But Communism failed time and time again. The October Revolution in Russia in the time period leading up to the Second World War is really the main starting point for the philosophy of Communism, and it started as several different versions of the same ideology. However, the mutual basis of the ideology is creating a community where there is no economy [money], no state [government] and no class system [inequality]. Communism is not an ideology has ever properly been implemented. "Communist" Vietnam, still had a government, same thing with Korea, Poland, USSR, China, Yugoslavia and every other country ever accused of being Communist.

[2] Political misconceptions: Political misconceptions often carry their own weight in discussions about Communism. Many individuals in very pro-Capitalist countries [A.K.A a majority of a world], will come to the understanding that Communism and another political philosophy called Socialism, uphold the same rules...Which they don't. Although it is a simple and common mistake, it is also not excusable in any means. Communism is state-less, class-less and money-less, whereas Socialism is more just focused on 1) the worker's control of the means of production, 2) free public education, 3) free healthcare, 4) reduction of military spending and all of those more liberal / social democratic ideas that countries like the U.S have more recently been adopting.

[3] Nazism: Nazism is also referred to as National Socialism. It is the idea that one race / ethnicity to superior to all others, usually followed up by a similar claim acknowledging holy supremacy [religious superiority]. Essentially, the Nazis were a group of "Aryan" citizens who oppressed Non-Aryan citizens, Catholic Priests, Gypsies, Jews, the mentally and physically handicapped, homosexuals, those who opposed the Reich, Communists, Socialists and tens of other minority groups. Why? To do none other than nationalize the people. The purpose of the Third Reich was to flush away all who were not perfectly physically and mentally stable white Christians from the face of the earth. And their plan was very effective. They quickly gained power in Germany, diplomatically won over several countries surrounding them, militarily conquered the inferior countries, waged war with nearly half of the planet and almost succeeded before the Soviet Invasion of Germany in 1945 that ultimately lead to the German Leader, Adolf Hitler, committing suicide. All in all, Nazism is much more of a radical belief than Communism in which racial, religious and intellectual supremacy are enforced -- and even, to some degree, the idea that if someone is more physically able than someone else, they deserve to live.

Nazism was a misguided political belief that resulted in the death of approximately thirteen-to-twenty million deaths. Communism is, again, a belief where all are equal and no one rules.

[4] Addition: In addition to the above statements, it is important to remember that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a complete disgrace to the name of Socialism and Communism. The whole principle was founded on the idea that the working class [or proletariat] should be in control of the means of production, in essence, stating that no bosses should own companies and force workers to work for them in exchange for a wage they can barely scrape by with, but instead that the working class should rule on their own and work on their own collective terms. Communism / Socialism are innocent ideas that have not cost a single death, unless the October Revolution of Russia is taken in to account, in which case, lives were lost. But Communism holds no responsibility for genocide, and rightfully so.
Debate Round No. 1
miguel_almeida

Pro

first, I apologize for the inconvenience, its my first debate here. and please try not to consider if there is any grammatical error, for english is not my native language, so, please do not take it to acount. *note: the speed of my responses depend if the quality of my conection, and its terrible*
well, that said i wish you the best luck :)

1- i would like to keep the debate to the facts not only in theory winch means that comunism really hapend as it did, being it god or bad.

2- the statement that nazism is "the idea that one race / ethnicity to superior to all others, usually followed up by a similar claim acknowledging holy supremacy [religious superiority]" is invalid since Karl Marx one of the comunism mentors also said "the classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give away... they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust" taking into account, would mean them that every and single nation, people and country that failed in achieve the comunism must then perish?

3- comunism also believes that races are superior from one to another, once it takes that to reach such a level of development one(being this a person, nation, people) must do a "proletarian revolution", proving that no other class or party rahter then the proletary could do such advance.

4- comunism never happend naturally, like the advance it was ment to be, all nations that became comunist did it by bloody enforcement and civil wars.

5- in numbers, comunism killed more than nazism: some acounts are of 100 milions others go to 300 milions, while nazism killed about 20 milions, (please note: i am not defending nazism, or saying that they are less fauted or better) also comunism was used as a reason or an excuse to promove genocide in all nations were was enforced, including Jews, and in fact URSS where just as much racist as Nazi Germany.

6- if the idea of comunism had worked out and possibly well, how would we be sure that the proletariat ho would run the means of production could not start another "revolution"? since one or a group would need to be in charge of things, even for the smallest ones, the lower ranks would be the new proletariat, could they arrise in a new revolution? if so, does it means that comunism is a cycle and thus a failure for not achieved the final goal?
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

I get where you are going with some of your arguments, now it is time for rebuttals.

"1- i would like to keep the debate to the facts not only in theory winch means that comunism really hapend as it did, being it god or bad."

What facts are you then relying on? I just told you the definition of Communism and you still proceed to tell me otherwise. Communism is state-less, money-less, class-less politics. Meaning the country would not have any government, economy or economic / social-based inequality. Again, the facts are that none of the historically "communist" countries fit the bill. Unless you use an entirely obnoxious and factually incorrect definition fabricated for the United States during the Cold War to push back "communist" spread in the eastern regions of Balkans and eastern Asia. Which would be as follows:

Communism:
a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

This definition is incorrect for many reasons and the McCarthyism Movement in the United States had a lot to do with children, teenagers and adults being taught this bogus definition in several political media; T.V Networks would tell the nation through broadcasts, newspaper articles attempting to stage legitimate facts would support the televised broadcasts and even schools would begin instilling the "anti-communist" propaganda into the minds of students.

