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


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
passwordstipulationssuck has forfeited round #5.
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: 3/8/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,313 times Debate No: 110447
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (42)
Votes (0)




You know the drill, Frankfurter. let's go.


I think socialism is a far better system than capitalism and it should be tested again before being laid to rest for all time. Without capitalism, there would be no economic class structure, or currency. People stick to capitalism because it's old, but I say it's time for progress and we should try new things out. Communism is great. I like Castro, Stalin, and Lenin. Sure, they might have twisted Karl Marx's ideas around a bit, but at least they were willing to try things out and see how it went. I don't think communist Russia can be compared to Nazi Germany. I don't think communist Russia was necessarily a good place, but the Soviet union is the only other world power that's had a war longer than a whole decade with us here in the U.S. Think about it. Nazi Germany only lasted about ten years. The American Revolution was basically over before it began. World war 1 was a paltry four years. Civil war? A few years. But the cold war? man, that thing lasted from 1945 all the way until 1991. That's the longest war in American history, and if Russia was really all that bad back then, I don't think it could have stayed going for so long without some revolts. Something had to have kept it going. I think communism, as Karl Marx describes it, is a great idea. I think communist Russia was a bit wrong in the way they went about it. I think that capitalism has many highly noticeable flaws and humanity should look for sensible alternatives. We've been going on capitalism for millennia. I'd say we can invent new things.

This debate, oddly enough, is titled "socialism". I do not like socialism, I find it a mild, sissy-ish form of communism. I will only refer to flat-out communism here, since socialist countries retain their currency and economies. I do not consider communism a negative term, although its name has been smudged by the many, many dictators who used the term incorrectly. I am referring to plain communism, with nothing wrong. The utopia after the day of reckoning described in the Communist manifesto. You could say that Canada is a socialist country, Socialist is a vague, uncertain term. For the purposes of this debate, I'd rather go more with just capitalism and communism, battling it out. You know, black and white. OK? I don't like socialism, really.

You can rebut this first argument. I'm going to give you a few benefits of communism. First, the USSR did not suffer in the Great Depression, because they had no stock market and no currency. In times of economic crisis, such as the 2008 recession, communist countries are left virtually unscathed. Because they see that money is nothing more than paper and metal, they are able to do something which we blinded capitalists simply can't: live in a world without money. Of course, if resources are short, then the lack of money is awful, but if resources in a communist country are kept rather high and self-sustaining, then money has no use whatsoever. In Russia, they did not get one single blow from the depression. They kept on producing things at high velocity and drinking their vodka. What a great idea.

Second is their space program. They had a great space program, which easily rivaled ours at NASA, and they spurred us to compete for the moon landing. It's doubtful we'd have ever wanted to visit the stars had it not been for those cosmonauts. In addition, let's not neglect the fact that Yuri Gagarin was the first living human to fly into outer space and live. That's just as good an accomplishment as Neil and Buzz's planting the flag in the lunar dust. For a country without money, they really had some drive and a whole lot of ambition. They deserve to be recognized for the way they pioneered space travel. The space race was not about simple scientific curiosity, it was a competition, and we might have won it in the end, but they sure tried. They were the only other country with a space agency at the time and they darn well deserve to be honored for that, at the very least.

Third, and most important, those communists helped us kick Hitler in the butt, and we should be nice to them for that. Russia was not an enemy during World War two, it was an ally, and a very important part in securing victory. Germany broke a peace treaty with them, so they dispatched their troops right to the front lines and nabbed Hitler before the dirty rat could go any farther. Russia might have been a totalitarian state just like Germany, but it was the better of the two, and they saw what was right and helped us do away with those Nazi crooks. I can see why they decided to help the allies. Communism is a liberal philosophy, it urges progress and teamwork to create a better world. Fascism, though, is a conservative philosophy, which demands that a place returns to the good old days. Hitler wanted to stifle progress, keep only the Aryans alive, return Germany to the middle ages. But Russia, and all the other freedom-loving countries, wouldn't stand for it. We call Stalin a bad guy. Ha. He told those guys to go out there and make Hitler drop dead, and they did their job. If, by chance, Russia had decided to join the Nazis, we wouldn't have a chance against those two world powers together with Italy and Japan. Us and Britain and France would have been wiped out overnight. But Russia didn't join the Nazis, they knew that with great power comes great responsibility, and they were comrades with us through and through until Japan surrendered and then, being jerks, we Americans decided to start picking on the Russians, and they started not liking us, and our rivalry just went on and on. If we had remained pals, the Soviet Union would still be up.

I don't think communism is a bad thing. I think it could use some refining, and it won't be an overnight change, we'll ease into it gradually. The Soviet Union was ahead of its time, the world wasn't ready for such a major change. But the Soviet Union and China and Cuba all played a key role in suggesting to the world that communism is worth looking at. We've tried it out so scarcely that I don't think we have an accurate example of the ultimate Communist nation. We should see communism as a valuable idea. Its reputation has been scarred by negative imagery and propaganda. But their national anthem is beautiful and the hammer and sickle is a great symbol, and we ought to try communism out again, this time with a less bumpy start.

Rebut this argument. Then, in the next round, I'll go over the Vietnam war for you to rebut.
Debate Round No. 1


1. Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don"t matter!

2. The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

3. By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit"just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats [and those waiting in long lines today in Venezuela struggling, and often failing, to buy food].

