The Instigator
Constant_Minority
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tfroitz1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Communism is a working system

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 118552
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Constant_Minority

Pro

Communism was created in the mid-1800's by two German philosophers (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels). They created a political system that has earned a bad reputation over the years in the Western Hemisphere (presumably due to the Cold War). Marx and Engel's political theory was named "Marxism", Or Communism. This system was created in the Paris Commune, Where many people of a very diverse set of political opinion (Anarchists, Marxists, Opportunists, Socialists, Etc. ) all debated on how a government should run.
Marx was not for a Utopian society because the people living in a Utopian society will eventually become weak; that is what sets Anarchism and Communism apart, For the most part (except the idea of individualism instead of working as a whole). Marx had also done other works like Capital, V. 1, 2, And 3; he was an economist as well as a politician. He was raised by the rich and was still willing to destroy the system of currency which had caused the struggle of class society:
"The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done
away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, New conditions of oppression,
new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. " (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto, Page 14)
Communism is a working system, Presumably the most of a socialist working form under Leninism. I understand that Communism would only work if people weren't selfish, But we as humans should be able to overcome our primitive need for greed, Which had brought Louis XVI to death. Live by his example and do not be greedy.
tfroitz1

Con

I am very much looking forward to this debate. I think it would be beneficial to first define our terms.

Communism:
the belief in a society without different social classes in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need
(https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org/dictionary/english/communism)

The problems of Communism lies in two distinct areas. First in human nature and secondly in the economy.

Lets first address human nature, Which you already touched upon. The problem is that it isn"t as easy as you think to give an example of greed bringing you to death. In addition to that your example isn"t a very good one considering Louis XVI was King of France for over 17 years and dying at age 38 wasn"t that bad of a deal back then. But the more principled case is that communism requires no less than the abolition of the selfish tendencies of all people in the society for the greater good of that society itself. Let me explain that. In order for a communist system, In which all is controlled by all members of the system, To work, It needs for everyone to have an equal interest in the control of this society. As soon as you have a few who are more interested in the power of control than others they will acquire that control. As soon as you have someone wanting more than society allocates him whether this wish is reasonable or not, Your system is in danger. Now let"s look at human nature. Is there anything in human nature that could bring people to have such selfish tendencies? The overwhelming answer is yes of course and there are not just one or two minor things, But it is a central part of human nature. From our evolutionary history we see that, While cooperation is the important characteristic that brought us to the top, It is always with at least some long term selfish intend behind it. Most often this intend is blatantly obvious from the metaphor of the apes "I scratch your back, If you scratch mine". As those selfish tendencies are absolutely ingrained in human nature it doesn"t just suffice to say that people are able to not be greedy. If you don"t bring a way in which you prevent people from being selfish and being greedy they will be. And that is what we have seen and do see in all the communist societies from Venezuela to the Soviet Union and North Korea in the marriage between communism and authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And as soon as there is a mechanism, From one strong man silencing the rest to the oppression of opposition by a group of revolutionaries, It is not a working system but rather one of the worst catastrophes that ever befall our species. Without that mechanism you provide nothing more than what you said it isn"t: a Utopian dream

Now lets turn to the economy. The problem here lies again in the fallibility of humans whether single or in groups. Communism necessarily needs, In order to have all wealth in public hand so that every does what he can and gets what he needs, Some way of assessing what the wealth is and what is required by the people. It needs knowledge in a centralized form in order to plan it. This doesn"t work and is also a concept that fails to make use of the normal way markets work. The reason why in a society working with a market, That can even be regulated, Is able to provide its citizens with the possibility to acquire everything they need, Is that they use the natural progression of markets where demand is meet by some offer. They do not try to plan it themselves. While planning it is a waste of time considering that in any capitalist market system it works way better than if someone makes those plans up, As in this case actually all are part of the process, It is also dangerous. The innumerous shortages for example in the Soviet Union show that very well. And one can see it in principle too. If you have a council, Because all can"t be involved anyway, Which have to make plans, You can even disregard inevitable mistakes and miscalculations. The problem arises through change and the concept of progress. As societies develop you always have to amend the plan and as this progress especially in modern time is so immense it is just not possible. You won"t achieve a working system but a catastrophe of shortages by definition.

Therefore I maintain that communism as defined is not a viable and working system.
Debate Round No. 1
Constant_Minority

Pro

Thank you for putting up a greatly structured argumental essay. I'm also looking forward to a civil discussion about this topic.

To paraphrase Vladimir Lenin, "those who are apart of society aren't corrupt. " This statement is to show that people keep other people uncorrupt. When people get greedy, The entire system suffers and so everyone suffers since everyone would be apart of the system. Another example of Greed causing death is how Adolf Hitler wanted more and more resources for Germany, Creating a two-front war, Spreading his army of 8 million too thing to fight off the Allies in 1941.

One of the steps in Communism stated by Karl Marx was to get rid of a standard currency because that is what creates the class divide and struggle. Money makes people corrupt as well. If we only use commodities as the exchange (which wouldn't make them commodities), Then we use the product of our labor as the divide. People will still work, And as technology advances, So will how much can be given by society. People can still have more than others, But the individual will still be doing more work, Getting more reward, But this action still helps the society.

Eventually, The entire government system will be abolished in a period of at least 24 hours (from Lenin's State and Revolution). This will be after the Army is abolished (due to them not being apart of society and being looked at as "above society") and local militias are established (also from State and Revolution).