Sticking to the facts would be the willingness to follow through with the actual definition of Communism, which would be the definition mentioned in round one of this debate.

"Communism (from Latin communis " common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social ."

Yugoslavia, still had a government, still had an economy.

Korea, still has a government, still has an economy.

China, still has a government, still has an economy.

Vietnam, Soviet Union, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, all went through the same ordeal, not Communist because they do not appropriately nor effectively meet the criteria to be classified as such.

"the statement that nazism is "the idea that one race / ethnicity to superior to all others, usually followed up by a similar claim acknowledging holy supremacy [religious superiority]" is invalid since Karl Marx one of the comunism mentors also said "the classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give away... they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust" taking into account, would mean them that every and single nation, people and country that failed in achieve the comunism must then perish?"

Well no, it's not invalid. Communism was not just founded by Karl Marx and Marxism is not the only form of Communism in the world today or not even back then. If a credible source can be supplied to support the thesis made, then my mind will be shifted. And even then, Nazism's definition is not invalidated by your misconception of what Marxism is, saying that literally makes no sense. Just because you fail to understand that Communism is state-less, money-less and class-less, that does not mean that Nazism is by fault some other political theory. According to that logic, because some define Christianity as the religion of Christ it means Judaism is a religion of terrorism.

Marxism advocates that people should be paid in accordance to their working physical and mental capabilities, not necessary that they should be prosecuted, persecuted or harmed in any legal means by a state that should only be transitional in Marxist Communism.

" comunism also believes that races are superior from one to another, once it takes that to reach such a level of development one(being this a person, nation, people) must do a "proletarian revolution", proving that no other class or party rahter then the proletary could do such advance."

This is factually incorrect and will most certainly require some evidence to support it. Communism actually is a philosophy based on the idea that the workers should control the means of the production and the government should be abolished as well as the economy and means of inequality. Nowhere in that definition / theory is racism ever an issue or even mentioned. And another misunderstanding is amidst in the rebuttal you so dearly supplied.

Proletariat citizens are not members of a race. Proletariat implies middle class / working class citizens who are exploiting by bosses for their poorly paid work. The rich continue to become richer in systems like Capitalism while the poor either maintain the same amount of impoverishment or sink deeper into the bottomless pit.

pro"le"tar"i"at
G6;pr!3;ləG2;terēət/
noun

workers or working-class people, regarded collectively (often used with reference to Marxism).
"the growth of the industrial proletariat"

That is the definition of proletariat, however, in Rome it was used to refer to the poorest economic citizen class. So it generally refers to the poor, working class citizens of a society.

"comunism never happend naturally, like the advance it was ment to be, all nations that became comunist did it by bloody enforcement and civil wars."

You do understand that for a nation to become Communist it must overthrow its government, because that is part of the process, right? Communism is not supposed to have a government, which would imply that it must be overthrown. The only reason it isn't considered the same thing as Anarchism is because it has different elements than Communism.

"in numbers, comunism killed more than nazism: some acounts are of 100 milions others go to 300 milions, while nazism killed about 20 milions, (please note: i am not defending nazism, or saying that they are less fauted or better) also comunism was used as a reason or an excuse to promove genocide in all nations were was enforced, including Jews, and in fact URSS where just as much racist as Nazi Germany."

Where are these facts coming from?

The Soviet Union was yes indeed a very murderous and genocidal nation but nowhere has such an incredibly number like 100 or 300 million come up. At most 40-50 million was the estimate, but no where around the hundreds. It seems incredibly exaggerated. And mainly targeted everyone inside of its borders, where as the rich white German citizens thrived and specific minority groups were targeted.

Please, supply facts.
Debate Round No. 2
miguel_almeida

Pro

1- "What facts are you then relying on?"
the facts that comunism exists in real life is not the theoretical comunism. and thus, a nation that declares it self a comunist/socialist nation/estate is folling that form of theory. just like a nation that declares it self a democracy is. so, until proved otherwise the fact is that a nation follows its ideology and form of government. the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://geography.about.com...
http://www.therichest.com...
http://www.pri.org...
and the google link to the search: https://www.google.com.br...

2- i am not arguing of what is the theory of comunism, but how theory really happens. and i am also not arguing of how right or wrong the theory was/is being applied, that is not the main topic.

3- "comuism does not kill people" wrong, it does. if something (reason,theory,anger,orders,
fundamentalists principles) are used as excuse to do something, it becomes the reason for the act. so, in the comunist nations the theory served as excuse fo the killing, as well as the nazism theory. exemples, fundamentalist islam led to the rise of IS.

4- about the number of deaths: as i said some acounts are of 100 milions others go to 300 milions, please notice "some acounts" but, to serve as a fact bases:
http://www.thecommentator.com...
https://www.hawaii.edu...
http://www.battleswarmblog.com...
link to google search: https://www.google.com.br...

5- Karl Marx is not the only defender of comunism, true. but he is one of the most renowned communist theoretician, and
writer of the The Communist Manifesto, what makes of him one of most important communist theoretician.
links about marx: http://www.egs.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
google search link: https://www.google.com.br...