4. The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: "give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security." As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

Moving on to my opponents case. My opponent makes what the Hoover Institute calls the "bad jockey" argument for socialism. the argument essentially goes like this: Socialism isn't a bad idea, it's the people implementing it that were bad. It wasn't REAL socialism. Bad Ideas fail. trying a failed idea that has corrupted and destroyed numerous economies throughout history is ludicrous. It's at this point that I come to the realization that you may be a troll frankfurter. Castro and Stalin were evil dictators that not only impoverished, but caused immense suffering in the people the ruled over. such is the eventual fate of any socialist/communist state. My opponent makes the argument that without capitalism there would be no social classes or currency. 1. social classes have existed since the dawn of civilization and are necessary for the functionality of a state. What's important is that through hard work, you can rise through social classes. Capitalism provides for this. socialism necessitates universal poverty. 2. currency gives the common man democratic power through their spending. Currency allows the general population to utilize their market power to reward or punish organizations or businesses that do things that the populace approves of or disapproves of. the people can also donate to political causes to forward their hand in the political system.

The only reason that the soviet union lasted so long in the "war" was because it was a cold war brought on by the nuclearization of both states. The Soviets were able to achieve military might because they were willing to work their people to death for next to no pay. Because communism. Nazi Germany only lasted 5 years by the way. 1941-1945. The American revolution was not nearly over before it began. that's just historically ignorant. I've already answered for how Russia was able to keep going for so long. communism as Karl Marx describes it, necessitates tyranny and dictatorship. I know. I've actually choked down the communist manifesto in preparation for debates like this. He doesn't hide it either. he makes direct references to dictatorship.

Okay. Communism it is.

The soviet Union may not have felt the effects of the great depression, but it was also during this period that the soviet union was held together through fear and force. Again, communism necessitates tyranny. This makes it evil. having your government (not your people) have money when other governments are lacking of it, does not justify the means.

Communist countries in 2008... you mean Cuba? North Korea? The economies of those countries were far worse than the economy of the United States at the lowest point of the recession. Russia kept producing at high velocity because of slave labor.(de facto.)

The soviet space program contributed in no small part to bankrupting the Soviet Union (the equivalent of bankruptcy for a communist state) the United States was not bankrupted by the space race, and we were the victors.

Russia was tolerated during world war two. Let's not forget that Russia actually DID originally side with the Nazis in the conquest of Poland and only responded with force after hitler attacked them. you again show your historical ignorance.

I would not use cuba as a model for a successful economy. it's pretty terrible. also, China was rather poor until they made drastic market reforms which moved their economy towards a rigidly controlled market economy. there's that historical ignorance again.


Let's talk about the Vietnam war. In most wars, the United States can be classified as the good guys. In The American Revolution, we were the good guys. In The Civil War, we were the good guys. In world wars one and two, we were the good guys. In the present war, we're the good guys. In the cold war, we were arguably the good guys. In the Vietnam War, though, we were the bad guys. And we lost, because we were ignorant toward the concept of communism and we were overly cautious of countries which could potentially become communist. Vietnam did not pose any threat to us, we declared war on them for no reason. They had no bombs or weapons, they were halfway around the world. We shot them because we were scared of something we didn't understand.

The hippies in the Vietnam war were the real heroes. They realized that conscription was a bad method of gathering an army. Only loyal fools went abroad to battle with people they did not understand. And they died for no reason. And in the end, it was for no reason. North Vietnam won and we were laughed at for decades on. We acted out of blind fear and a fractured psyche. In the Cold War, we and the Soviets were equally bad, just in opposite directions. Joe McCarthy was insane, and he accused normal people of being communist. Don't act as if America is a perfect place. We've had our share of flaws, from Jim Crow to the Japanese internment camps to the atomic bombs being dropped on two civilian cities. Nobody is perfect, and capitalism has just as many inherent flaws as communism. Maybe more.

Capitalism is not a Ponzi scheme or a chain letter. It is a new idea, which will undoubtedly take a few decades to get used to, but it will eventually win out. It has a very simple logic behind it. The only people who support capitalism are those with excessive amounts of wealth. The people in capitalism who do not have wealth do not support capitalism, but are powerless to end it because capitalism grants more power to those with excessive amounts of wealth, and those with excessive amounts of wealth do not wish to end capitalism. It's a kind of catch-22, but the loop must be slayed and we must begin awakening to the fact that capitalism is simply an impractical way of life. You claim that communism "always fails" in the end. But how do you know? There have only been a handful of communist countries in the entire history of mankind. That small handful is not an accurate test, mainly because the people who ran the countries had a twisted sense of how to implement communism in a large-scale sense. Communist countries do not have to be tyrannical or morbid. It all depends on the nature of the government and just how well the country follows the views of Karl Marx. You cannot declare something as a failure just because it has failed. That is not how a philosophical experiment works. If somebody made a country which was actually communist and less fascist, with relative equality for all citizens and a good supply of resources, then it would be better than a capitalist country where the rich have an unfair advantage over the poor. That's the real problem with capitalism. There is inequality no matter what, and the system is so stiff that no other systems are likely to be tested.

Communism is not based on faulty principles. It is based on teamwork and opportunity. You say it is not consistent with basic human principles. If humans are greedy pigs by nature, and cannot stand to share with people who are less fortunate, then I do not like people. People might be like that, but other people are altruistic, and those people would like living in a communist country. You're pretty pessimistic, saying that greed is an absolute truth and it will stay forever. We can progress past greed. You say that capitalism succeeds because of incentives. By incentives, I suppose you mean currency. I can name one incentive to living in a capitalist country. No inequality. That's a nice incentive. Just some people who grow some crops and talk things over. Market prices and accounting and private property rights might be fun for rich people. For poor people who don't get to wheel and deal on the stock market or own a house, those incentives are useless and depressing. Also, I don't see why people can't own their own private homes in communism. The only thing that's different is that everybody gets to own a house, regardless of how much income they make. You're still confusing real communism with the totalitarian lie normally called communism.

