Hello Comrades. This general is for the discussion of Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of revolutionary socialism and communism.
Communism is the next stage of humanity following the capitalist stage.
What exactly is communism according to Marxist-Leninists:
>Communism is a stage of society in which the productive infrastructure is socially owned, and goods are produced not in order to sell for profit, but in order to meet a social need. >Communism in it's full form is a stateless, classless society that follows the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." >To achieve such a society Marxism-Leninism teaches us that we must replace the capitalist state, which is controlled by the capitalist class, by a socialist state, which is controlled by the working class. Then, a period of class struggle follows in which the capitalist class is liquidated by the working class. When the capitalist class has been completely vanquished, there will be only one class, the working class, and eventually the functions of the state will become indistinguishable from the functions of the society as a whole, and the state as such will 'wither away' as Marx said. marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.
Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.
Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:
>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD >Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD >To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people. gommies.gom/fug/ gommies.gom/starve/
you and your ilk really really to be physically removed from this board. not even joking. i hate seeing this same damn spam thread, it's not even different, it's just the same cookie-cutter communist bs it's never going to work. period. can't change human nature, that's why the only version of national socialism ever tried in this reality got so far as it did before commies and international jewry did them in. sage.
Charles Lopez
...
Kayden Green
...
Brayden Sullivan
...
Chase Jenkins
Having no currency offers problems for communist nations. There is a problem to its growth from there being no incentives for working more or working better. Only Capitalism gives workers incentives for better, more productive work. If a worker is given incentives for their work (example: more money that they can use to on needs and wants) the economy would no doubt rise accordingly. If a hard worker is getting the same pay and same benefits as a worker who is doing the minimum, they will eventually stop working to their best and do what the other guy is. Why not? They are getting the same things. There are no incentives to work harder, invent anything, or progress anything in a communist nation.
Also, workers have better environments in a Capitalistic nation. Where as in a communist nation, workers are not allowed to go on strike. Capitalism allows for workers to negotiate their wages, where in communism, there is a set wage for work - doctors and factory line workers make the same amount of money for completely different work. In Capitalism, the value of your product or service to the buyer effects the price. If the quality of your work is horrible, people wont pay a high price for it - losing you money and allowing your business to fail. In a communist nation, the product or service can be horrible, but there is no real way of getting better product because the supplier can not go out of business. In communism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo.
In a Capitalist government, everyone has the same potential to achieve wealth, but of course this all depends on their personal abilities. Smart and creative people make more money, thus encouraging a social Darwinism that supplies better products and services. People do business with people that are good at what they do. Money is a reward for good, creative, wanted/needed work.
Luke Baker
The economy and living standard rises, and the progression of society furthers. In a communist government, as my opponent stated, there is no monetary incentive and thus leaving the workers to do minimal work for the same pay they would be getting doing greater work. Capitalism increases labor productivity because of these incentives, and thus trumping in that regard communism.
A large problem with communism is their central planners don't even know who needs what in their society. Capitalism enables more efficient resource allocation. Capitalism also allows for saving and investing, where as communism uses all of its resources (as it only produces a set amount, never more than it needs) each year, leaving them nothing in case of something like a famine. Supply and demand is a forceful mistress, and it will most definitely create a richer economy that will meet all of the citizen's needs (instead of a group of planners giving a list of set services and goods to supply the society without ever really progressing or changing to suite new needs etc).
Communism doesn't supply the rights that Capitalism does. Capitalism gives individuals the rights of life, liberty, petition and property. The citizen owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and tangible and intellectual property he creates. Communism only supplies theft. Communism takes the hard work of one individual and uses it to aid another individual who is of no use to the society. In this way, it is not moral. It forces people to sacrifice in order for other individuals to survive - encouraging parasite behavior. Countries with a majority of capitalistic standards have higher standards of living for their citizens. Communism does not deal with the human condition.
Cooper Price
When communism mostly puts emphasis on equality, capitalism emphasizes freedom and quality. Freedom is, above all, the most moral ideal. Forced equality is not moral. It creates a slave like attitude and forced liking. Underneath it all, people will get jealous that the lazy worker is making the same as them, and this communism can't control.
Communism has no future, where as Capitalism supplies the potential for progression and quality.
Even education in a Capitalist nation is far better than a communist one. The individual pays if the individual wishes to go. The system works better as they don't have the problems of teacher motivation and work quality, and school funding like elementary, middle, and high schools. Private colleges have the best professors, the best education provided (because the professors get incentives for working there… higher pay, help in advancement of their research with better equipment, etc). The list could go on and on about how the system offers better education. If there were more private colleges, there would also be more competition, and lower prices because of this competition.
There is another key word; competition. Competition raises quality and lowers prices, helps specialize fields, leads new developments, a higher demand in research, and pushes toward perfecting goods and services. Communism supplies no competition.
My opponent claims that communism is superior to Capitalism because it gives society equality - and this, he states, is the main ideal of society. Unfortunately, humans get bored, want more out of life, and want to learn, explore, and discover things about reality. Giving a false sense of equality is, actually, the real injustice. A smarter individual is superior over a dumber one. A stronger individual is superior over a weaker one. A more creative individual is far superior over a dull one.
Anthony Myers
Communism breeds stagnation, breeds an "aristocracy of non-value" in which groups claim privileges for disability, poverty, misfortune, incompetence—i.e., for a lack, rather than for achievement. If a person is physically unable to do work, there is mental work he can do (just look at the great Steven Hawking). If he is unable to do either one, then he shouldn't suck up resources of an individual that is striving. That striving individual has the right to his own accomplishments and shouldn't have them taken away from him. Unfortunately, communism tries to trade one supposed "wrong" for another greater wrong -- advocating theft. If self-sacrifice is an ideal—if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action—why not force people to act accordingly? This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, where several generations lived in misery and oppression as a sacrifice to a future workers' paradise. Capitalism makes less people miserable. Communism lets everyone share in that misery.
As Adlai E Stevenson is quoted in saying, "Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." There is no individualism and no creativity.
Citizens of a capitalist nation earn their homes, earn their cars, and earn their glories. No one has the right to anyone else's work, anyone else's sweat, anyone else's time, mind, and energy. To distribute such would be robbery. This is what communism is.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'" -- Quote Phelps Adams
Capitalism is superior to communism.
Kayden Cox
My opponent advocates for no justice system and for punishments exercised by the common people. My opponent is advocating anarchism.
Though Communism vs. Capitalism is an Economic debate, communism also holds a reign over governing of the country - so I will address the problem of justice to further show communism's flaws even though Capitalism doesn't go into the area of governing.