6-"This is factually incorrect and will most certainly require some evidence to support it. Communism actually is a philosophy based on the idea that the workers should control the means of the production and the government should be abolished as well as the economy and means of inequality. Nowhere in that definition / theory is racism ever an issue or even mentioned. And another misunderstanding is amidst in the rebuttal you so dearly supplied.
You do understand that for a nation to become Communist it must overthrow its government, because that is part of the process, right? Communism is not supposed to have a government, which would imply that it must be overthrown. The only reason it isn't considered the same thing as Anarchism is because it has different elements than Communism."

very good, how could a nation without economy stay alive? what about comerce? internation relations with a "nation without a government"? and not to mention other complex society questions.
and agin, one in some point in some time, will have something more than other, even if its a grain of wheat. this will happensas soon as someone take a place of comand on a "mean of the production", because one will have to supervise the production.

7- all nations ho where or are under a real life comunist regime chase after minorities and majorities, its a fact. so, i
bring agin the fact. facism regime killed millions, tortured and waged war on the name of its ideology(fascism), nazism regime killed millions, tortured and waged war on the name of its ideology(nazism), comunist regimes killed millions, turtured and waged waron the name of its ideology(comunism). and yet, nazism/facism or any other kind of totalitarian regime is considered a war crime, comunism is a totalitarian regime as well, anis not suffering the same penalties.

So i ask agin, taking on acount the real facts, not the theory, why is comunism not a war crime or something like that?
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

My apologies for the long wait, but I was in school.

Now, I had quickly skimmed the beginning of your introduction to this round, and then came upon your first few links. Upon clicking the Wikipedia link to 'socialist states', I slapped my forehead in severe disappointment. Now on to my rebuttals / arguments.

[1] "the facts that comunism exists in real life is not the theoretical comunism. and thus, a nation that declares it self a comunist/socialist nation/estate is folling that form of theory. just like a nation that declares it self a democracy is. so, until proved otherwise the fact is that a nation follows its ideology and form of government."

What? So the fact that Communism exists and is not theoretical means that the evidence on your side of the argument somehow becomes valid...? There is a difference between the theory of Communism itself and the way Communism has worked itself out in history. Well, that would be if Communism HAD been tried before in history, which it hasn't. At most, Socialism has been attempted. And for the short period of time that Lenin had assumed control in the U.S.S.R, there was in fact Socialism, but upon Stalin taking over, the Soviet Union became a place of totalitarian dictatorship. That was not a slip-up in Communism, but Socialism. The perfect segue...

[2] Socialism and Communism are two entirely different political ideologies. Well, not ENTIRELY. Communism is more like the radical brother of Socialism. In Socialism, there is still a government. In fact, a big part of Socialism is an increase in presence of government. Socialism = big government. This is so that services like Welfare, Social Security, Housing, Healthcare and Education can be better controlled by a government with more power. For instance, a Socialist Republic is established, and the first goal of the government is to impose a free public education system, in order for the Socialist government officials to do this and maintain it, they must increase the presence of government so that it can be both enforced and properly monitored, that way nothing goes wrong in funding with smaller-level governments [state governments for instance] do not attempt to shut it down. Socialism and Communism share one common feature: the interest in keeping the control of the means of production in the hands of the workers -- the common ownership of the means of production has opposed to the private ownership. Which can be more effective...If it works. But again, the argument in question is not whether or not Communism / Socialism can work, it is whether or not it should be banned. Which is reiterated as no.

Going back to that point, the Wikipedia article lists 'Socialist States', and again, it is an example of the existence of distorted Socialism in eastern Europe and also in Asia, not the existence of Communism or how it has lead to genocidal acts or totalitarian regimes.

http://www.diffen.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

And that is not even bringing up the point that Wikipedia is an extremely non-credible resource to use in a debate and just in general. Literally anyone [even without a registered account] could go on and edit at will. And though it can be fixed by the people employed to keep it factual and accurate, it can always be missed when the editors go through it.

[3] "comuism does not kill people" wrong, it does. if something (reason,theory,anger,orders,
fundamentalists principles) are used as excuse to do something, it becomes the reason for the act. so, in the comunist nations the theory served as excuse fo the killing, as well as the nazism theory. exemples, fundamentalist islam led to the rise of IS.

Actually, it is logical to say that Communism does in fact to lead to some extent of death...But not in the sense of a genocidal totalitarian regime. Communism would only lead to death in the sense of revolutions that occur to overthrow the government and instill the state-less, class-less and money-less goal that the Communist revolutionaries seek. And even then, saying that something is a motive behind something does not mean it actually is. It could simply be an excuse. For instance, in the United States there was recently a police officer caught abusing their powers and needlessly beating up an innocent man on camera. They tried to say that their motive for attacking the person was self-defense -- that they had been attacked first, that was later proven by the footage to be incorrect. So the officer saw the coordinating consequences for the offense committed. This is a lesson learned that can carry on to the concept itself regardless of what the specific scenario is.

For example, radical Islamist groups often claim that fighting in the name of Allah is their motive for horrible actions, as you had brought up ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. ISIS uses its religion's teachings to justify its actions...Well, not really. ISIS is a radical Islamic group that distorts the teachings of the Koran, spreads the false words and then uses that to justify their actions and prevent being attacked. Similar to the old expression "you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, would you?" Again, they are using the fact that they are religious to shield themselves from persecution. Another example would be the Westborough Baptist Church, also an organization existent in the United States, which is not really a religious church group, but actually is just a hate group that protests the rights of leftists, homosexuals and the handicapped. The people of the so-called "church" often hold up signs like 'god hates f*gs' in common protest.

