Communism is Bad

Be it resolved that communism is bad.

I have studies communism to an immense degree. No system has its flaws, But the flaws in communism are visibly apparent.

Would you like to debate practiced communism or true Marxism, As that will decide my arguments. I thank you for your time.

Hi, Nice to be debating you. I would like to debate true Marxism. I believe "practiced communism" hasn't really been communism, It has been authoritarianism under a communist facade. I do not support the work of Stalin. Stalin is essentially unfairly the face of communism, For Stalin himself is clearly a fascist with fascist ideas. Kim Jong Un is also a fascist, Not really a communist. And China is basically capitalist. The one communist leader I did support was Lenin, Not for being a great person, But for being a good leader and bringing a country back together after the installment of a new government. The two main problems during Lenin's reign were:
1: Famine, Which really wasn't communisms fault, It was the fault of environmental conditions
2: Lenin sending out his secret police to kill anyone he thought supported the Tsar and would overthrow him. Lenin was extremely paranoid, Probably due to PTSD, But none of the killings of the secret Lenin police was communisms fault. If you can find a passage in the manifesto saying "Thou shalt have famine and secret murder police in a communist society, " maybe I would blame communism. But to me, Both of these problems seem to be unassociated with communism.

One big complaint people have with Marxism is that there is no ethic to work. However, This assumes that the only reason someone would ever work a job is for the income. Not everyone detests their job. The government could help people find the job that the person would enjoy, And be glad to work. Some people work as a passion, And some enjoy the time spent with coworkers.

People would also be able to work for a much shorter period of time each day, And probably for only 3-4 days a week. Why, You ask? In true Marxism, There is no unemployed. The government is able to help employ everyone, Which makes people able to work for less time since more work is being done as a whole. Also, Monopolies are no longer a problem, Because you are unable to charge people more or less for a service. In communism, You only need one company to handle each industry.

What about government corruption? I think the easy answer is to have a rotating system. Look at jury duty in the US: there is no one employed in the "jury business. " People are randomly chosen to be in the jury. In communism, You could have a system where 20% of the population is randomly enlisted in a government at all times, And people rotate in and out. That minimizes government corruption.

What problems does communism solve? Monopolies and corporate control are no more. Copyright can cease to exist. Countrywide health care is easy and automatic. And so much more. Anyways, Nice to be debating you, And as always, I look forward to your response

Be it resolved that communism is bad
True Marxism is a very complicated subject to rebuttal, As theoretically, It should be a perfect system. I used to believe that the only flaw that communism faced was (as you mentioned) the corrupt leaders who enforced it such as Stalin. However, I have come to the the conclusion that communism has two fatal flaws that will forever prevent it from working in modern society.

The first major flaw of communism is how it relates to other economies. In theoretical communism, Or Marxism, They strive to get to the point of no currency. Their is no private property, And everything is borrowed and shared in order to benefit the good of the society. Unfortunately, Having no money or private property is a serious problem when relating to other economies. How would you import goods and resources? More importantly, What would you get in exchange for exporting you own resources? How do you balance a existing currency to no currency at all? In Marxism, This is solved with one global economy, But I doubt that countries like the U. S. A are going to willingly throw away their position as the richest in the world. If you have some of the answers to these questions, I would like to know.

The second major flaw of communism is how it relates to human nature. When people are presented with enough money and power, It can corrupt even the individual with the highest of intentions. Which is why we strive to limit as much power to our leaders in a democratic system, So no one individual controls that much power. Your preposition to randomly select leaders is a clever idea, But is not without flaws. First, To quote Joseph Stalin: "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything, " There is a inherent possibility of someone rigging the system to get people who share their ideals and goals in. The second problem is the randomness factor. Perhaps I misunderstood, But if you randomly select individuals, Who's to say they have the skills to lead the country? Picture this. You are a coal miner, Like your father before him and his father before him. Suddenly you receive a letter in the mail saying that you and 12 other people have to create legislation and decide the fate of the economy. You wouldn't know what to do at all! Likely you would be swayed to vote for whatever you are told is best for the economy.
I look forward to your response.

Your first flaw doesn't seem like a big problem to me, As I can see a communist country using currency purely for commerce with other countries.

Second flaw:
To answer a quote with a quote; "Human nature is like water. It takes the shape of its container. " - Wallace Stevens
Just to clarify, I am not against democracy. However, Democracy has one major flaw: Democracy does not represent everyone, Only the majority. The randomness gives everyone an equal chance to have their opinions amplified. In your example with the coal miner, You suggest 12 people creating legislation. However, I would suggest that the country randomly employ 20, 000 leaders who do all of the legislation for a month, Before having new leaders rotate in. These ideas would eliminate the idea of politicians while still keeping a democratic society, Which seems lovely. I think the first generation of people in the communist society would be the hardest, But after everything is put in place, It should not cease to function easily. I think a constitution could really be another beneficial tool easily used to prevent corruption. I think a simple, Not incredibly limiting unamendable constitution would fit best. Anyways, I would like to hear if you have any other major reasons against it.
I do quite look forward to your response.

Be it resolved that communism is bad.

Re-reading my second point, I see I failed to get my intentions through. I said. What I tried to say was that each individual will look after his own needs and self interests, Even if its bad for the economy. The unfortunate truth is the majority of the population does not know how to lead a economy. The majority of people have not studied political law. In fact, Only 33. 5% of people have their bachelors degree.

Democracy solves this by narrowing the demographic. The people we elect are politicians who have spent their time and effort studying political law. Correct me if I misunderstood, But in your system, People are selected from everyone in the population. This presents a flaw as I stated before, Most people don't know how to lead a nation state.

Also, Concerning the matter of democracy, We have the senate to represent minorities. Granted, The senate is flawed because they are elected by the majority of each state, But at least if one state isn't represented elsewhere they do have a senator to represent them.

Concerning the number of people leading a nation state. I worry about how the number of people you decided would work in practice. In theory, It should work perfectly, But in practice, 20, 000 people with equal power trying to make decisions would be slow and indecisive. Also, How would they make those decisions? If they put it to a vote, Then we still have the problem of the majority. And if not, Who says what should be done? I chose 12 in my earlier argument because of your jury example. If we had twelve random people, It is likely that they could come to a unanimous decision. If not, It gets put to a vote by the general populace (just realized I solved my own problem, Never mind).

Just some things to think about, I look forward to your response.

Unfortunate.

You are a very talented debater, So I was waiting for you to destroy my arguments

. . .

I'm just disappointed now.

If you seek a rematch, I will be waiting.

do svidaniya comrade.

Reeeeealy sorry I forgot about the debate XD
I was planning on posting on Sunday but it slipped my mind