Here's how I think I could make a communist country quick and easy. I could go to a place that's unclaimed, like maybe Bir Tawil, and invite 20 people over. We each get some wood and build houses, or maybe build some houses out of the sand. We each get some land, and grow crops on the land. Plants, after all, are reliable and free, and have nothing to do with currency. We water the plants, eat them, make some textiles and furniture, and sit back and chat about things. It's that easy. It takes no effort. Point out some flaw in that. There is none.

You can give me some sob stories about people leaving Cuba on rafts or trying to flee over the Berlin Wall. I don't care. Those people could try and change something about their country, maybe overthrow the dictator and do some better communism. To flee is to be a coward. By leaving, they are only abandoning their own freedom and preventing communism from gaining a positive look.

If I lived in Berlin during the Communist era, I'd escape over it the OTHER way.

Capitalism is not a system that thrives on freedom, it is a bureaucratic system where class dictates the way in which a person can live their life. It hinders freedom, and the fact that class exists in a modern capitalist society is undeniable, whether the class system gives you an advantage over others or not. Leave your bourgeois shady tree suburb and head down to the inner city, where people live in shopping carts. Try and deny their existence. They are not poor because they don't work hard enough. They are poor because you have all the money. Capitalism is a never ending struggle to the top, where those who lose are hit hard and those who win win big. We do not need this sort of system. We'd be much better off without it.

In addition, sir, to bolster my argument, I'd like to note the Chilean Coup D'etat of 1973. Salvador Allende wasn't trying to be a ruthless dictator, he was elected by the people and had the right to his presidency. But look what us American pigs did! We sent troops over there to murder him and replace him with ruthless, bloodthirsty Pinochet, all in the name of killing communism. Was Pinochet any better than Allende? No, he was far worse. But we supported him because he was a capitalist. We are in no way supportive of freedom or liberty. We simply want to see communism dead. This is not as one-sided as you think. Allende was the first Marxist president after years of rigged elections designed to keep the wealthy in power, and he succeeded, and the peasants thought that they could eat for once. But the wealthy revolted, and we supported the wealthy, and the Chilean government was overthrown and turned into a totalitarian Hellhole. You might call Stalin a hypocrite for fighting against Hitler when he was evil. I'd call Americans hypocrites for fighting Hitler but completely supporting Pinochet. They were both demons. I'd suggest you take some history.

I make the bad jockey argument. I do. Communist Russia was a bad place to be in, I'm sure. But it helped us win World war two, they survived the great depression, and they survived for as long as they could. Some Russians even look back at those times with nostalgia. Vladimir Putin, for instance:

I am not a troll. I think that with a more charismatic, compassionate leader, the Soviet Union might have done a little better. I do not think that communism is a bad idea because it failed, I think that we, as a nation, purposefully caused it to fail, and we can see whether it has its merits. That's the scientific method. Good scientists don't take a few measurements and then abandon their experiment. To draw successful conclusions, a scientist has to take many measurements, weigh their flaws and benefits, then draw a conclusion. Communism failed because the other countries were capitalist and did not support it. Of course communism would fail in an environment like this. We should make a communist country, and see how that communist country does.

You say that social classes have existed since the dawn of civilization and are necessary for the functionality of a state. By saying this, you're committing the "appeal to tradition" fallacy... insisting that something is better just because it's older. Communism is a new system compared to capitalism, and I say it's a way of progress. Ancient Rome was capitalist. It doesn't meant that Ancient Rome was a good civilization. Also, communism is not a political system, only an economic one. A country can be democratic, the United States is right for doing that. We just need to become communist. The politics are right. The economic part isn't.

Nazi Germany, I'd argue, started when Hitler became chancellor in 1934, but the exact length of Nazi Germany is a bit fuzzy. I doubt you ever read the Communist Manifesto. I did not mean that the American revolution was over before it began, it was a long hard fight. I simply mean that by the time it began, many Americans didn't consider themselves British anymore. The Soviet Union fought harder in World War two than we did because their soldiers were more loyal to their country. They might have been brainwashed, but that brainwashing was advantageous. Also, Soviet workers did get pay, in the form of free housing. There is no currency with communism. Historical ignorance.
Debate Round No. 2


We invaded Vietnam because we needed to contain the Soviet Union. I know you're a fan of mass murdering dictators that imposed regressive and oppressive communist policies, but for those of us that prefer liberty and wanted to avoid a world war, we decided to attempt to stop the advance of communism. We were not the bad guys. let's not forget that it was the North Vietnamese that instigated the conflict. They posed a threat in that they were going to increase the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union which could have led to a world war.

let's not forget that while the United States utilized the draft, the North Vietnamese Communists used young children. Another of the evils of communism is the view that all people are nothing but tools of the state to be used to forward the agenda of the party.

Yes, Joe Mcarthy was a drunk, a liar, and used paranoia to further himself. But if you think the communists weren't much worse, you would be wrong. Ever heard of the Great Purge? Sometimes referred to as the Great Terror, it was a massive violent repression of political dissidents.

Jim crow was bad, internment camps were but (I see the logic though) and the atomic bomb was justified in that it saved many lives on both sides that would have been lost in a full-fledged invasion.

Capitalism is not a new idea. the idea that only the rich support capitalism is asinine. take a look at the state layout of the United States. a lot of states with a lot of wealth vote in favor of Democrats like Bernie Sanders, while a lot of the poorer states vote Republicans like Donald Trump who is a capitalist. Your argument is ridiculous. Communism has a 0% success rate. when it has been tried a fair number of times and has succeeded in none of it's trials, we can conclude that communisms success is counterfactual.