Another problem with the argument is the use of the word 'fundamentalist'. Fundamentalism was the Christian movement in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that argued against the theory of Evolution and advocated the idea that the Bible is meant to be taken literally [word for word in this context]. So an elaboration would be convenient for the sake of insight and proper rebuttal.

[4] "- Karl Marx is not the only defender of comunism, true. but he is one of the most renowned communist theoretician, and
writer of the The Communist Manifesto, what makes of him one of most important communist theoretician."

Actually, this is completely untrue. Although Karl Marx was considered the father of Communism, the German scholar cannot be held accountable for the actions of people like Joseph Stalin. Karl Marx himself did not fight, instead he was more like a philosophical cheerleader for the Bolshevik Revolutionaries fighting the October Revolution to overthrow Czar Nicholas II, which eventually lead to Nicholas and his wife dying as well as the temporary [or transitional] state owned by Vladimir Lenin who did a fairly decent job considering the circumstances. But preceding the assassination of Lenin, Stalin took absolute power and was nowhere near representative of Socialism. That was a simple mask worn by the country's government to make itself look promising, it was essentially a political smokescreen.

Writing the Communist Manifesto does not necessarily immediately indicate his importance to the theory, either. In this case it only does because he was quite literally the originally the founder, but that is not an applicable rule to all aspects of life. For example, if some random high school student wrote a book indicating the principles of Communism but made it truly their own political beliefs, would that truly be representative of Communism and its ideas collectively? Of course not, it's not representative of Communism, but simply that person's beliefs as an individual. Just because they slap the name of Communism on the front does not indicate that it's actually Communism.

Referring back to the example between National Socialism and Socialism.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

National Socialism is defined in accordance to The Free Dictionary as, quote:

"the doctrines and practices of the Nazis, involving the supremacy of Hitler as F"hrer, anti-Semitism, state control of the economy, and national expansion. Also called: Nazism or Naziism"

Nowhere in the Communist Manifesto or in any of the minds of men like Lenin existed the idea that Jews needed to die or that nations must expand. The only similarity National Socialism and Socialism hold is the government ownership of the economy. But Socialism is not a political ideology that warrants the expansion of a country's borders, that would then become National Socialism and Imperialism, which is generally frowned upon in the Socialist philosophies.

Not to even mention that Hitler persecuted Communists and Socialists and in many speeches talked about how he and his party had been celebrating the extermination of the Marxists in Germany.

Skip to about 3:28 in this video and you will come to find that Hitler withheld a strong political opposition to Marxism: https://www.youtube.com...

[5] "very good, how could a nation without economy stay alive? what about comerce? internation relations with a
'nation without a government'? and not to mention other complex society questions."

It is hard to understand why questions like these would be asked, but then again it is not because for a hundred or so years, the governments globally began teaching students in schools that order must be kept in a country for it be successful. However, barter economy, market economy and other economic systems solely based on trade in opposition to currency being implemented with designated values have existed remarkably. Some of the first most successful empires and generally countries were using trade, and at some point or another in time, most European and northern Africa countries were using trade. For instance, the Roman Empire would trade with the Ottoman Empire or the Greek with trade with the Moroccans. Trade systems can replace systems of currency.
Debate Round No. 3
miguel_almeida

Pro

no problem about the waiting, i know we all have work to do. so dont worry about that bro :)
and by the way, your arguments where quite confusing this time.. but apart from that let us continue..

1- about comunism/socialism killing people: an excuse or a real reason for an act is irrelevant after the act is already done, o act becomes the important question, not necessarily what brought the act to life. we need to stay up with the facts. the fact: nations and countries that followed the theory of comunism/socialism, being it the right way or the wrong way, committed atrocities to humans. and yet, they are not charged or punished for it. why not?

2- about marx: i did not got the idea clearly, but anyway, are you saying that marx as you said "Although Karl Marx was considered the father of Communism" is not responsible for what he said about comunism? neither that his statement about the races that could not achieve that kind of development (comunism) are to perish, is not important?

3- about wiki, i only used it to show the list of countries, but supported the list with other links too. please bear in mind that i did not relied only on wikipedia sources.

4- i again tell you, i am not arguing about the theory of comunism/socialism. but how it was put to work, how it happened in real life. and in real life, comunism/socialism is just as showed by history. that is the fact. so, i go back to topic 1, why is the ideology of socialism/comunism is not banned or considered as a war crime? could all nations and people that tried to follow it have done it wrong? if so, then the theory itself is a failure, because no one ho ever tried could reach what, in the theory, would be the right way of doing it. ( is another reason for being banned, inefficiency in transmiting a knowledge)
also, in socialis/tcomunist regimes the repression is total, just look at china, or cuba. just like it was on nazism.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

Thank you for the understanding. I also don't quite understand your arguments or how mine were confusing. But I digress...

[1] "about comunism/socialism killing people: an excuse or a real reason for an act is irrelevant after the act is already done, o act becomes the important question, not necessarily what brought the act to life. we need to stay up with the facts. the fact: nations and countries that followed the theory of comunism/socialism, being it the right way or the wrong way, committed atrocities to humans. and yet, they are not charged or punished for it. why not?"

1A) Well to begin, you were the first to have brought up the point that the motive to impose Communism and that therefore the said countries (i.e USSR) were Communist because such nations claimed themselves as such. So how you are confused and then sweeping it under the rug is baffling. Again, the motive can be a political smokescreen -- a lie to protect reputation. What brought the act to life was Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and et cetera was greediness and selfishness. The need to absorb power. The lust to rise to a position above the people and to overtake the country. But with Kim Jong Un (another supposed Communist leader)...It's different...Un inherited his position from his father and grandfather. So he is more of a monarch or dynastic despot than anything.