Since the Human Nature issue of greed is solved by the non-corruption of society and the economic issue of money is solved by the abolition of currency, I rest my case.
tfroitz1

Con

I am sorry that it took me so long to answer.

Let"s begin with your first point that being a part of the society is a sufficient condition for not being corrupt. This is just flat out not true. The main point of corruption is the attempt to take something from society, Which makes the society worse off but yourself better. If you are in a society in which not paying taxes is through some hole in the tax code possible, You have a huge benefit to yourself while damaging the society. The damaged society though impacts you weigh less than the additional money you have. The same is true for corruption. If I get paid to let someone off the charge as a police officer say 100$, I have a way bigger incentive to do it then I have for the restraint of honoring the society and not be corrupt. If there is no additional incentive not to be corrupt and the citizens have something they want, Which is obviously always the case, And the later impact of my specific corruption on the society in return to me have such a minor impact on me that you still have a net benefit, It will not prevent me. This is only enforced due to the human way of planning which always biases the now very much. Having now more money is preferable to having in twenty years a functional state especially as I am not the only contributor. Therefore this cognitive bias tips the scales even more. And in addition to that you have to see that the impact of a single and separate infringement by me is even if I abstain no guaranty that I have in twenty years that strong state. It is also giving the incentive to outcompete other parties as you have to fear to be later under them if you don"t act in time giving you an additional incentive not to play by the rules.

Now Hitler is an even worse example then the last. Hitler was the chancellor of Germany for 12 Years and had the ability to do what he wanted and saw to be right for that time. There are many who would take that every day of the week just to do what they think is right. So Hitler is no example of a person who someone can feel sorry for that he has missed out on something.

And now to currency. The main thing which currency has provided is the greatest increase in human flourishing ever, But that is beside the point. What we can be certain of if that it hasn"t brought about a class divide. There were since the beginning of human civilization always those that where better off and those that were worse. From just different skills from one to another, To social rank and position it had always a difference.
Then it is important to see why we even use this social construct of money. It is because of three reasons mainly. First it is easier to exchange and to have trading if you do not have to pay with the one thing that the other wants, But with a medium, Money, That everyone wants and has a certain value. Second is the ability to give credits which are the only way of increasing wealth and which are the reason we need banks. Money makes giving someone a credit to start her company easier than ever. And thirdly it makes a social state possible. It allows the payment and distribution of goods and social goods way easier as well as it allows better to invest in immaterial things such as development and research which allows progress. So as we see money isn"t a dirty word, But literally one of the biggest ideas bringing our species forward.
While abandoning money is one of the worst possible ideas, It wouldn"t also solve your problem of corruption. True, It would be not as easy, Because all things are harder without money, But money is not the reason of corruption. The incentive of positive reward for the corruption brings it about and that is not connected to money.

As I have briefly already touched upon, Your hope for advances in technology increasing the net worth of your society in order to give everyone more doesn"t work either. One reason would be that money is a key motor of the progress, But also the problem that advances need competition. If you only have the few who regardless of all else just want to know something, You lose any incentive for the others to make progress. The stage they are at right now is enough and if they get better they do not have a positive impact above the rest which means they don"t have an incentive. It is important to see that a major reason for us to do something or invest in it, Is to achieve superiority over others which can be well explained in evolutionary terms.

If everything is owned by society it is not possible for some to have more than others. It is flat out against any common sense definition of communism which is why I won"t have to say any more on that point. What is though true is that without a working market system people will work way more and especially menial and useless jobs. Communism would through destroying competition and also any wish for development also destroy the pleasant and high quality life"s we have right now. To say it in short, Living in a communist society would be a nightmare.

Your last paragraph sadly now looses any kind of reason. You can"t abolish a government as you can"t work a communist system without some way of accommodating the administrative jobs of distribution and especially reinforcement of ideas so that no one exploits the system. The Soviet Union had for good reason a huge government. To abolish the army and with it violence is equally na"ve. The important point of a government is to have the monopoly on the use of violence. It is absolutely necessary to both allow the control of people in the society and especially prevent it from anarchy. Therefore what you cite here, Unimportant of whom, Is false.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Constant_Minority

Pro

Constant_Minority forfeited this round.
tfroitz1

Con

tfroitz1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Constant_Minority

Pro

Constant_Minority forfeited this round.
tfroitz1

Con

tfroitz1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Constant_Minority

Pro

Constant_Minority forfeited this round.
tfroitz1

Con

It is sad that we couldn't actually her a responds to ma last remarks. I can only affirm my arguments that communism is not a working system.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tfroitz1 3 years ago
tfroitz1
I am not sure whether this debate works any more. I have received a notofication by debate. Org telling me that it where my turn to debate even though I can't see you that posted anything jet. I just wanted to ask whether you have posted it jet in order to know whether the problem lies with me.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
If humans are so greedy, Don't you think that greed will still be an issue in a communist society? To illustrate my point i'd like to point towards Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba, Just to name a few countries which are highly corrupt.

My biggest issue with communism and this is something no communist seems to understand nor acknowledge.
Communism removes any form of competition, Communist systems need only work, They don't need to be better than other systems, This means technological advancement will cease. Innovation is a result of competition and comes to a snails pace in a communist society, Harming man kind in the long run.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.