What my opponent does not understand is that if there is no justice system, most crimes will go unpunished (without a properly trained investigation team, most crimes will go under the radar). A court system gives an accused person the the ever needed ability to hear out their case and dismiss them if they are in fact not guilty. Further more, a court system helps the punishment of crimes go along faster. Would there need to be a public vote every time someone did something that irked another person? The amount of "bad things" that could happen are numerous, and a justice system (a fair one at that) helps keep the public in check and helps move things along faster so that everyone else could go on with their day. I should also ask my opponent: who exactly in the community gets to vote on the punishment? Would it be fair to execute a punishment if not everyone in the "country" got to vote if such a thing was immoral or not? Wouldn't that be "unjust"? Isn't it more fair to have a system where people know what is wrong and what is right, instead of having everyone's heads in the hands of the citizens who live in that town? How would people go about their day if they in one area of the "country" doing drugs is just fine, but when they shoot up in another area the community wants off with their head? Laws don't just come into being without vote in a Democracy (and of course they can be ammended).
Michael Gutierrez
...
Jack Lee
A citizen vote for a law, then a constant execution of that law which everyone knows is in the books sounds a lot more sane to me then a flighty public vote by the people (with multiple problems this can present). A Democracy trumps a communism in this regard. And because Capitalism is an economic system, it can team up with such a governing body as a Democracy (leaving it in the win in this situation).
A couple of things that are needed to be enforced by a police system which, according to what my opponent has presented, doesn't exist in a communism:
2. Theft (location of stolen item, location of thief)
3. Riot control
4. Witness Protection
5. Murder investigations, rape investigations
Etc.
My opponent presents that to say communism shouldn't exist because of a flaw in the system is silly. My opponent is clearly mistaken, because justice is a huge issue that effects every single country. In countries where the government doesn't have a properly working justice system, we can see that the community doesn't really work very well in demonstrating fair punishment (we can look Darfur for a quick example).
So, I can safely say that my opponent advocates unfairness in his system, and that opposition to it is just "silly".
My opponent goes on to attack currency by saying that bartering came before it and people were just fine. What my opponent doesn't seem to get is that currency is far more superior to bartering. Money can be used to buy just about anything. It is more compact, it is accepted by everyone, and it wont leave you starving if someone doesn't want to trade with you. Bartering and currency are essentially the same concept, except that currency can be transported easier and can show value easier, amongst many other things.
William Phillips
My opponent claims that intrinsic motivators are far better than extrinsic. Well, no one says that in a Capitalism people can not be motivated by both. What Capitalism has that outshines communism is a way for people to make money if other people don't feel giving. No one says that in a Capitalism people will not donate, or people will not have fund raisers or charities for the poor. People will just get rewarded better in a Capitalism, both through the power of currency (meeting a value) and through public love (the person who finds the cure to cancer will not only get a nice dent in his bank account, but will probably be loved by much of his country). Communism doesn't offer extrinsic but only intrinsic, making it inferior in this position.
My opponent states how American schools are failing, but doesn't realize that American schools are not "capitalistic." The most Capitalistic schools in the U.S. are probably the private schools (both universities and grammar schools). My opponent using the U.S. as an example is void. My opponent then goes on to critique the pay of teachers by showing the pay of a professional athlete. Athlete's get their money because people want to watch them. People pay to go to games, people pay to see them on television, people pay for merchandise etc. Also, being a professional athlete is not an easy job, if this is what my opponent is implying. Not many people get to be Michael Jordan, but there are far more teachers. Teachers are paid by the school, whom is paid by the students who wish to go there. I'd like for my opponent to do the math.
My opponent is also ruining his own argument here because the U.S. is not a purely Capitalistic economy (it's a Socio-Capitalistic economy). Schools in the U.S. are paid for by the government (thus, teachers also being paid by the government). There is no purely Capitalistic state, so my opponents critique fails.
Justin Watson
My opponent's stance on laws and equality and rights are those of anarchism and not communism, so I have yet the need to rebuttal those claims (this can actually also be extended to his arguments on the justice system).
My opponent says that if someone needs an item, it will be supplied to them. Well, who gets priority over what? What if there are only a set amount of product X (let's say 5), and 11 people need product x. Who will get it? What if the need is the same? Will it go down to a democratic vote, or will something like currency show who has given more to the society in order to obtain such a product in said case?
My opponent's arguments on competition can be followed up on by my former arguments about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators.
I already argued that everyone can provide for a society in some way (Steven Hawking being physically impaired but providing intellectually, etc), so I don't see where my opponent thinks he has an upper hand there. And also, my opponent fails in his critique, again, that Capitalism doesn't supply a channel for intrinsic rewards. Also, my opponent is advocating that successful people's resources be taken from them - I hope he doesn't think he can trade one "wrong" for another one, as I presented in my former round and he didn't answer.
Also, i never used the USSR to attack the governing process of Communism. I was suing it as an example of giving things up for the community (which I can also use Nazi Germany as an example for, which was not a communism).
Concluding, I'd like to ask my opponent if he is advocating Communism or Anarchism? His rounds are confusing the governing of the political systems immensely...
Also... sure John Locke says there are "natural" laws, but that doesn't mean people naturally follow them. Let's have a reality check here, seriously....
Mason Morris
Kefka's refute to my Justice System argument relies on no hard evidence (nor any period of history in the world) that could give his conclusion a shred of legitimacy. All it is looking to me is like a good, old ideological shout, "Some day in the future we will be smart enough to be peaceful with one another." Well, my opponent is relying on humanity to take a shift into perfect, and, well, he doesn't have hard facts that it will. Under the grounds that my opponent can't predict the future, and including that his communist system can't be implemented on current day citizens and still work (which, I am advocating that humanity from now and until perfection can use Capitalism - giving it a one up, I'm afraid), he fails this premise.
Currency
I never related Communism to bartering - I related currency to bartering. My opponent miss read my above argument. His re-issuing of the trading technique can be re-argued against with my former statements to it.
Motivation
A person does not blow up the price of something like an AIDs cure, because the profits from selling low would out do the profits of selling high - the demand would be strong enough in whole continents like Africa. Obviously the communists don't make very good businessmen. And if my opponent is ruling selfishness as a wrong doing, that is a far greater ethical debate that can't possibly be fit here for me. In other words, he can not argue that selfishness is a down bringer without providing statistics on such a claim.