1B) It is disgusting that you still believe the countries were practicing Communism or Socialism. You even say, "in the right way or wrong way". Honestly, how does that happen? Allow it to be clear: If it is not Communism that way Communism is supposed to be done [state-less, class-less, money-less] then it is NOT COMMUNISM. If there is still a government, economy or existence of inequality, the simple truth of the matter is that no Communism is present. Bottom line. The only other definition that could be used to counter-argue this point would be the western definition fabricated in the days of the Cold War which was already presented, but as a memory refresher:

Communism:
a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

And to reiterate, this is not Communism. This is Totalitarianism, Enlightened Despotism and Fascist Dictatorship. None of this should be viewed as Communism and the reason many people are convinced that it is is because of political propaganda. Again, the claim that Communism was an oppressive political entity much like that of Nazi Germany. Which the way it was being practiced it was, but it still was not Communism. It was something else. It should not be this hard of a concept to understand, truthfully.

1C) Yes, crimes that claimed they were "Communist" committed war crimes, indeed. But the reason they are not illegal in countries like Brazil or the U.S. is because it is found as unconstitutional. It is considered a basic human right to withhold political, religious and social opinions as desired. To take that right away would be to violate someone's basic human rights. No matter how prejudiced the ideology / religion / social norm is, it is still allowed to be viewed unless in a country of Despotism or general oppression. And even then the idea itself is not made illegal because it's not viewed as necessary -- which is correct. While some countries have, many have not singled out political ideas like Nazism and any Aryan-based political philosophies, which is another misconception. 'Aryan' actually refers to people of Iran, India or some select few countries in that general area. The Nazis used it to be mean 'white and pure'. So again, the distortion of a political ideology as a serious impact on its credibility and reputation for generations because it becomes part of family-orientated and government-oriented education. Conservatism is not illegal and that's a rather discriminatory political ideology in which homosexuals, blacks, foreigners and everyone not rich, white and/or Christian is discriminated against through legislation. Why should it be any different with Communism? Not to try and justify Nazism or any of the beliefs, but truly Communism is misrepresented in everyday life and should not be made illegal because it is misunderstood and that would be cherry-picking.

[2] "2- about marx: i did not got the idea clearly, but anyway, are you saying that marx as you said "Although Karl Marx was considered the father of Communism" is not responsible for what he said about comunism? neither that his statement about the races that could not achieve that kind of development (comunism) are to perish, is not important?"

2A) First of all it was never stated that Karl Marx was significantly less important, it is just acknowledged that he was not the only founder of the Communist or Socialist principles that erupted in Europe in the nineteen hundreds. And Marxism is only one of the many forums of Communism. There is still Leninism, Marxist-Leninism, Anarcho-Communism and et cetera. Communism is a broad ideology with many forms and sub-forms, like Capitalism.

2B) It would be generous to provide direct evidence from the Communist Manifesto in which Karl Marx actually stated that races or individuals incapable of providing effectively enough for the community would be killed. Because without evidence to support it, it becomes futile to argue that point.

2C) Of course what Karl Marx has to say about Communism is important, and he's said many things about it that were very positive, promotional and also true. That is of course, not withstanding the misunderstood dictatorships referred to as 'Communist Leaderships'. And that is not even beginning to acknowledge that Friedrich Engels also took part in the scribing of the Communist Manifesto, and gets little-to-no credit for having done so from anti-Communist debaters in these facile arguments.

[3] "about wiki, i only used it to show the list of countries, but supported the list with other links too. please bear in mind that i did not relied only on wikipedia sources."

3A) This is true, however the links were all non-credible blog posts in which were degrading the countries for having "communist beliefs" that they didn't even have. None of them had any hint of credibility in the slightest. Where as the Engels and Marx Communist Manifesto is most certainly a primary source, as they are two out of the handful of Communist's parents.

[4] "i again tell you, i am not arguing about the theory of comunism/socialism. but how it was put to work, how it happened in real life. and in real life, comunism/socialism is just as showed by history. that is the fact. so, i go back to topic 1, why is the ideology of socialism/comunism is not banned or considered as a war crime? could all nations and people that tried to follow it have done it wrong? if so, then the theory itself is a failure, because no one ho ever tried could reach what, in the theory, would be the right way of doing it. ( is another reason for being banned, inefficiency in transmiting a knowledge)
also, in socialis/tcomunist regimes the repression is total, just look at china, or cuba. just like it was on nazism."

4A) That's actually entirely untrue. You are arguing the theory of Communism and Socialism. If you are arguing how it is put to work it must involve both the intentions and the outcome. You must compare and contrast them to truly understand the difference. The goal of Communism is to have no state, money or class, which none of the listed countries fulfilled. Thus meaning they were not Communism nor Socialist and thus making your claims false.

4B) No, it isn't reflected or represented in history, at all. The theory was distorted and became oppressive totalitarian regimes instead of countries that were hardly countries, ones without government, economy or inequality of any kind. This is simply representative history of false political bravado.