Frankfurter, Just crack open a history book. Observe the lifecycle of every communist state. There is an economic upturn for a very short period, then the strain between the makers and the takers gets heavy to bear and the whole system collapses. It's not because people are greedy pigs, it's because people want to reap what they've sown. Capitalists are not greedy. Compare the humanitarian aid given by the United States to that given by any communist country of your choice. Looking back on history, when the United States Used its wealth in 1948 under the Marshall plan to rebuild devastated Europe and provide relief to the impoverished citizens, the Soviet Union used its influence to stop the United States from rebuilding Eastern Europe. the Soviet aid was far inferior.

If you don't own a house in the United States, You're either mentally ill, hooked on drugs, or exceptionally lazy with few exceptions. I've already made my position on deinstitutionalization clear. We need to stop the government monopoly on mental institutions and give it back to the private sector so it can be effective again.

As for your proposed plan for a Communist Utopia, you just described early Plymouth rock in which they had a very similar system. When the winter came they all nearly starved to death and were reduced to eating rats. These communists had the humility to learn from their mistakes and embrace capitalism. Also, a house made of sand would collapse. Don't try to build a house out of sand.

As for your point regarding helping overthrow the dictator, I already talked about the Great Purge. If you stand up to them, they will kill you. Also, Tiananmen Square. Remember the tanks? They were not cowardly, they fled to freedom under the threat of death.

You would go over the Berlin wall, be there for a few weeks at which point you would be on the verge of starvation, you would try to get back to freedom, at which point you would be shot by the communists for trying to leave. Unless of course you ate the food given by the ever so evil capitalists in the Berlin Air Lift.

Yes, classes exist. They exist in practice with Communism as well. Two classes to be exact. the Dictators and the strarving masses. Capitalsim in the United States allows for tremendous upward mobility the people who are in the one percent now, won't be in a few years. people move in and out of the one percent because income is highly mobile in the U.S.

I agree that the Coup could have been handled better. But again, We needed to stop the spread of soviet influence to prevent fast approaching nuclear war. Capitalism is highly individualistic some people are good, and some are bad. Communism has far more evil dictators that capitalism does, because communism necessitates dictatorship.

Right, the KGB Russian agent looks back on the days when he was in a position of authority in a dictatorship with nostalgia. color me surprised.

as for your next point that capitalism causes communism to fail, let's look back on those early colonies again. Completely self reliant, isolated. Failures. There wasn't a democratic capitalist country anywhere on the continent or anywhere in the world that they had to contend with. Yet they still failed because Communism has intrinsic flaws that cause it to collapse every time.

You just completely misquoted my argument. I did not commit the appeal to tradition fallacy because i did not assert that capitalism is better because it's traditional. It is necessary for the function of the state. This is true today. No fallacy has been committed. Ancient Rome dominated Europe for a long time. Brought order and prosperity. They did the standard nasty things that all ancient civilizations did some form of, but they were a successful state nonetheless. Communism necessitates dictatorship. Karl Marx admits it. Read the Communist Manifesto.

1.I don't care when nazi germany started only when they went to war with the U.S.
2. I have read the Communist Manifesto and nearly everything it says is wrong.
3. Just because you don't consider yourself British doesn't mean your free yet.
4. Yelena Karpova told the NYT in 1989 that she was homeless and jobless in Moscow and wandered the train stations. Poverty in the Soviet Union was 20% in 1989 compared to 14% in the U.S. The historical ignorance is yours once again.


I note you take a while to respond. Is it because you're thinking hard, or because you're stumped?

We did not invade Vietnam because we were trying to stop the Soviet Union. Vietnam was not part of the Soviet Union. It was an independent country, and the people within the northern part decided to turn communist. They posed no danger to us. We were simply paranoid and wanted to kill the spread of communism as quick as possible. They had the right to turn communist, and they did; The Vietnam War was the only war we lost, because we were foolish and didn't think about the repercussions of declaring war without reason. I am not a fan of dictators. I am a fan of justice and sanity, and if communism is a better system than communism, then I support it wholeheartedly, and blame the people who incorrectly implemented communism, not the concept of communism itself. There is nothing wrong with communism if it is used in a fair and just manner, with a democratic form of leadership and the abolition of currency.

We did not wish to avoid a World War when we invaded Vietnam. If we had wished to avoid a World War, we would not have attacked the communists and sent troops. That will make your enemy pretty angry and it will start a fight. To avoid a World War, we should have simply negotiated peace and accepted communism as another way of handling economics, and we could have told the Russians to accept our capitalist ways. That might have resolved the fight. We didn't want to stop the fight when we sent troops into Vietnam. We were asking them to shoot us in the face. Might I add, though, that it was a COLD war, where neither party really wanted to fire because both sides were equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Sending troops to Vietnam was such a stupid decision that we should have been awarded a prize in stupidity. Might I also add that Vietnam did NOT instigate the conflict, the gulf of Tonkin incident was exaggerated and oversimplified in order to instill fear within the American public. Vietnam was NOT trying to team up with the Soviet Union, they just wanted to be communist, and they should have had that right. They're still communist today. The war did nothing to stop Vietnam from turning communist. We lost, and we lost our dignity and credibility in the process. Seriously, you should read up on the Vietnam War. It was the war which made the American people begin to question their government and question the sensibility of fighting. Americans received just as much propaganda and conformism as the other side, and they were just as gullible.