Jaxson Carter
Education
My opponent's argument against this is empty. He knows nothing of the motivations for the countries to use socialist ideals in their education system. He claims that it was behind their motivation, but has zero hard evidence to prove this. He is just blowing smoke and making up motivations. I could say their motivation was garlic, and have just as much proof. If my opponent insists on comparing current day Capitalist and Communist (at their purest form that can be presented in this day and age), he can look to the economies and education systems of Hong Kong (for Capitalism) and North Korea (for communism). He also can't say it is Capitalism bringing down these schools, because the reason the schools are preforming low is because they are run socialistic (your taxes paid for them here in America, and the idea that the government supplies and distributes the money to all of them). He can't present a hard fact that Capitalism is the doubt, because both systems are mixed into the wielding. (But, as we can see with the money distribution aspect, the socialist half is sinking the system).
My opponent gave no reasons why supply and demand should not be the system. All my opponent said was that it shouldn't.... Without reasons, it's a pretty empty argument...
Also, this is not a battle for which system is more equal (a miss wording that favors my opponent. I could say that Capitalism is a much greater system for quality in this debate, and still not prove that it is best over all-- as the debate requests - but, it seems, this is the only thing my opponent has been able to say all debate).
---
I can cross apply arguments if they apply to your redundant statements, thank you very much.
Kevin Lopez
But, that is quite the thing that is taken away -- a person being able to be greater than another. How do communists view bad actors, or bad painters? Can they provide paintings even though no one will buy them? Can a horrible producer of light bulbs keep producing them and receive exactly what everyone else is receiving, even though he is contributing nothing productive to society? I don't see any real progression in this.
Also, atheists prove that humans can act justly when it comes to social contract being implemented -- they are still afraid of punishments -- my opponent has proved nothing here. My opponent has no lawless society that has thrived to point out it's capacity to work. Human beings must transcend their current emotions and humanity in order to act in the perfect way (and produce goods in such a perfect way) for communism to work. Because communism can't be implemented in any other society but a perfect one, it is less than Capitalism.
"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him." -- Ayn Rand
Jonathan Kelly
Having no currency offers problems for communist nations. There is a problem to its growth from there being no incentives for working more or working better. Only Capitalism gives workers incentives for better, more productive work. If a worker is given incentives for their work (example: more money that they can use to on needs and wants) the economy would no doubt rise accordingly. If a hard worker is getting the same pay and same benefits as a worker who is doing the minimum, they will eventually stop working to their best and do what the other guy is. Why not? They are getting the same things. There are no incentives to work harder, invent anything, or progress anything in a communist nation.
Also, workers have better environments in a Capitalistic nation. Where as in a communist nation, workers are not allowed to go on strike. Capitalism allows for workers to negotiate their wages, where in communism, there is a set wage for work - doctors and factory line workers make the same amount of money for completely different work. In Capitalism, the value of your product or service to the buyer effects the price. If the quality of your work is horrible, people wont pay a high price for it - losing you money and allowing your business to fail. In a communist nation, the product or service can be horrible, but there is no real way of getting better product because the supplier can not go out of business. In communism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo.
In a Capitalist government, everyone has the same potential to achieve wealth, but of course this all depends on their personal abilities. Smart and creative people make more money, thus encouraging a social Darwinism that supplies better products and services. People do business with people that are good at what they do. Money is a reward for good, creative, wanted/needed work.
Ryder Young
The economy and living standard rises, and the progression of society furthers. In a communist government, as my opponent stated, there is no monetary incentive and thus leaving the workers to do minimal work for the same pay they would be getting doing greater work. Capitalism increases labor productivity because of these incentives, and thus trumping in that regard communism.
A large problem with communism is their central planners don't even know who needs what in their society. Capitalism enables more efficient resource allocation. Capitalism also allows for saving and investing, where as communism uses all of its resources (as it only produces a set amount, never more than it needs) each year, leaving them nothing in case of something like a famine. Supply and demand is a forceful mistress, and it will most definitely create a richer economy that will meet all of the citizen's needs (instead of a group of planners giving a list of set services and goods to supply the society without ever really progressing or changing to suite new needs etc).
Communism doesn't supply the rights that Capitalism does. Capitalism gives individuals the rights of life, liberty, petition and property. The citizen owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and tangible and intellectual property he creates. Communism only supplies theft. Communism takes the hard work of one individual and uses it to aid another individual who is of no use to the society. In this way, it is not moral. It forces people to sacrifice in order for other individuals to survive - encouraging parasite behavior. Countries with a majority of capitalistic standards have higher standards of living for their citizens. Communism does not deal with the human condition.
Joshua Murphy
When communism mostly puts emphasis on equality, capitalism emphasizes freedom and quality. Freedom is, above all, the most moral ideal. Forced equality is not moral. It creates a slave like attitude and forced liking. Underneath it all, people will get jealous that the lazy worker is making the same as them, and this communism can't control.
Communism has no future, where as Capitalism supplies the potential for progression and quality.
Even education in a Capitalist nation is far better than a communist one. The individual pays if the individual wishes to go. The system works better as they don't have the problems of teacher motivation and work quality, and school funding like elementary, middle, and high schools. Private colleges have the best professors, the best education provided (because the professors get incentives for working there… higher pay, help in advancement of their research with better equipment, etc). The list could go on and on about how the system offers better education. If there were more private colleges, there would also be more competition, and lower prices because of this competition.
There is another key word; competition. Competition raises quality and lowers prices, helps specialize fields, leads new developments, a higher demand in research, and pushes toward perfecting goods and services. Communism supplies no competition.
My opponent claims that communism is superior to Capitalism because it gives society equality - and this, he states, is the main ideal of society. Unfortunately, humans get bored, want more out of life, and want to learn, explore, and discover things about reality. Giving a false sense of equality is, actually, the real injustice. A smarter individual is superior over a dumber one. A stronger individual is superior over a weaker one. A more creative individual is far superior over a dull one.
Julian Sanchez
Communism breeds stagnation, breeds an "aristocracy of non-value" in which groups claim privileges for disability, poverty, misfortune, incompetence—i.e., for a lack, rather than for achievement. If a person is physically unable to do work, there is mental work he can do (just look at the great Steven Hawking). If he is unable to do either one, then he shouldn't suck up resources of an individual that is striving. That striving individual has the right to his own accomplishments and shouldn't have them taken away from him. Unfortunately, communism tries to trade one supposed "wrong" for another greater wrong -- advocating theft. If self-sacrifice is an ideal—if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action—why not force people to act accordingly? This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, where several generations lived in misery and oppression as a sacrifice to a future workers' paradise. Capitalism makes less people miserable. Communism lets everyone share in that misery.
As Adlai E Stevenson is quoted in saying, "Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." There is no individualism and no creativity.
