The Instigator
Wahmenrespector
Pro (for)
The Contender
dukeofpanda
Con (against)

Counter Point to the Kindergarten Cookie Ration argument

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Wahmenrespector has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 376 times Debate No: 112426
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Wahmenrespector

Pro

The point that I have commonly heard among those advocating for communism goes like this, "Just Look at the cookies in kindergarten, they took the cookies and they gave the kids each cookies and everyone was happy" There are multiple problems with this I will lay out now:
1: The reason the kids were happy (at least the overwhelming majority who weren't incredibly poor) is because in school you don't get to enjoy the freedoms you do at home like at home you could have cookies and milk, or a bag of chips or something to your specific liking and it suggests that school is equatable to home life

2: If we are going to go by the setting of school, think about what happened when the teacher offered a piece of candy, the kids worked like hell. Do you want to know why? Because people generally will work for a reward, it just makes sense, people work for a reward, it's the fundamental fatal flaw with communism or rather Marxism, from a purely pragmatic standpoint it gives absolutely no incentive to do anything beyond turning the economy into an honor system, and even if you force people to work you're at the point where you are forcing people into jobs they will be unhappy and most likely horrible at, just leaving the economy in complete shambles where the parts are in the wrong place
dukeofpanda

Con

1: there is no basis to establish the premise of the children's happiness as you did especially given the context of what you shared in regard to the cookie ration argument. You are injecting your opinion and going above and beyond the value of the simple illustration.

2: as for your second point I would argue that not all students will work like hell just for a piece of candy. There are some who don't care about candy and then there are students who will work like hell candy or not. And you failed to pinpoint the fundamental flaw of communism. It isn't that people work for rewards.

To find the real flaw we only have to consider the root word of communism to try to understand the underlying cause of it's failure

It's a community, a team, a family. In team sports and in war individuals display the ability to put aside personal gain and selfishness in order for the group to succeed. They even go so far as to view each other as family. The concept of communism was to apply the same ideas to an entire nation. The family succeeds together, suffers together, works together to pull itself up. But this all requires people to understand the system and be trained; educated in how they have a part in mutual success. Soldiers and athletes are taught to do their part in the team for the success of the team. What about regular people?

What if only one child received a cookie? A properly raised child who valued his entire family, who understood how the system works only if everyone supports it, that child would share his cookie with everyone else. That's true communism. It's idealistic, yes, and sadly it doesn't exist, because it's extremely difficult to teach the general populace not to behave like stupid idiots.

Education is the real flaw with communism. Education is an expensive endeavor and its success isn't guaranteed by the amount of resources poured into it because... People; they have free will and they do whatever idiotic, corrupt, self defeating, things that pop into their heads. Communism requires that everyone in the general populace be trained to work as one unit. For everyone to understand their personal accountability to the person next to them just like in a military or sports team.

Communism requires an educated populace that's its flaw.
Debate Round No. 1
Wahmenrespector

Pro

1: I will concede the first point, it was badly written and badly articulated to the point that I can't actually understand why I wrote it.

2: I completely agree that not all children work like hell for the candy and some will work anyways, but it gives the incentive, and the incentive is what makes communism fall, in theory, and in practice, And that is the flaw in communism. Saying it's anything else is denying basic psychology. (and can you elaborate on how you think that isn't the flaw of communism?)

3: I think you have confused marxism with communism, which is a big fundamental problem with your argument, the difference between Marxism and communism is that Communism is the state and Marxism is the community. For example, a Marxist society could function without a state and probably won't have one. But a communist society IS the state, it isn't a family, it's a relationship where there is a severe imbalance of power.

4: The problem with communism is it took the community in Marxism and replaced it with the state, so you, as you said would put aside personal gain for the group to succeed. But that ignores why groups were formed in the first place! This is what so many people just can't get through their heads "The group was formed by individuals So that the INDIVIDUAL could thrive and prosper" People just can not understand that the group was made to serve the individual, it is made up by individuals and will have flaws, and evil people. That is why we have laws, to govern the group, to make it not tear each other apart, so we can all have a unified purpose without us being tools for that purpose but a purpose is a tool for us. The thing about that is communism needs an uneducated populace, the poor, the rich, the middle class, but I don't get how communism would need people educated on values, you're seizing all resources from the people for the collective community.

5: If only one child receives a cookie then you try to help everyone get a cookie instead of taking away the cookie they earned unless you're trying to compare a child getting a cookie to a child earning it. I agree that a child who was raised well will give the others a cookie but there is a difference between the child getting it from their parents, earning the cookie, and the parents forcing the kid to give it evenly to all of the other children.