You think that only communists use their people as tools of the state? What do you think a DRAFT is?

Now you're seeming to admit some things. You admit that Joe McCarthy was an insane raving lunatic. But doesn't he represent the viewpoint of America during the Cold war? He pointed fingers at people who were completely innocent. He was the living embodiment of paranoia. During the Cold War, I really wouldn't prefer either side. Both sides were filled with lies and hatred, and they were both futilely trying to win over the other. They were two kids fighting in a sandbox. That's how I see it. You call out the Great Purge for picking out political dissidents. Didn't McCarthy pick out political dissidents and throw them in prison for having unique outlooks on life? Isn't that the same? Is anybody truly better than anyone else? Can all wars be classified as black and white?

Now you admit that Jim Crow was atrocious, that internment camps were just as bad as concentration camps. But you persist in saying that the dropping of the Atomic Bomb was necessary to save lives. It didn't save lives. It took lives. It's a death machine and you know it. It did not save any lives. By the time the bomb was dropped, Japan had been weakened. We could have just burst into Hirohito's palace and got him. But we didn't. We bombed two cities, two CIVILIAN cities, I might add, not just military bases. And all the people in those cities yelled as the fire tore them limb from limb. And then cancer was passed from generation to generation for decades. So yeah, I'd say the bomb took more lives than it saved.

I never said capitalism is a new idea. I know that it has been going on for hundreds of years. That does not mean it is better than Communism. Observe the conditions of factory workers during the Industrial revolution. That was all in the name of capitalism. Communism is a new idea, and has many advantages over the idea of communism. For instance, in a pure communist country, the government has little control, there's no class structure, and no money. An ideal communist country is paradise compared to a capitalist state. We just haven't seen an ideal capitalist country yet.

Only the rich support capitalism. Like capitalism or hate it, you can't deny the fact that rich people love capitalism and poor people hate it. I live in Colorado, which is a pretty liberal, democratic state. I do know that on election night, we were blue, so the majority of us voted for Hillary, not Trump. I don't know about other states, but I don't know any rich people who would vote for the Democrats or any poor person who would vote for the Republicans. That's not the way it works. Only idiots would vote for the party that doesn't represent them. Rich people want to keep their money, so they vote for rich people like Trump who will give them more tax cuts and less affordable healthcare to the peasants. Poor people want more money, so they vote for democrats like Bernie who'll give the rich people more taxes and make healthcare more affordable. That's how the two parties work. To say they don't work like that is to say that you don't know beans about American politics.

Communism has only been tested in 27 countries, and a few other countries once had somewhat socialist references in their constitutions. But there are over 100 countries in the whole world. I claim that 27 countries is not a fair testing number. In addition, many European Communist countries did not willingly become Communist, but were forced to become communist by the Soviet Union. These countries made up what is known as the Eastern bloc. If a country is forced to partake in a certain political structure, then the citizens of that country will be angered. Also, every Communist country that existed had a bad government and poor living conditions. Also, they had to deal with hatred from the capitalists. How could a country be good under conditions like that? Here's my proposition: We take a few acres of land, select a nice guy to be a leader- not a jerk like Stalin or Lenin- have the citizens plant some crops, build some houses, and see how things turn out. Really, it's as simple as that.

We cannot conclude that communism always fails just because it hasn't succeeded yet. We can't conclude that a pie can't be made if we burn it in the oven every time. We need to try again, because communism sounds a lot better than capitalism.

I have read many history books. Did you know that one requirement of a good history book is to be unbiased? It's true. A good history book will point the finger at Joe McCarthy and Stalin equally. What we read in history books isn't always true, you know. Historians can give negative or positive connotations to something, bend the truth, influence our minds- and evidently you're a victim of that. There has been an economic upturn for most communist states. But that doesn't mean every future communist country will have an upturn. We should not blame communism, we should blame the people who use communism incorrectly. The great Depression and the 2008 recession were also economic disasters, you know, and they happened because of capitalism.

People can be communist and still reap what they've sown. They'll just reap PRODUCTS instead of CURRENCY. That's what I think you're missing about communism here. The only difference between communism and capitalism is that in capitalism, a person gets money for working, while in communism, a person gets food and furniture for working. That's it. It takes out the money, is all. If a country has enough food and furniture, then they'll be fine running the whole place communist. The Soviet Union had a supply shortage, so things were bad. That doesn't mean every country will have a supply shortage. I claim that capitalism is a system of greed. They might have tried to rebuild Europe, but they only did that so the people in the neutral countries would stay capitalist and prefer America better. There's usually a motive behind altruism.

Here's a fun poster, made by those good old capitalists:

Here's an article about something which is about equal to the atrocities of Tiananmen square:

Communism does not have to have classes unless it chooses to, at which point it isn't real capitalism.

You say I'm historically ignorant. I'm not. Ignorance is different than stupidity. Stupidity is the lack of knowledge about the world in general. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge about a certain topic. By declaring capitalism as good and communism as evil, and not understanding that the world is complex, you, sir, are being historically ignorant.
Debate Round No. 3


No vietnam was not a part of the soviet union. They were however, a satellite state of the Soviet Union. "I'm not a fan of dictators" I like Castro, Stalin..." which is it frankfurter? Again. You cannot use communist thought without a dictatorship. Karl Marx knew this. Communism necessitates tyranny to function even for a short time.