Citizens of a capitalist nation earn their homes, earn their cars, and earn their glories. No one has the right to anyone else's work, anyone else's sweat, anyone else's time, mind, and energy. To distribute such would be robbery. This is what communism is.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'" -- Quote Phelps Adams
Capitalism is superior to communism.
John Cruz
My opponent advocates for no justice system and for punishments exercised by the common people. My opponent is advocating anarchism.
Though Communism vs. Capitalism is an Economic debate, communism also holds a reign over governing of the country - so I will address the problem of justice to further show communism's flaws even though Capitalism doesn't go into the area of governing.
What my opponent does not understand is that if there is no justice system, most crimes will go unpunished (without a properly trained investigation team, most crimes will go under the radar). A court system gives an accused person the the ever needed ability to hear out their case and dismiss them if they are in fact not guilty. Further more, a court system helps the punishment of crimes go along faster. Would there need to be a public vote every time someone did something that irked another person? The amount of "bad things" that could happen are numerous, and a justice system (a fair one at that) helps keep the public in check and helps move things along faster so that everyone else could go on with their day. I should also ask my opponent: who exactly in the community gets to vote on the punishment? Would it be fair to execute a punishment if not everyone in the "country" got to vote if such a thing was immoral or not? Wouldn't that be "unjust"? Isn't it more fair to have a system where people know what is wrong and what is right, instead of having everyone's heads in the hands of the citizens who live in that town? How would people go about their day if they in one area of the "country" doing drugs is just fine, but when they shoot up in another area the community wants off with their head? Laws don't just come into being without vote in a Democracy (and of course they can be ammended).
Adam Hughes
A citizen vote for a law, then a constant execution of that law which everyone knows is in the books sounds a lot more sane to me then a flighty public vote by the people (with multiple problems this can present). A Democracy trumps a communism in this regard. And because Capitalism is an economic system, it can team up with such a governing body as a Democracy (leaving it in the win in this situation).
A couple of things that are needed to be enforced by a police system which, according to what my opponent has presented, doesn't exist in a communism:
2. Theft (location of stolen item, location of thief)
3. Riot control
4. Witness Protection
5. Murder investigations, rape investigations
Etc.
My opponent presents that to say communism shouldn't exist because of a flaw in the system is silly. My opponent is clearly mistaken, because justice is a huge issue that effects every single country. In countries where the government doesn't have a properly working justice system, we can see that the community doesn't really work very well in demonstrating fair punishment (we can look Darfur for a quick example).
So, I can safely say that my opponent advocates unfairness in his system, and that opposition to it is just "silly".
My opponent goes on to attack currency by saying that bartering came before it and people were just fine. What my opponent doesn't seem to get is that currency is far more superior to bartering. Money can be used to buy just about anything. It is more compact, it is accepted by everyone, and it wont leave you starving if someone doesn't want to trade with you. Bartering and currency are essentially the same concept, except that currency can be transported easier and can show value easier, amongst many other things.
Jeremiah Powell
My opponent claims that intrinsic motivators are far better than extrinsic. Well, no one says that in a Capitalism people can not be motivated by both. What Capitalism has that outshines communism is a way for people to make money if other people don't feel giving. No one says that in a Capitalism people will not donate, or people will not have fund raisers or charities for the poor. People will just get rewarded better in a Capitalism, both through the power of currency (meeting a value) and through public love (the person who finds the cure to cancer will not only get a nice dent in his bank account, but will probably be loved by much of his country). Communism doesn't offer extrinsic but only intrinsic, making it inferior in this position.
My opponent states how American schools are failing, but doesn't realize that American schools are not "capitalistic." The most Capitalistic schools in the U.S. are probably the private schools (both universities and grammar schools). My opponent using the U.S. as an example is void. My opponent then goes on to critique the pay of teachers by showing the pay of a professional athlete. Athlete's get their money because people want to watch them. People pay to go to games, people pay to see them on television, people pay for merchandise etc. Also, being a professional athlete is not an easy job, if this is what my opponent is implying. Not many people get to be Michael Jordan, but there are far more teachers. Teachers are paid by the school, whom is paid by the students who wish to go there. I'd like for my opponent to do the math.
My opponent is also ruining his own argument here because the U.S. is not a purely Capitalistic economy (it's a Socio-Capitalistic economy). Schools in the U.S. are paid for by the government (thus, teachers also being paid by the government). There is no purely Capitalistic state, so my opponents critique fails.
Brayden Robinson
My opponent's stance on laws and equality and rights are those of anarchism and not communism, so I have yet the need to rebuttal those claims (this can actually also be extended to his arguments on the justice system).
My opponent says that if someone needs an item, it will be supplied to them. Well, who gets priority over what? What if there are only a set amount of product X (let's say 5), and 11 people need product x. Who will get it? What if the need is the same? Will it go down to a democratic vote, or will something like currency show who has given more to the society in order to obtain such a product in said case?
My opponent's arguments on competition can be followed up on by my former arguments about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators.
I already argued that everyone can provide for a society in some way (Steven Hawking being physically impaired but providing intellectually, etc), so I don't see where my opponent thinks he has an upper hand there. And also, my opponent fails in his critique, again, that Capitalism doesn't supply a channel for intrinsic rewards. Also, my opponent is advocating that successful people's resources be taken from them - I hope he doesn't think he can trade one "wrong" for another one, as I presented in my former round and he didn't answer.
Also, i never used the USSR to attack the governing process of Communism. I was suing it as an example of giving things up for the community (which I can also use Nazi Germany as an example for, which was not a communism).
Concluding, I'd like to ask my opponent if he is advocating Communism or Anarchism? His rounds are confusing the governing of the political systems immensely...
Also... sure John Locke says there are "natural" laws, but that doesn't mean people naturally follow them. Let's have a reality check here, seriously....
Luke Gonzalez
>this triggers the commiescums.
Lincoln Adams
Kefka's refute to my Justice System argument relies on no hard evidence (nor any period of history in the world) that could give his conclusion a shred of legitimacy. All it is looking to me is like a good, old ideological shout, "Some day in the future we will be smart enough to be peaceful with one another." Well, my opponent is relying on humanity to take a shift into perfect, and, well, he doesn't have hard facts that it will. Under the grounds that my opponent can't predict the future, and including that his communist system can't be implemented on current day citizens and still work (which, I am advocating that humanity from now and until perfection can use Capitalism - giving it a one up, I'm afraid), he fails this premise.
Currency
I never related Communism to bartering - I related currency to bartering. My opponent miss read my above argument. His re-issuing of the trading technique can be re-argued against with my former statements to it.
