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

communism can and has worked

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
NotKopo has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 387 times Debate No: 117490
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Allow me to paint a picture. Its 1917 Russia, The nation has changed, Since the revolution the autocratic Tsarist regime has ended after hundreds of years of reign, But the nation is still in a bad shape, 3 years of the first world war have destroyed the economy, Just 50 years ago half the rural population lived as serfs (slaves), And times have barely improved since the emancipation, The people all over the empire starve or work for minimal wages in factories. The Russian industrial revolution has begun and just like Industrial Britain the richest factory owners are the only ones to see benefits. The population is largely illiterate and life expectancy is low. Nobody cares for the common man, They are just a tool.
But now things will change. Lenin is in power and for the little time he lead the fledgling USSR should be recognised as the true form of socialism. Under Lenin's direction trains and resources were sent into the country to teach language and teach people their rights under communism. The status quo of master and worker were broken down, Religion was circumvented in favour of science (also taught, So even the poorest of poor would have the opportunity to fulfil their potential). Workers unions came to be and with them 8 hour working days which earned a man enough to live a life better than any of his ancestors. Democracy actually thrived and criticism of the government was allowed and encouraged with the goal of improvement for all, Under the Tsar this would have gotten you exiled to Siberia or disappeared by the Okhrana. Lenin (while certainly a significant voice) was far from a dictator, And despite banning political parties other than the Bolsheviks (for reasons which I will justify later) Russians were free from the constraints placed upon them by the Tsar. However, Russia was economically in a awful state, The peace with Germany lost them most of Poland and the Ukraine and with it they lost most of their industry and more importantly agriculture, However under Lenin's direction the vanguard government was able to successfully work consistently for the good of the people.
Why do we hear so little about these days one may ask?
there are many reasons, Most notably the Russian civil war. The earlier banning of political parties outside of the Bolsheviks can be explained in this context, The nation was at war already, It's enemies had the support of every major empire on earth and it required unity. Lenin would only spend one year in power after this war and used it in a attempt to protect the nation from Stalin. Stalin opposed these freedoms which communism aims for and had interpreted a dictatorship of the prolate as a dictatorship over the prolate, Leon Trotsky a man who very much followed Lenin's ideals should have become leader, But as we all no history was not so kind. All of the freedoms gained under Lenin were lost under Stalin, The second reason that Lenin's reforms are forgotten, No matter how good they were they pale in comparison the cruelty and downright imperialist and anti-communist actions of Stalin.
The final reason we don't know the name Lenin as well as we should in the west is that the name is ignored, He is a success of socialism and who benefits from removing the successes of socialism from history?
Lenin is the father of true socialism, His ideas and policies granting freedom to the oppressed and the greatest equality of all; the equality of opportunity.


"The reality is that the tenets of Communism are, Indeed, Workable; the only problem is that they produce super inefficient economies, Such that, Even though the people in a Communist system fully support its ideals, They soon start conducting themselves in a manner that shows their deep yearning for the freedoms of Capitalism. " - The Last Contrarian

This is a quote basically sums up my argument, As there is not much more to explain.

You can't get anywhere in a communist system. No matter how much extra work you put in or the desire to break out of the routine of the constant same every day actions, People will start to become bored, Which in resulting will start uprisings and revolts as which is why MAJORITY of communist groups fall apart.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for taking up this debate.
You have come up with the main criticism of communism and it is a valid criticism, The more taxation there is the less incentive there is to work as hard because you get a smaller percentage.
First I must explain the difference in socialist systems; socialism, By definition would be anything to the left of the political spectrum, As such there are a myriad of systems which have their roots in socialism. Your complaint is defiantly true in comparison to Stalinism and classical Marxism, However the key point of Leninism is that it doesn't force counter intuitive ideas like having only one wage regardless of your job; under that system your argument would be and has proven to be spot on. Under Leninism however a flat tax rate will take much but not all of the profits and use the money to provide essentials to all, The rest of your money is free to be used however you desire; everyone's needs are meet, Ethical working conditions are set and you will always have a part of your wage free to use as you will, Maintaining the incentives to work hard for rewards.
People all say that its just a excuse that people say that communist parties never practiced real communism, But it is accurate. Sticking to Lenin and Russian communism they never claimed to be communist, The USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; they were socialist, They worked to create a society where communism would eventually take over. However the main reason they called themselves communist not socialist was in order to separate themselves from democratic socialists and other leftist groups.
In conclusion, The majority of communist groups do fall apart, Because the original communist manifesto is quite literally a pamphlet, (I have personally seen one of the original copies in the British Library), It doesn't detail every issue and it's very open to interpretation and many criticisms of communism are true; Stalinism is oppressive and produced a economy which stagnated in the 1980s, Maoism was flawed in that it described a endless class struggle even after revolution. Leninism has its flaws, It will more than likely will make a economy slightly less effective, But the wealth in a nation doesn't matter if it is only available to the few.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.