The cold war was essentially the United States and the Soviet Union trying to maintain the upper hand or at least remain militarily equal. So the United States used its wealth to maintain power while the soviet union starved it's people to maintain wealth and power. Thus, stopping Soviet influence was necessary to prevent them from starting WWIII. read history. it's not that hard. Your own sources contradict your points. your sources say that North Vietnam thought there was collaboration between the targets of North vietnamese raids and the U.S. destroyers. But even if there was, you can't destroy another nations ships and expect not to start a war. Furthermore, both the Soviet Union and the PRC did give North Vietnam aid prior to the war. They were under heavy soviet influence.

We had to withdraw from Vietnam not because of military defeats but because of a drop in public support. Again, note the difference between the Soviets and the U.S. free speech didn't exist over there.

I think a draft is a poor way to run the military but at times it's necessary as per the social contract. However, this is different from constantly using your citizens as property of the state like the soviets.

Joe McCarthy did catch a few real spies, he did however get a fair amount wrong. The numbers however, of people who were wrongly convicted of being soviet spies are nothing compared to the number of those killed in the Great Purge where over 20 million were arrested and over 10 million died.

and the Historical ignorance rears it's ugly head again. yes jim crow was bad. I didn't like the idea of internment camps but I NEVER likened them to concentration camps. That would be foolish. and the atomic bomb did save lives. He paints you a picture of what the dropping of the bomb looked like. It doesn't matter given the number who would have died in an invasion. Also, the Japanese were not going to surrender unless we did this. the Idea that we could have just stormed into Tokyo and got him is ridiculous. We would have needed to employ Island hopping to get there and the Japanese had enough soldiers to make casualties rise. The Japanese would also force civilians to become suicide bombers or encourage them to commit suicide.

Conditions were poor all around during the industrial revolution. They were poor before the revolution as well. The difference is that the poor conditions endured throughout the communist world well after they had improved in the west. Once again showing the value of the market economy.

Once again, Frankfurter says something objectively false. That only the poor support socialism/communism. Bernie sanders is a wealthy politician. Most mainstream Democrats are wealthy politicians. Stalin and most other communist dictators lived in fancy palaces and manors. this is just objectively false.

Frankfurter makes the claim that 27/100 is not a fair test. That's nearly 30% of all countries. That's more than an adequate testing sample. Next, he claims that the Soviet Union forced them to become Communist. Right! that's why A. we needed to stop their influence. and B. We can see that communism necessitates tyranny. I also like how your perception of evil dictators has changed through the debate. From praise to ridicule. I've already addressed your flawed plan for Utopia. I'm not doing it again unless you explain why I'm wrong.

We should not put blame on Stalin and McCarthy equally. I'm not fan of McCarthy, but at least he didn't have millions of people killed. Also, one more time. Communism necessitates Tyranny and communists know it. read the communist manifesto. it's a fact.

They could get products if there were products to buy. You see, when you examine any communist country ever, attempting to distribute products were the think they're needed leads to scarcity which leads to the strain between the makers and takers being to much to handle.

ok... one, you just called yourself stupid. and two, you are the one presenting arguments that aren't externally consistent with history.


This has been a nice, long debate. I'm all set to see how the results turn out. Hoo boy, here we go. Just two more rounds. Lemme think. Vietnam was not a part of the Soviet Union. A country is not Soviet just because it is communist. Vietnam wanted to be communist and we wanted to fight them because of the Truman doctrine. Vietnam did not pose any danger towards us. They were across the Pacific Ocean. We were scared and ignorant and we dispatched millions of troops over there to die. And they did die. Hippies were the only ones with an ounce of brain power. Don't lie to yourself. The United States was just as authoritarian during the Cold War. Here's a fun piece of propaganda.

I do not like dictators. I hate nazis. But I do like Stalin and Castro, because they were willing to try out Karl Marx's idea. They might have tried it out wrong, but they at least had the guts to try and make it happen. I also like Stalin because, as I said, he helped us win World War two. It does not matter if he had made an anti-violence pact with Hitler beforehand. The point is that Stalin got some troops out there and showed Hitler some big guns. Stalin might have been a jerk, but he was less of a rat than Hitler, and he didn't break the pact like Hitler did. That shows that at least he's honest. If Stalin had sided with Hitler, we would have lost, so be thankful that Stalin could tell that Hitler was a jerk. The Soviets really helped us win. During World War two, we praised China and Russia, then after the war, we turned against them. And that's wrong. War is stupid. War is never necessary unless the fate of the entire human race is at stake. We had to kill Hitler, but the Cold War was just a way for us to be stubborn and never declare peace between communism and capitalism. We had fifty years of mutually assured destruction. I'd rather live in a world with some communists than live in a world where my kids are taught how to hide under desks in the case of an atomic bomb.

You should read more history and learn that history is a complex process, and cannot be boiled down to good versus evil. In most wars, I'd say that the United States was on the right side. But for the Cold War, I have some real doubts. Do you like war? That's not a good thing to support. Peace is the best condition a world can be in, and the Cold War was a time when fighting against the communists was asking for death. Times were scary back then. I think that the communism we hear about was more Fascist than truly Communist. I do not want to see the Soviet Union brought back to life, but I would like seeing a pure communist country. Here's how it could be accomplished.

Take 20 or so people to a plot of land, preferably unclaimed, like Bir Tawil or some spot in Antarctica. Start growing crops, give each person a house, have them weave some textiles, and be pals. That might not sound like a communist country, but it is. There's no money, no government, no class structure, and no markets of any kind. That's all Karl Marx wanted when he wrote his manifesto. Communism gets a bad rap, it's a good system when it's implemented correctly.

You say communism is a failure. Consider:

1. Russia might have gone back to democracy and capitalism, but the impression that communism left on the region is large. Most people remember being alive when the Soviet Union was still up. Living there is a lot nicer now.