Motivation
A person does not blow up the price of something like an AIDs cure, because the profits from selling low would out do the profits of selling high - the demand would be strong enough in whole continents like Africa. Obviously the communists don't make very good businessmen. And if my opponent is ruling selfishness as a wrong doing, that is a far greater ethical debate that can't possibly be fit here for me. In other words, he can not argue that selfishness is a down bringer without providing statistics on such a claim.
John Turner
Education
My opponent's argument against this is empty. He knows nothing of the motivations for the countries to use socialist ideals in their education system. He claims that it was behind their motivation, but has zero hard evidence to prove this. He is just blowing smoke and making up motivations. I could say their motivation was garlic, and have just as much proof. If my opponent insists on comparing current day Capitalist and Communist (at their purest form that can be presented in this day and age), he can look to the economies and education systems of Hong Kong (for Capitalism) and North Korea (for communism). He also can't say it is Capitalism bringing down these schools, because the reason the schools are preforming low is because they are run socialistic (your taxes paid for them here in America, and the idea that the government supplies and distributes the money to all of them). He can't present a hard fact that Capitalism is the doubt, because both systems are mixed into the wielding. (But, as we can see with the money distribution aspect, the socialist half is sinking the system).
My opponent gave no reasons why supply and demand should not be the system. All my opponent said was that it shouldn't.... Without reasons, it's a pretty empty argument...
Also, this is not a battle for which system is more equal (a miss wording that favors my opponent. I could say that Capitalism is a much greater system for quality in this debate, and still not prove that it is best over all-- as the debate requests - but, it seems, this is the only thing my opponent has been able to say all debate).
---
I can cross apply arguments if they apply to your redundant statements, thank you very much.
Wyatt Peterson
But, that is quite the thing that is taken away -- a person being able to be greater than another. How do communists view bad actors, or bad painters? Can they provide paintings even though no one will buy them? Can a horrible producer of light bulbs keep producing them and receive exactly what everyone else is receiving, even though he is contributing nothing productive to society? I don't see any real progression in this.
Also, atheists prove that humans can act justly when it comes to social contract being implemented -- they are still afraid of punishments -- my opponent has proved nothing here. My opponent has no lawless society that has thrived to point out it's capacity to work. Human beings must transcend their current emotions and humanity in order to act in the perfect way (and produce goods in such a perfect way) for communism to work. Because communism can't be implemented in any other society but a perfect one, it is less than Capitalism.
"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him." -- Ayn Rand
Brayden Nelson
>this triggers the commiescums..
Robert Lewis
Having no currency offers problems for communist nations. There is a problem to its growth from there being no incentives for working more or working better. Only Capitalism gives workers incentives for better, more productive work. If a worker is given incentives for their work (example: more money that they can use to on needs and wants) the economy would no doubt rise accordingly. If a hard worker is getting the same pay and same benefits as a worker who is doing the minimum, they will eventually stop working to their best and do what the other guy is. Why not? They are getting the same things. There are no incentives to work harder, invent anything, or progress anything in a communist nation.
Also, workers have better environments in a Capitalistic nation. Where as in a communist nation, workers are not allowed to go on strike. Capitalism allows for workers to negotiate their wages, where in communism, there is a set wage for work - doctors and factory line workers make the same amount of money for completely different work. In Capitalism, the value of your product or service to the buyer effects the price. If the quality of your work is horrible, people wont pay a high price for it - losing you money and allowing your business to fail. In a communist nation, the product or service can be horrible, but there is no real way of getting better product because the supplier can not go out of business. In communism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo.
In a Capitalist government, everyone has the same potential to achieve wealth, but of course this all depends on their personal abilities. Smart and creative people make more money, thus encouraging a social Darwinism that supplies better products and services. People do business with people that are good at what they do. Money is a reward for good, creative, wanted/needed work.
Brayden Martin
>this triggers the commiescums...
Ayden Ward
The economy and living standard rises, and the progression of society furthers. In a communist government, as my opponent stated, there is no monetary incentive and thus leaving the workers to do minimal work for the same pay they would be getting doing greater work. Capitalism increases labor productivity because of these incentives, and thus trumping in that regard communism.
A large problem with communism is their central planners don't even know who needs what in their society. Capitalism enables more efficient resource allocation. Capitalism also allows for saving and investing, where as communism uses all of its resources (as it only produces a set amount, never more than it needs) each year, leaving them nothing in case of something like a famine. Supply and demand is a forceful mistress, and it will most definitely create a richer economy that will meet all of the citizen's needs (instead of a group of planners giving a list of set services and goods to supply the society without ever really progressing or changing to suite new needs etc).
Communism doesn't supply the rights that Capitalism does. Capitalism gives individuals the rights of life, liberty, petition and property. The citizen owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and tangible and intellectual property he creates. Communism only supplies theft. Communism takes the hard work of one individual and uses it to aid another individual who is of no use to the society. In this way, it is not moral. It forces people to sacrifice in order for other individuals to survive - encouraging parasite behavior. Countries with a majority of capitalistic standards have higher standards of living for their citizens. Communism does not deal with the human condition.
Brandon Adams
When communism mostly puts emphasis on equality, capitalism emphasizes freedom and quality. Freedom is, above all, the most moral ideal. Forced equality is not moral. It creates a slave like attitude and forced liking. Underneath it all, people will get jealous that the lazy worker is making the same as them, and this communism can't control.
Communism has no future, where as Capitalism supplies the potential for progression and quality.
Even education in a Capitalist nation is far better than a communist one. The individual pays if the individual wishes to go. The system works better as they don't have the problems of teacher motivation and work quality, and school funding like elementary, middle, and high schools. Private colleges have the best professors, the best education provided (because the professors get incentives for working there… higher pay, help in advancement of their research with better equipment, etc). The list could go on and on about how the system offers better education. If there were more private colleges, there would also be more competition, and lower prices because of this competition.
There is another key word; competition. Competition raises quality and lowers prices, helps specialize fields, leads new developments, a higher demand in research, and pushes toward perfecting goods and services. Communism supplies no competition.
My opponent claims that communism is superior to Capitalism because it gives society equality - and this, he states, is the main ideal of society. Unfortunately, humans get bored, want more out of life, and want to learn, explore, and discover things about reality. Giving a false sense of equality is, actually, the real injustice. A smarter individual is superior over a dumber one. A stronger individual is superior over a weaker one. A more creative individual is far superior over a dull one.
Carson Johnson
This triggers the commiescums.....