4C) A political ideology itself cannot be considered a war crime. For example, if a forty-year-old man was admittedly a Neo-Nazi and, when in the vicinity of a court for a trial, had made it clear that they were one, their political beliefs would not be viewed as war crimes and get them immediately sentenced to death. Well, not in most countries, at least. And why not? Because just like with religions, it is about what you bring to it. You can be a violent and criminal person with radical beliefs or a relaxed and reserved person with lightweight beliefs. Neo-Nazis tend to be very radical, but it's not always. To say so would be to illegitimately generalize all of the people of that specific political ideology and to discriminate. Of course, again, not defending the idea of Nazism, but it is true: the political ideology itself is not a war crime. Just like Islam is not a violent religion inherently, it is what the follower brings to it. And just like a homosexual could be secretive about it or public and proud with it, it's what is brought to it by the individuals of the adopted belief. The theory cannot be proven a failure because attempts were not made to instill Communism...ever. If anything it was Socialism, so go and point fingers at Socialism. And even then, you wouldn't point fingers at Capitalism because a president was assassinated. Because most people think that just because Lenin was assassinated that all of a sudden it means Socialism cannot work. That's a load of bogus and it's the result of having a fixed, manipulated mindset. Capitalism does not work, all of the "capitalist countries" are both Socialist and Capitalist regarding federal policies and systems and just general politics. Socialism has been tried before but it doesn't mean that because it once failed that it can not ever work, same goes with any other political philosophy.

I hope this argument was more clear. I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 4
miguel_almeida

Pro

bro, sorry for making you wait so long, i got really busy this weekend, we are having a exposition in rio de janeiro so i needed to spend some time there.. and the argument was much more clear, thanks a lot kkkk well, off the debate than.. for this last round i would like to put some personal reasons in the debate, fell free to do the same if you wish.

1- i never said the theory of comunism was not good, neither the countries that follow this theory are doing t it how it should be, maybe i have not expressed myself well, sorry about that.. what i ment to say, was that even if no country ever achived comunism it was used as a reason or excuse to commit crimes that are unjustified. i did not wished to brought up the question about the trully way to follow comunism. but we can not denny that those crimes were commited in a state that were ruled by a comunist banner.
about the right of free expression: you are right, totally right. but, unfortunately this right expression is not taken so seriously. and thus, i belive that in order to be just, if a country banned an ideology because of the war crimes commited the nation that followed it, they should it with all kinds of ideologys, incluind comunism and totalitarism. or do not ban any ideology at all.

2- bro, i live pro comunism country, and serously, i never met anyone, ho is not brainwashed by the govenment, that likes comunism/socialism, neither there is anytheory in the day to day life, there are no such things as equallity here, unless of course you are a member of the party, and since im not one, theres no equallity for me either. bro, in almost 20 years of "comunism" in Brasil nothing good happend. the country is falling apart ,in all possible ways of interpretation, there is no food for every one, people make lines in front of supermarkets to buy food that sometimes do not even exist, and as result some starve untill death, especially in the northeast and far north regions. there is no health sistem, if you need a hospital your dead, and its a metaphor, the lines for the hospitals are endless and en if you have the luck to get in, theres no real assurance that you will be taken care of, because theres no enought medics or there are no medicines/equipment, and you cant even think about privitive health care, belive it, you are not going to use one of the privative ones theres no money for that, unless again you are a member of the party. crime is a common thig, you work hard to buy something or do have a honest life and an outlaw can ruim it all in seconds, and sometimes, they do not even rob you, thy just shoot to kill. the police and armed forces are all scrapped, we joke around saiyng that the US started their war on terror late, we already were having one here. and its really that way, we are at war with criminals the 80s or so, just go to a big city, or to the semiarid regions, the far northern parts. there are guerrila groups in every state and region, some of then are even supplied by the governmet, the farcs, mst and so on. the economic state of the country is terrible, no matter how much you earn in your job, its never enought to live with a decent quality, the taxes are way to high and often abusive. and the list goes on.. that how life is in a pro socialist/comunist country, taking into acount the way how comunism/socialism was and is being used until today. now, imagine that in Cuba, or Venezuela.

3- theory is not real action. in theory comunism was one, but the way it was put to action was completely diferent. you said that a political ideology itself could not be blammed, i do not belive so. imagine, perhaps we would not have heard of nazi war crimes if there were no nazis. neither of a totalitarian comunist regime, f there was no comunism theory at all. the theory itself has a major importance nad influence over peoples actions and beliefs, so they are to be blamed just as much.

4- to end the argument, i would like to tell a little joke we have arund here. "in comunism people make lines to wait for bread, in captalism bread makes line to wait for people." and belive me, its true.

thanks for the debate man.. i really liked it.. hope we can have others :)
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

Well I, unlike you, am not going to personalize my argument. It will still be what it was to begin with and I will add more to it in accordance to the rebuttals I base off of your arguments in this last round.

[1] "1- i never said the theory of comunism was not good, neither the countries that follow this theory are doing t it how it should be, maybe i have not expressed myself well, sorry about that.. what i ment to say, was that even if no country ever achived comunism it was used as a reason or excuse to commit crimes that are unjustified. i did not wished to brought up the question about the trully way to follow comunism. but we can not denny that those crimes were commited in a state that were ruled by a comunist banner.
about the right of free expression: you are right, totally right. but, unfortunately this right expression is not taken so seriously. and thus, i belive that in order to be just, if a country banned an ideology because of the war crimes commited the nation that followed it, they should it with all kinds of ideologys, incluind comunism and totalitarism. or do not ban any ideology at all."