2. Cuba is still communist, and it's only a few miles from the shore of Florida. They have a rich culture now, and Cuban cab drivers earn more money than doctors. Transportation is a big business there. You can still see cars from the fifties when you visit, which is neat.

3. China has money now, so it's not purely communist, but now they have a democracy and you can go there and take a trip without worrying. Mao is dead, they've learned to be a bit more moderate in their belief systems. They're still almost as successful as the United States, and their economy is pretty swell too.

4. Vietnam has museums now where ignorant people like you can go and learn about the horrors of the Vietnam War. They say they're still communist.

I don't think communism has failed. The amount of communist countries might have dropped, but they've learned that communism is only an economic system, not a political system, and they've learned that democracy is the best political system. Today, communism and capitalism live in harmony. And they can live in harmony. It all depends on which you prefer: a place where you can earn money, or a place where you get rewarded for your hard work by products like fruit and toilet paper. It's that simple. Nothing is wrong with communism, but we're still suffering from the lies that Joe McCarthy and others like him implanted within our brains. Communism is gravely misunderstood.

You say that free speech didn't exist in the Soviet Union, but it existed here in the United States. Do you think that free speech existed here in the United States? You couldn't say you were a communist. You couldn't even say that communism was a good idea in theory. You couldn't say that capitalism had some flaws, or that the United States had some problems. I'd call that a deprivation of free speech. Take E.C. comics as an example. They made stories about gangsters and vampires, and those stories were all fun. But they got shut down by the capitalist, just because they had a unique point of view. They were accused of being communist by people who didn't know what communism was. The case of E.C. comics is a clear cut case of how free speech was restricted in the fifties. They said there was free speech, but there wasn't. E.C. comics never said they were PRO communist, but they did badmouth the American government. They made comics about lynch mobs in the South and they made comics about spectators in a parade beating a blind man to death because he didn't take off his hat for the flag even though he couldn't see the flag. They dared to question their leaders, and they paid the price. They went bankrupt.

You say that using a draft to recruit soldiers is OK, but what the Soviets did wasn't. Your brain is so wrong. Both countries used their citizens as property, and both types of citizens mindlessly went into battle. If you were drafted, you could not object. There was no way to escape the draft. That's why people burned their draft cards. The only purpose that the Cold War really served was to show people in one country that they had the right to object to being used as tools of the state. That's what democracy is all about, the right to express your own views and beliefs. In the old days, if you said you were a communist, you went into prison. Is that any different from the gulags of Soviet Russia? No, it's not. You have too much faith in what you perceive to be correct. You are a mindless tool. The next time a war erupts, and they begin the lottery again, the box with the balls inside it, and they pick your name, I'll have burned my draft card, but you'll have to leave and get killed- as a toy of your own government. You must learn to question your surroundings.

Here's a picture of a Japanese concentration- uh, "Internment" camp. Is it different from a concentration camp? No. The Japanese people get tortured in them, come alive in one end and come out dead from the other end. It's not foolish to point out flaws in your own government. That's how progress happens. Look at this picture and tell me that the United States is always correct. Tell me that our politicians are infallible deities and not corrupt human beings. You can say that, but you'd be wrong.

I think that invading Japan would have killed less people. We could have killed less civilians and killed more people who actually supported Emperor Hirohito. You say it was nice to drop that weapon of mass destruction. Japan was already weakened. both Germany and Japan were down, they couldn't have held on for more than a few months at the most. We just had to express our dominance, and kill those city dwellers in a cloud of death, tear them limb from limb. We're pigs.

Japan might have forced its own civilians to commit suicide. They might have. Nothing is certain when discussing alternate history. They COULD have forced them to kill themselves. The point, sir, is that we DID kill them without warning. We did not try any alternatives. We were not willing to put in any effort. We wanted to get it over with, so we opened the bay doors and turned our heads, deaf to their screams. Do you like your government now?

The Industrial revolution was horrible in capitalist countries. We used women and children in those factories. There was no such thing as maternity leave or a raise. American Factory Owners thrived just as much in their palaces as Russian dictators thrived in their palaces.

Most politicians are somewhat wealthy, but all politicians must attain some wealth to be able to run for office. Bernie Sanders grew up poor, so if he had won he would have lowered taxes. You cannot say something is wrong without giving a reason, or you are committing the logical fallacy of petitio principii.

Give me one quote from the Communist manifesto where Karl Marx says that a communist country needs dictatorship. I say that the Soviet Union forced those countries to become communist because it shows how most communist countries out of those 27 were not a fair test, since they did not willingly become communist. I believe that a country should have the choice to become communist or capitalist.

If a citizen in a communist country gets some seeds and has a well stocked garden, he can sustain himself.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago

I agree with you on some points, but not others. Let me try to sum up what you said just a bit, so that I can make a clearer response.

-George Orwell was no genius, actually did some bad things, and wrote depressing books.
-Kurt Vonnegut was much better.
-I am a mindless sheep.

On the first point: I'd say Orwell was pretty smart! His books may not have predicted the future perfectly, but that doesn't mean they don't contain some truth. He wrote much about what had already happened and/or was in the process of happening, but about which many people had been deceived. I'd say it's good to learn some history (from more than one source) so that we don't repeat the mistakes! Some others of his works were warning about what may happen, not necessarily promising that they would. They haven't all happened, but who knows - they may yet.

You mentioned some negative aspects of Orwell's life. I honestly didn't know about those, but nor would I have changed my views if I had. Such could be said about many people, but that doesn't mean that we throw out everything good that they did. Let the books stand for themselves.