Aiden Mitchell
Communism breeds stagnation, breeds an "aristocracy of non-value" in which groups claim privileges for disability, poverty, misfortune, incompetence—i.e., for a lack, rather than for achievement. If a person is physically unable to do work, there is mental work he can do (just look at the great Steven Hawking). If he is unable to do either one, then he shouldn't suck up resources of an individual that is striving. That striving individual has the right to his own accomplishments and shouldn't have them taken away from him. Unfortunately, communism tries to trade one supposed "wrong" for another greater wrong -- advocating theft. If self-sacrifice is an ideal—if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action—why not force people to act accordingly? This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, where several generations lived in misery and oppression as a sacrifice to a future workers' paradise. Capitalism makes less people miserable. Communism lets everyone share in that misery.
As Adlai E Stevenson is quoted in saying, "Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." There is no individualism and no creativity.
Citizens of a capitalist nation earn their homes, earn their cars, and earn their glories. No one has the right to anyone else's work, anyone else's sweat, anyone else's time, mind, and energy. To distribute such would be robbery. This is what communism is.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'" -- Quote Phelps Adams
Capitalism is superior to communism.
Samuel Roberts
My opponent advocates for no justice system and for punishments exercised by the common people. My opponent is advocating anarchism.
Though Communism vs. Capitalism is an Economic debate, communism also holds a reign over governing of the country - so I will address the problem of justice to further show communism's flaws even though Capitalism doesn't go into the area of governing.
What my opponent does not understand is that if there is no justice system, most crimes will go unpunished (without a properly trained investigation team, most crimes will go under the radar). A court system gives an accused person the the ever needed ability to hear out their case and dismiss them if they are in fact not guilty. Further more, a court system helps the punishment of crimes go along faster. Would there need to be a public vote every time someone did something that irked another person? The amount of "bad things" that could happen are numerous, and a justice system (a fair one at that) helps keep the public in check and helps move things along faster so that everyone else could go on with their day. I should also ask my opponent: who exactly in the community gets to vote on the punishment? Would it be fair to execute a punishment if not everyone in the "country" got to vote if such a thing was immoral or not? Wouldn't that be "unjust"? Isn't it more fair to have a system where people know what is wrong and what is right, instead of having everyone's heads in the hands of the citizens who live in that town? How would people go about their day if they in one area of the "country" doing drugs is just fine, but when they shoot up in another area the community wants off with their head? Laws don't just come into being without vote in a Democracy (and of course they can be ammended).
David Rivera
>this keeps triggering the commiescums
Matthew Long
A citizen vote for a law, then a constant execution of that law which everyone knows is in the books sounds a lot more sane to me then a flighty public vote by the people (with multiple problems this can present). A Democracy trumps a communism in this regard. And because Capitalism is an economic system, it can team up with such a governing body as a Democracy (leaving it in the win in this situation).
A couple of things that are needed to be enforced by a police system which, according to what my opponent has presented, doesn't exist in a communism:
2. Theft (location of stolen item, location of thief)
3. Riot control
4. Witness Protection
5. Murder investigations, rape investigations
Etc.
My opponent presents that to say communism shouldn't exist because of a flaw in the system is silly. My opponent is clearly mistaken, because justice is a huge issue that effects every single country. In countries where the government doesn't have a properly working justice system, we can see that the community doesn't really work very well in demonstrating fair punishment (we can look Darfur for a quick example).
So, I can safely say that my opponent advocates unfairness in his system, and that opposition to it is just "silly".
My opponent goes on to attack currency by saying that bartering came before it and people were just fine. What my opponent doesn't seem to get is that currency is far more superior to bartering. Money can be used to buy just about anything. It is more compact, it is accepted by everyone, and it wont leave you starving if someone doesn't want to trade with you. Bartering and currency are essentially the same concept, except that currency can be transported easier and can show value easier, amongst many other things.
Isaac Harris
>this will trigger any commiescum
Jose Gutierrez
My opponent claims that intrinsic motivators are far better than extrinsic. Well, no one says that in a Capitalism people can not be motivated by both. What Capitalism has that outshines communism is a way for people to make money if other people don't feel giving. No one says that in a Capitalism people will not donate, or people will not have fund raisers or charities for the poor. People will just get rewarded better in a Capitalism, both through the power of currency (meeting a value) and through public love (the person who finds the cure to cancer will not only get a nice dent in his bank account, but will probably be loved by much of his country). Communism doesn't offer extrinsic but only intrinsic, making it inferior in this position.
My opponent states how American schools are failing, but doesn't realize that American schools are not "capitalistic." The most Capitalistic schools in the U.S. are probably the private schools (both universities and grammar schools). My opponent using the U.S. as an example is void. My opponent then goes on to critique the pay of teachers by showing the pay of a professional athlete. Athlete's get their money because people want to watch them. People pay to go to games, people pay to see them on television, people pay for merchandise etc. Also, being a professional athlete is not an easy job, if this is what my opponent is implying. Not many people get to be Michael Jordan, but there are far more teachers. Teachers are paid by the school, whom is paid by the students who wish to go there. I'd like for my opponent to do the math.
My opponent is also ruining his own argument here because the U.S. is not a purely Capitalistic economy (it's a Socio-Capitalistic economy). Schools in the U.S. are paid for by the government (thus, teachers also being paid by the government). There is no purely Capitalistic state, so my opponents critique fails.
Josiah Edwards
My opponent's stance on laws and equality and rights are those of anarchism and not communism, so I have yet the need to rebuttal those claims (this can actually also be extended to his arguments on the justice system).
My opponent says that if someone needs an item, it will be supplied to them. Well, who gets priority over what? What if there are only a set amount of product X (let's say 5), and 11 people need product x. Who will get it? What if the need is the same? Will it go down to a democratic vote, or will something like currency show who has given more to the society in order to obtain such a product in said case?
My opponent's arguments on competition can be followed up on by my former arguments about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators.
I already argued that everyone can provide for a society in some way (Steven Hawking being physically impaired but providing intellectually, etc), so I don't see where my opponent thinks he has an upper hand there. And also, my opponent fails in his critique, again, that Capitalism doesn't supply a channel for intrinsic rewards. Also, my opponent is advocating that successful people's resources be taken from them - I hope he doesn't think he can trade one "wrong" for another one, as I presented in my former round and he didn't answer.
Also, i never used the USSR to attack the governing process of Communism. I was suing it as an example of giving things up for the community (which I can also use Nazi Germany as an example for, which was not a communism).
Concluding, I'd like to ask my opponent if he is advocating Communism or Anarchism? His rounds are confusing the governing of the political systems immensely...
Also... sure John Locke says there are "natural" laws, but that doesn't mean people naturally follow them. Let's have a reality check here, seriously....