Actually you did essentially say that the theory of Communism was not good. Because you are arguing the point throughout this entire debate that it should be deemed a war criminal ideology and should be banned in countries across the globe much like a handful of countries in Europe have deemed Nazism outlawed. If you had a neutral or positive opinion on Communism you would not want it to be banned. But again, the Communism you see in this debate is not what Communism is which invalidates your argument logically. Communism is the political philosophy that leaves a country state-less, class-less and money-less. Even after the transitional state that Karl Marx himself proposes in the Communist Manifesto which you ignorantly sited as evidence without any direct quotations or general evidence. Though this source may look incredibly biased, be aware that it is not; it is simply a organization's website that follows Marx and writes articles with its own primary sources [as in from Marx himself]: http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org...

Karl Mark believed in a State would segue the country into the Communistic goal that both he and his comrades wished to attain. The transitional State would be extremely authoritarian socialist and dictate the proletarian populace and drain the power of the ruling classes. And when the time came the end result would become Communism, where the government is abolished, the economy is eliminated and inequality perishes nationally. Marx's vision of Communism was distorted by Stalin who exploited the death of the late Bolshevik Revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin, who ran a Socialist Republic of the USSR and knew exactly what he was doing. Stalin took it upon himself to trust no one, and even executed his own military officers and ground soldiers with a weapon triggered by his own finger. Stalin had his own men placed in camps and prisons and oppressed the Russian people, letting them live in poverty, fear and mass genocide. But at the same time, Stalin propagated the secretly dystopian society to other world Super Powers by making the country look incredibly good and often flaunting the much-invested and extremely powerful Red Army. North Korea is similar in that respect. But neither are Communist, because a forced leadership exists, as well as a broken economy and fearful people.

And yes, it is entirely deniable that these war crimes and atrocities against innocent civilians were committed in a Communist State, which in of itself is an oxymoron. Again, Communism cannot have a ruler of any kind. So it makes no sense to say that its Communism, even if the politician claims that to be the motive. In the same respect that, again, ISIS claims Islam to be its motive for be-headings and killings. It is not logical to make that representative of the idea in question, because it is nothing but distorted extremism and masking the true cause.

In fact, a historical example of a politician using this tactic to attain power would be Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, when they ran in their first election in Germany against the Weimer Republic and other political organizations in Germany that had, at the time, existed. Hitler and his political comrades called themselves the 'Right Wings', but upon achieving power and Hitler eventually becoming Chancellor and Hindenburgh giving him Emergency Access and other federal privileges, Hitler rose to power as the Fascist Ruler of Germany and put his political opponents in camps. Again, he used one motive to get what he wanted and then revealed himself after his victory. This is a proper example of a political smokescreen. Hitler and the Nazis were not Republicans, they were Fascists and war criminals, much like the leaders you have been describing this entire debate, who are in no way Communist.

[2] "bro, i live pro comunism country, and serously, i never met anyone, ho is not brainwashed by the govenment, that likes comunism/socialism, neither there is anytheory in the day to day life, there are no such things as equallity here, unless of course you are a member of the party, and since im not one, theres no equallity for me either."

Even if you had lived in a "pro-Communist country" (whatever that means), that does not mean the country itself is Communist, it just means that it supports the idea of Communist. And the only reason you've never met someone who willingly loves Communism and Socialism is because Brazil has a very Western education system that advocates the downfall of the distorted Socialism of the Cold War and that was again, mistaken for Communism by idiots all around the world. Brazil, The United States and almost any nation today (especially in the West) is likely to oppose Communism and Socialism indiscriminately. And even Brazil most certainly gives rights to its citizens, if you had no rights you would not be typing on this computer right now talking about how the government is an oppressive regime. Brazil is a safe haven for the LGBTQ Community and may Gay Rights parades, celebrations and general communities exist in that country. And if Brazil is willing to give rights to LGBTQ citizens, they will likely give it to others. Because one of the biggest targets of oppression is the minority group of LGBT people in a country, city, province, etc., and in the case of Brazil, that minority is free and so it is right to assume that others would be, too.

Crime may be a common thing but that does not mean citizens have rights, it just means that the police are not doing their jobs, in which case should not be a surprise to many people in this world. And police abusing their powers is a little bit more supportive of your claim, but to be fair, the United States has as of late been suffering from outbreaks of police abuse cases and the majority of people in the country still have rights. Yes, it's an issue that involves the infringing of rights and its horrible, but it does not collectively mean the country is run by oppressive people or that the whole country is being wiped of its civil rights.

[3] "Theory is not real action." Could not have said it any better. Theory is not real action, so the theory of Communism [because it should be well known given the arguments made on this side of the debate] was not really put into place if the countries accused of following it did not meet the criteria.

State-less: No
Money-less: No
Class-less: No

And you are absolutely right, we would not have at all heard about Nazi war crimes without Nazis being there to commit them, but that's a different story because Nazis were basing their actions off of the political ideology they were actually following. They met the requirements for Nazism.

White Leader: Yes
Genocide: Yes
Anti-Semitism: Yes
White Supremacy: Yes
Nationalization: Yes
Dictatorship: Yes
Oppression: Yes

The difference is, to reiterate, Nazis followed the theory of Nazism, where as these so-called "Communist leaders" did not. Which is enough to prove the point being made on this side of the argument and disprove your analogy.