You said that Orwell's books were depressing. Well, they might be to some people! Their purpose wasn't to predict solutions to problems, but to explain or warn people about the problems themselves. Maybe he didn't know how to stop the evils he saw, but at least he wanted people to open their eyes to the fact that it was real. I guess I mightn't recommend it to someone with underlying depression issues, though!

On the 2nd point: Kurt Vonnegut does seem like a pretty interesting guy. I've never read any of his works, but I'll have to take a look at them! Thanks for the suggestion.

Lastly, point 3: Well, maybe I am. Maybe I listen to what people tell me. Maybe I believe what people tell me. You said I'm a mindless sheep, so I must be! People tell me contradictory things, so I guess I have to choose a bit. What about you?
Posted by frankfurter50 3 years ago
George Orwell is a psuedo-intellectual who uses big words so that people think he's a genius. If he was truly a genius, he would have predicted the future with more accuracy. He talks about the horrors of authoritarian governments but he's just as much of a mindless sheep when under the rule of a totalitarian government. Did you know that he shot an elephant while he was a soldier in Colonial British Africa? He helped oppress Africans in the name of his queen. True. He wrote a whole short story about it, go look it up. You know who's a REAL genius novelist? Kurt Vonnegut. Ever read any of HIS stuff. Nope, you were too busy reading George Orwell, huh? Kurt Vonnegut has some real comments on human society, and his books are hilarious. I think that 1984 is a stupid book. These people live in a war driven country and they're so stupid that they do everything the government tells them to. Then, one guy decides to end the dystopian society and he tries to overthrow it, but they torture him and he gives in and goes back to serving society. What's the point of a sad book like that? Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is actually good, because the protagonist has SOME hope of overthrowing the tyranny at the end. He's met some like minded people, and they've found a way to win out. There's some hope. 1984 is self-defeating and depressing. What's the point of introducing us to this society if it stays intact? I'd say you're one of those mindless sheep from 1984. Only believing what people tell you, instead of seeing communism as a feasible economic strategy.
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago

Haha! I didn't expect that you'd like him too much. Either way, I'd suggest reading his works. If you're really open to hearing both sides of the story, I think you'll enjoy it!
Posted by frankfurter50 3 years ago
I hate George Orwell.
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago

Definition of Communism, according to Google: "A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Note, "All property is publicly owned." Imagine never owning anything at all. No property=no freedoms=tyranny=collapse. Even your choices, your free speech, your own children would all be controlled. Sound like fun to you?

Also note, "Each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." According to their needs...that's a subjective decision. People may want fairness, but perfect fairness would be very difficult to agree upon! Maybe they'd elect one "prudent" man to make all of the decisions, or the government already would, but no way would that satisfy everyone for long. A new situation, new excuses, and it'll never end. I'll mention Animal Farm again: If you've read it, you know what the pigs did. If not, I'll sum it up: they were the ones who came up with the idea of, and ran the system of, communism on the farm. But they always "just so happened" to need more than the other animals. For the benefit of the whole farm, of course! "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Think about it! I'd really appreciate your feedback. :)
Posted by frankfurter50 3 years ago
The country I describe in round 4 WOULD be a communist country.
Posted by KamikazeKennedyJr 3 years ago
Again not saying capitalism is perfect but it does lead to more innovation and therefore more chances of survival for our descendants whiile at the same time preserving a government where everybody has an equal vote which is always important. I don't see that in a communist country, a communist society should be the last step, not the step we take to get to the last step.
Posted by KamikazeKennedyJr 3 years ago
I honestly can't decide what's worse about communism. No separation of power or an economy that can't run properly?
Posted by KamikazeKennedyJr 3 years ago
I don't think you're a bad person if you think we should all go communism but you should definitely think about the potential consequences of such a change, there's a reason this system is still in place in the western world and it's not because the Illuminati are keeping it up. It's because it works. All the income inequality you see is definitely a bad thing but it would be much worse under another system, unless your idea is to make everybody poor and in that case kill yourself. At the end of the day what im trying to say is that the worst case scenario under capitalism is still 100 times better than the worst case scenario under communism, which seems to almost always play out.
Posted by KamikazeKennedyJr 3 years ago
Yes if you know how to farm youre fine you won't die but that's not enough in todays society thats what im tying to say. It's too late to go to an agricultural society based on fulfilling basic needs. If you try to go back to that system you will wipe out most of the productivity and then there will only be farmers. That's fine except you bascially take us back to a system we used thousands of years ago. Theres a reason we have to innovate. The human race cannot survive on the technology we know exists today, more people are born each day, if we want to ensure the survival of the species we need incentive to keep creating technology that will not only make our lives easier but also push us forward in the direction of a communist society. Marx's plan was for the workers to take over, then the proletariat was going to be in charge, then it would desolve into a state-less society. The problem with that is that there still isnt enough resources to go around for that to work and there are a lot of people who don't have the same morals as you or I. Not only that, communism depends on a single central figure, that system leads to damage almost 100% of the time because you might have Ghandi as your leader but that doesn't mean the next person will be a saint. Lenin didn't want Stalin to take over after his death but Stalin had already accumulated to much power to do anything. That's because he knew the danger of handing over a system like that to a man like Stalin, that system is to susceptible to bad influences, its proved it over and over again. Also food can be scarce, the way we are treating the eco-system we won't be able to grow food in the next 150 years, but don't worry you can always rely on a capitalist country to develop a solution. They're always looking for a way to make a quick buck, so theres your incentive. If it wasn't for capitalism and competition, governments wouldn't be in time to solve a problem that's creeping up on them like that so effectively.
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.