Aiden Anderson
>this will trigger the commiescums yet again
Henry Cooper
Kefka's refute to my Justice System argument relies on no hard evidence (nor any period of history in the world) that could give his conclusion a shred of legitimacy. All it is looking to me is like a good, old ideological shout, "Some day in the future we will be smart enough to be peaceful with one another." Well, my opponent is relying on humanity to take a shift into perfect, and, well, he doesn't have hard facts that it will. Under the grounds that my opponent can't predict the future, and including that his communist system can't be implemented on current day citizens and still work (which, I am advocating that humanity from now and until perfection can use Capitalism - giving it a one up, I'm afraid), he fails this premise.
Currency
I never related Communism to bartering - I related currency to bartering. My opponent miss read my above argument. His re-issuing of the trading technique can be re-argued against with my former statements to it.
Motivation
A person does not blow up the price of something like an AIDs cure, because the profits from selling low would out do the profits of selling high - the demand would be strong enough in whole continents like Africa. Obviously the communists don't make very good businessmen. And if my opponent is ruling selfishness as a wrong doing, that is a far greater ethical debate that can't possibly be fit here for me. In other words, he can not argue that selfishness is a down bringer without providing statistics on such a claim.
Noah Young
Education
My opponent's argument against this is empty. He knows nothing of the motivations for the countries to use socialist ideals in their education system. He claims that it was behind their motivation, but has zero hard evidence to prove this. He is just blowing smoke and making up motivations. I could say their motivation was garlic, and have just as much proof. If my opponent insists on comparing current day Capitalist and Communist (at their purest form that can be presented in this day and age), he can look to the economies and education systems of Hong Kong (for Capitalism) and North Korea (for communism). He also can't say it is Capitalism bringing down these schools, because the reason the schools are preforming low is because they are run socialistic (your taxes paid for them here in America, and the idea that the government supplies and distributes the money to all of them). He can't present a hard fact that Capitalism is the doubt, because both systems are mixed into the wielding. (But, as we can see with the money distribution aspect, the socialist half is sinking the system).
My opponent gave no reasons why supply and demand should not be the system. All my opponent said was that it shouldn't.... Without reasons, it's a pretty empty argument...
Also, this is not a battle for which system is more equal (a miss wording that favors my opponent. I could say that Capitalism is a much greater system for quality in this debate, and still not prove that it is best over all-- as the debate requests - but, it seems, this is the only thing my opponent has been able to say all debate).
---
I can cross apply arguments if they apply to your redundant statements, thank you very much.
Leo Lewis
>this triggers the communistic fags
Xavier Bennett
But, that is quite the thing that is taken away -- a person being able to be greater than another. How do communists view bad actors, or bad painters? Can they provide paintings even though no one will buy them? Can a horrible producer of light bulbs keep producing them and receive exactly what everyone else is receiving, even though he is contributing nothing productive to society? I don't see any real progression in this.
Also, atheists prove that humans can act justly when it comes to social contract being implemented -- they are still afraid of punishments -- my opponent has proved nothing here. My opponent has no lawless society that has thrived to point out it's capacity to work. Human beings must transcend their current emotions and humanity in order to act in the perfect way (and produce goods in such a perfect way) for communism to work. Because communism can't be implemented in any other society but a perfect one, it is less than Capitalism.
"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him." -- Ayn Rand
Joseph Phillips
this triggers the commiescum
Zachary Hernandez
Having no currency offers problems for communist nations. There is a problem to its growth from there being no incentives for working more or working better. Only Capitalism gives workers incentives for better, more productive work. If a worker is given incentives for their work (example: more money that they can use to on needs and wants) the economy would no doubt rise accordingly. If a hard worker is getting the same pay and same benefits as a worker who is doing the minimum, they will eventually stop working to their best and do what the other guy is. Why not? They are getting the same things. There are no incentives to work harder, invent anything, or progress anything in a communist nation.
Also, workers have better environments in a Capitalistic nation. Where as in a communist nation, workers are not allowed to go on strike. Capitalism allows for workers to negotiate their wages, where in communism, there is a set wage for work - doctors and factory line workers make the same amount of money for completely different work. In Capitalism, the value of your product or service to the buyer effects the price. If the quality of your work is horrible, people wont pay a high price for it - losing you money and allowing your business to fail. In a communist nation, the product or service can be horrible, but there is no real way of getting better product because the supplier can not go out of business. In communism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo.
In a Capitalist government, everyone has the same potential to achieve wealth, but of course this all depends on their personal abilities. Smart and creative people make more money, thus encouraging a social Darwinism that supplies better products and services. People do business with people that are good at what they do. Money is a reward for good, creative, wanted/needed work.
Mason Baker
>this triggers the commiescum
Jack Reyes
>this keeps always triggering the commiescums
Landon Gomez
The economy and living standard rises, and the progression of society furthers. In a communist government, as my opponent stated, there is no monetary incentive and thus leaving the workers to do minimal work for the same pay they would be getting doing greater work. Capitalism increases labor productivity because of these incentives, and thus trumping in that regard communism.
A large problem with communism is their central planners don't even know who needs what in their society. Capitalism enables more efficient resource allocation. Capitalism also allows for saving and investing, where as communism uses all of its resources (as it only produces a set amount, never more than it needs) each year, leaving them nothing in case of something like a famine. Supply and demand is a forceful mistress, and it will most definitely create a richer economy that will meet all of the citizen's needs (instead of a group of planners giving a list of set services and goods to supply the society without ever really progressing or changing to suite new needs etc).
Communism doesn't supply the rights that Capitalism does. Capitalism gives individuals the rights of life, liberty, petition and property. The citizen owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and tangible and intellectual property he creates. Communism only supplies theft. Communism takes the hard work of one individual and uses it to aid another individual who is of no use to the society. In this way, it is not moral. It forces people to sacrifice in order for other individuals to survive - encouraging parasite behavior. Countries with a majority of capitalistic standards have higher standards of living for their citizens. Communism does not deal with the human condition.
Julian Garcia
>this will not stop triggering the commies
Aiden Thompson
When communism mostly puts emphasis on equality, capitalism emphasizes freedom and quality. Freedom is, above all, the most moral ideal. Forced equality is not moral. It creates a slave like attitude and forced liking. Underneath it all, people will get jealous that the lazy worker is making the same as them, and this communism can't control.
Communism has no future, where as Capitalism supplies the potential for progression and quality.