[4] Conclusion: Communism should not be banned at all because the idea in of itself is not bad, there is no historical proof that it is bad, and the political ideology in of itself cannot be marginalized by the government or deemed criminal. There is no reason to call it criminal or to arrest people for fostering its principles. Throughout history Communism was distorted and misunderstood as workers were exploited for wages that went to Capitalism itself in order to pay for wars, massacres, weaponry, Imperialism, politics, the economies that were and still are failing -- and workers still to this continue to face exploitation for money. Being forced to work a certain set of hours each day in every week for a paycheck that is nothing for the dangerous work they are doing.

And to end off on a different note; thank you for the debate opportunity and I hope you gained some insight of this.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
RFD continued...

Pro makes a better argument by arguing how a stateless state with no economy should operate. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't warrant the banning of the idea of communism.

Con wins on the arguments side.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
Conduct: tied. Both were ok.
Language: Pro made many grammatical and spelling mistakes, but he was understood and put extra effort given than English isn't his first language. No points deducted.
Sources: Pro presented more sources, but both presented sources. Tied.
Arguments:
Pro didn't clearly define the debate which hindered his ability. He argues that "communism should be banned". This implies that communism (any communist movement) will definitely and necessarily be bad and dangerous. Con rebutted this argument by stating that Pro has no proof for such claim. Pro brought the examples of USSR and China, but Con argued that these are not true forms of communism which is stateless. Con wins this argument.

Pro actually concedes on this debate by stating: "I never said the theory of communism was not good, neither the countries that follow this theory are doing t it how it should be, maybe i have not expressed myself well" If the theory is not good, and the countries who claim to be communist but not following it correctly, the this debate is over.

There are several types of communism. There is the Leninist model which actually believes in a state, democracy and economy. Pro should have challenged this type of model, and not the Marxist model. But even if Pro realized this, he should have provided proof of what warrants the banning of communism? Pro must show that communism will always lead to killings, genocide like what happened during Stalin and in China.

Pro argues that communism is similar to Nazism, and Con was able to show many characteristics that makes them different. Con wins this argument.

Pro argues that communism suggests that some races (proletariat) are superior from one another. Con showed that the proletariat is not a race, but the working class. Con wins this argument.

The arguments about Marx are red herrings.
Posted by MechVarg 1 year ago
MechVarg
Though I'm afraid you've described social democracy rather than socialism.
Posted by MechVarg 1 year ago
MechVarg
Satirical_Anarchist, you are rekking! Miguel, vo"" n"o " muito bom nisso. Minhas desculpas, m"s " a verdade.
Posted by AdmiralAsap 1 year ago
AdmiralAsap
The problem with your rebuttal that you cannot use what you consider "misinterpretations" of communism doesn't make sense because in theory anything works perfectly. Im for pro because he is providing examples of how communism has led to the deaths of millions and is really a facade of facism, because theoretical communism is near impossible to achieve so the execution of it is what it should be viewed by. Also if you support communism you must understand that it is a political/economic system that promotes the halt of progress. Why would you work harder if you're reward is the same as someone who works less? Human psychology is driven by greed and desire for better or worse, so yes, THEORETICALLY communism is ideal but it would call for everyone to be content with a hut and food to eat, which isnt the case and hopefully will never be(because that will be the end of progress and probably the human race).
Posted by miguel_almeida 1 year ago
miguel_almeida
GoOrDin:
ill say the same to you as i said in the debate. comunism kills..

- "comuism does not kill people" wrong, it does. if something (reason,theory,anger,orders,
fundamentalists principles) are used as excuse to do something, it becomes the reason for the act. so, in the comunist nations the theory served as excuse fo the killing, as well as the nazism theory. exemples, fundamentalist islam led to the rise of IS.

the mains question is why ideologys of totalitarian nature and that preach hate or anithyng like that are war crimes and comunism/socialism is not considered one of then, since they do the same preaching just with other wrods, is not suffering just as much?
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Pro is not sharing his Burden of Proof. He must prove his opinion not simply argue his opponent. He is failing in that right. IN a debate BoT is always on both parties to prove themselves**

second.
Communism did not kill anyone. If the party representing communism does not act in accordance with Communist ideals, they are not representatives of Communist governments. You cannot judge a communist Ideal by comparing it with Non-successful governments who shared those ideals but never achieved or acted upon them** That would make u an idiot.

first most.
Nazism - one race over coming another/ weak nations dying off. These are not war terms or discrimination terms* These are terms saying that the lazy achieve nothing and they get nothing in return, this is Capitalism** Nazism is Capitalism** The weak fail and accomplish nothing, and thus they die off. The strong succeed. Race is not Nationality, it in everyones right and capacity to start a Race of people.

I am a Communist, I am not a Nazi. I hate Nazism, because I adore cripples and handicap people, I adore chastity, loyalty and sacrifice. However, i acknowledge Nazi principals, because I am not an idiot.
I hate Capitalism, despite it can be used to actually better the world if used in it's full strength, the same way the Crown was used to rule Kingdoms.
Ideally, a singular King seated over a Senate in a democratic system of Communist Ideals, would be a preferable Country to live in. If you want to argue with me about that. Start a debate about it.

Miguel, clean up your debate tactic, You do have Burden of Truth.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I am pro communism.
Posted by miguel_almeida 1 year ago
miguel_almeida
ok, so first, i would like to put a few rules.
1- no insults.
2- please real bases and be as historically accurate as possible.
3- fell free to post selfconvictions an beliefs, as long as they do not insult or harm any
participants of the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
miguel_almeidaTheSatiricalAnarchistTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.