6: " A properly raised child who valued his entire family, who understood how the system works only if everyone supports it, that child would share his cookie with everyone else. That's true communism" There is a disparity you have to make with saying sharing and referring to communism in the same message or sub-message, communism is when the government takes your resources and gives them to various others evenly, as a nation. Marxism (What you're describing) Is communism but instead of the state it's on the community level, it's where all income you earn isn't yours but the communities, which is a kind of anarchy that could never last. That's also a flaw with the utopia marxism brings, it would not last just like anarchy or militia thought. (Only the counties authority matters) It assumes that everything will be fine and dandy if we leave everything in the community level then a group could band up and be worse than any capitalist system could be, it would be the death of everything anyone you know or love.

7: It is difficult to teach partisan bias in a way most of the nation is opposed to (at least in the same way) Which I don't see is what the flaw of communism, because that's just a lack of parenting rather than a lack of teaching good communist morales.
dukeofpanda

Con

2. I still contend with your logic that an incentive toward personal gain is the fundamental flaw with communism. Nor does one have to deny basic psychology to understand otherwise. While I am no expert in psychology I did take a course in college and I found that much of a person's identity and cognitive behavior can be influenced by external stimuli controlled by other people and circumstances. Basic needs of survival do not necessarily extend into greed, social institutions can positively reinforce greed in-deliberately or by intention. Basic psychology allows for the dismissal of personal incentive as the reason for communism's fall. which leads me to 3.

3. Marxism is the ideology in which communism was born; the theory which communism tried to implement in into government. So I would counter that while Marxism WOULD exist without communism, communism WOULD NOT exist without Marxism. The two are not separate enough for you to dismiss my argument.

4. Are you saying there are multiple groups? In communism there is only one group. It can be likened to different parts of a body but they work to form one individual rather than the many independent individuals of capitalism that work for their own interests with or without regard for others. The individuals in the singular group formed by communism no longer view thriving and prosperity as unique to themselves but dependent on the overall prosperity of the group; it becomes more of a selfless endeavor as the individual no longer prospers independently from the group. Yes, all individuals prosper, but it is not simply a safety in numbers mentality that can be abandoned when it is no longer convenient, at least it shouldn't be. Your problem with the state only becomes an issue when the state sets itself apart from the community and in doing so has failed to follow the educational principles outlined in Marxism. The government will have failed to educate itself sufficiently enough to follow the rules.

5,6,7. It all comes back to education. The family unit is the foundation of every society and the education first received by ones parents can have a profound affect on a child's potential contribution to society as a whole or even their acceptance of that society. What a child learns from their parents is the beginning of their education. If the government can convince the parents to teach their children to uphold the principles of Marxism than all will go well since everyone will see everyone else as one large family with the government as the benevolent head in which they can trust. In this sense education is key since it will work it's way to the top as newer generations replace the older. But it failed in its infancy because the government failed to educate itself and lost the trust of the parents who in turn began to deviate from the ideology of Marxism. Everyone must be educated in communism.
Debate Round No. 2
Wahmenrespector

Pro

1: I contend with the fact of basic psychology allows for the dismissal of incentive for communism's fall, it really doesn't, let me get an analogy: Why does one work? It wants something, maybe, it wants to live, maybe it wants to get a new book, maybe it wants to set up shop for others to get something they want. This IS capitalism at its most pure form, this IS a free market, where people exchange goods. Also, of course, it can lead to greed, no system is perfect. But my rebuttal is I support the family, the family working together the family is a community in a community (as I'm socially conservative), a family is stuck together, but a community isn't a family because they're brought together by a shared sense of belonging humans inherently have, but Marxism takes that and takes the competition out of life, removes outside sources, and makes the community mandatory. I am for the societal structure of the community but you can't make the community everything if you make the community everything the community will die. The community needs the Starbucks, needs the ace hardware, needs the Mc Donalds, they need the same fundamental basic line as other communities, ironically to compete with other communities to BUILD the team spirit. My point is this: You can not force the community, the community must agree to be a community, or else they're just a collective going towards a goal, rather than individuals making a group that attains a goal for the individual and those individuals have their things and use a certain amount to benefit the community, rather than the people just being parts.

2: Marxism HAS to exist without Communism, and Communism is an evolution of Marxism, it is a nation enforced Commune. Obviously much worse than a united community and the death of everything we hold dear. It was more of a distinction you needed to make to understand where I was coming from than necessarily something to rebut your argument as a whole.

3: I was saying for it to take place it needs all of these classes

4: Capitalism is you working for yourself without having everything you earned being the communities, which is something that absolutely has to take place to have a thriving prospering good community. My problem with what you're saying is that it implies capitalism is inherently greedy, greed is a selfish desire for resources, insatiable. But capitalism itself isn't greedy, you can argue it evolves to greed, but even then it isn't harmful greed. It isn't the rich oppressing the poor, it's the rich getting rich which doesn't come with them oppressing poor people, they're's loads of laws to stop that from happening, If you do believe what I fear you might, can you clarify how, and if you don't can you also state why?

5: You can't tell parents what to teach their kids, it's treason, the government should represent the people not tell them what to teach their kids, that is tyranny. Any ideology that is taught by the parents, the school, the state, the media, will spread, will succeed, it happens with anything. It isn't inherently uniquely the downfall of true communism as you describe it.
dukeofpanda

Con

1. Marxism doesn't hold that the community is brought together as a family simply out of the need for a sense of belonging. Marx thought things would naturally play out into communism as conflict between classes of people played out. Communism was supposed to be born out of the realization and understanding that the previous systems created problems that most of the community didn't want to suffer through. Problems like the oppression and exploitation of the majority poorer classes of people by the the few in the wealthy class. The community was to understand that the disparity would cause a division that would ultimately cause the failure of society. And no, communities don't need Starbucks and McDonalds, that statement is short sighted and caused by your ethno and chronocentrism. There have been and are plenty of governments and societies that are just fine without the type of constructs you just mentioned. Your point is that you cannot force the community, but that is exactly what every government does by imposing law. My point is that a community under Communism cannot be simply forced to comply by law; the people need to be educated in regard to necessity of the system.

2. Sure, Capitalism isn't inherently greedy but it allows greed to thrive and Capitalism can thrive with the greed. You state that it isn't harmful greed. This means to me that you have been taught, or at least conditioned, to accept greed to some extent; and to some degree see it as good or at least acceptable. I have been taught otherwise. I've been taught that greed is bad and unacceptable. Which is why I comeback to education being the real flaw of communism.

Also your statement that the rich getting rich doesn't come with them oppressing poor people due to laws preventing such acts. If the rich make the laws then they can make laws in a way that allows them to do what they want. Even if capitalism isn't designed to have the rich oppress the poor does it fail when they do? No, because it isn't a system that requires the masses be educated to reject the existence of such behavior. Capitalism thrives in the absence of education because it allows the accumulation of wealth by any means so long as the majority of others remain ignorant of what you are really doing. A communist society succeeds when everyone is aware and sensitive to the needs of everyone around them and prioritizes those needs. That sensitivity and awareness along with the understanding to work for the needs of many comes with education. Capitalism succeeds when at least a few can figure out how to manipulate a mass of ignorant people to work out their own schemes. Forms of manipulation can include reward systems. Capitalism has set itself a low bar in order to succeed and can be maintained without educating the masses. The people don't need to understand how their actions or inaction affects the group because there is no massive group. The real flaw of Communism is that it sets the bar too high and the only way to maintain that level is to educate the people.

3. Yes, you can tell parents what to teach their kids and no, its not treason. Treason is dictated by governmental law, so if a government says it's not treason then it isn't treason. No, the government doesn't have to represent the people. A government can represent the ideals and principles that should guide the people. Your ideology of what a government should do is not shared by everyone. And yes, any ideology that is taught by the parents, the school, the state, the media, will spread, will succeed, it happens with anything. But education, or even indoctrination, into those ideals is the real flaw of communism because communism's success relies so heavily upon it. Without the education to understand the communities ideals and one's place in the community there is no communism.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
It was fun and I hope to debate you again as well.
Posted by Wahmenrespector 3 years ago
Wahmenrespector
They're multiple reasons I can't continue}
1: my opinions have changed
2: I have argued with points I considered flawed
3: (The main reason) I have been busy and haven't had access to my computer

You have performed incredibly well and i applaud you, i hope we can debate again
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
Thank you for your patience. I have been especially swamped with work getting ready for open classes with my students' parents.
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
No rush, we're all just having discussion. As long as we can a civil discussion knowledge will be exchanged and we will teach each other.
Posted by Wahmenrespector 3 years ago
Wahmenrespector
Sadly I'm so tired I can't make an argument refuting the points, so I can't refute points at my full capacity, I can respond tomorrow
Posted by Wahmenrespector 3 years ago
Wahmenrespector
I hope you can articulate your points good enough, to convince me, "teach" me if you will :)
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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