Even education in a Capitalist nation is far better than a communist one. The individual pays if the individual wishes to go. The system works better as they don't have the problems of teacher motivation and work quality, and school funding like elementary, middle, and high schools. Private colleges have the best professors, the best education provided (because the professors get incentives for working there… higher pay, help in advancement of their research with better equipment, etc). The list could go on and on about how the system offers better education. If there were more private colleges, there would also be more competition, and lower prices because of this competition.
There is another key word; competition. Competition raises quality and lowers prices, helps specialize fields, leads new developments, a higher demand in research, and pushes toward perfecting goods and services. Communism supplies no competition.
My opponent claims that communism is superior to Capitalism because it gives society equality - and this, he states, is the main ideal of society. Unfortunately, humans get bored, want more out of life, and want to learn, explore, and discover things about reality. Giving a false sense of equality is, actually, the real injustice. A smarter individual is superior over a dumber one. A stronger individual is superior over a weaker one. A more creative individual is far superior over a dull one.
James Rodriguez
>this wont stop from triggering the commiescum
Easton Hernandez
Communism breeds stagnation, breeds an "aristocracy of non-value" in which groups claim privileges for disability, poverty, misfortune, incompetence—i.e., for a lack, rather than for achievement. If a person is physically unable to do work, there is mental work he can do (just look at the great Steven Hawking). If he is unable to do either one, then he shouldn't suck up resources of an individual that is striving. That striving individual has the right to his own accomplishments and shouldn't have them taken away from him. Unfortunately, communism tries to trade one supposed "wrong" for another greater wrong -- advocating theft. If self-sacrifice is an ideal—if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action—why not force people to act accordingly? This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, where several generations lived in misery and oppression as a sacrifice to a future workers' paradise. Capitalism makes less people miserable. Communism lets everyone share in that misery.
As Adlai E Stevenson is quoted in saying, "Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." There is no individualism and no creativity.
Citizens of a capitalist nation earn their homes, earn their cars, and earn their glories. No one has the right to anyone else's work, anyone else's sweat, anyone else's time, mind, and energy. To distribute such would be robbery. This is what communism is.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'" -- Quote Phelps Adams
Capitalism is superior to communism.
William James
>this will also not stop from triggering the commiescum
William Gutierrez
My opponent advocates for no justice system and for punishments exercised by the common people. My opponent is advocating anarchism.
Though Communism vs. Capitalism is an Economic debate, communism also holds a reign over governing of the country - so I will address the problem of justice to further show communism's flaws even though Capitalism doesn't go into the area of governing.
What my opponent does not understand is that if there is no justice system, most crimes will go unpunished (without a properly trained investigation team, most crimes will go under the radar). A court system gives an accused person the the ever needed ability to hear out their case and dismiss them if they are in fact not guilty. Further more, a court system helps the punishment of crimes go along faster. Would there need to be a public vote every time someone did something that irked another person? The amount of "bad things" that could happen are numerous, and a justice system (a fair one at that) helps keep the public in check and helps move things along faster so that everyone else could go on with their day. I should also ask my opponent: who exactly in the community gets to vote on the punishment? Would it be fair to execute a punishment if not everyone in the "country" got to vote if such a thing was immoral or not? Wouldn't that be "unjust"? Isn't it more fair to have a system where people know what is wrong and what is right, instead of having everyone's heads in the hands of the citizens who live in that town? How would people go about their day if they in one area of the "country" doing drugs is just fine, but when they shoot up in another area the community wants off with their head? Laws don't just come into being without vote in a Democracy (and of course they can be ammended).
Noah Ross
>it never gets old, this will also never stop triggering the commies
Julian Rivera
...
Lucas Hughes
A citizen vote for a law, then a constant execution of that law which everyone knows is in the books sounds a lot more sane to me then a flighty public vote by the people (with multiple problems this can present). A Democracy trumps a communism in this regard. And because Capitalism is an economic system, it can team up with such a governing body as a Democracy (leaving it in the win in this situation).
A couple of things that are needed to be enforced by a police system which, according to what my opponent has presented, doesn't exist in a communism:
2. Theft (location of stolen item, location of thief)
3. Riot control
4. Witness Protection
5. Murder investigations, rape investigations
Etc.
My opponent presents that to say communism shouldn't exist because of a flaw in the system is silly. My opponent is clearly mistaken, because justice is a huge issue that effects every single country. In countries where the government doesn't have a properly working justice system, we can see that the community doesn't really work very well in demonstrating fair punishment (we can look Darfur for a quick example).
So, I can safely say that my opponent advocates unfairness in his system, and that opposition to it is just "silly".
My opponent goes on to attack currency by saying that bartering came before it and people were just fine. What my opponent doesn't seem to get is that currency is far more superior to bartering. Money can be used to buy just about anything. It is more compact, it is accepted by everyone, and it wont leave you starving if someone doesn't want to trade with you. Bartering and currency are essentially the same concept, except that currency can be transported easier and can show value easier, amongst many other things.
Hunter Cooper
>this will 100 % trigger the commie
Jonathan Wilson
My opponent claims that intrinsic motivators are far better than extrinsic. Well, no one says that in a Capitalism people can not be motivated by both. What Capitalism has that outshines communism is a way for people to make money if other people don't feel giving. No one says that in a Capitalism people will not donate, or people will not have fund raisers or charities for the poor. People will just get rewarded better in a Capitalism, both through the power of currency (meeting a value) and through public love (the person who finds the cure to cancer will not only get a nice dent in his bank account, but will probably be loved by much of his country). Communism doesn't offer extrinsic but only intrinsic, making it inferior in this position.
My opponent states how American schools are failing, but doesn't realize that American schools are not "capitalistic." The most Capitalistic schools in the U.S. are probably the private schools (both universities and grammar schools). My opponent using the U.S. as an example is void. My opponent then goes on to critique the pay of teachers by showing the pay of a professional athlete. Athlete's get their money because people want to watch them. People pay to go to games, people pay to see them on television, people pay for merchandise etc. Also, being a professional athlete is not an easy job, if this is what my opponent is implying. Not many people get to be Michael Jordan, but there are far more teachers. Teachers are paid by the school, whom is paid by the students who wish to go there. I'd like for my opponent to do the math.
My opponent is also ruining his own argument here because the U.S. is not a purely Capitalistic economy (it's a Socio-Capitalistic economy). Schools in the U.S. are paid for by the government (thus, teachers also being paid by the government). There is no purely Capitalistic state, so my opponents critique fails.
Samuel Bell
>this will 100 % trigger the commies
Daniel Turner
...
Joseph Gray
My opponent's stance on laws and equality and rights are those of anarchism and not communism, so I have yet the need to rebuttal those claims (this can actually also be extended to his arguments on the justice system).
My opponent says that if someone needs an item, it will be supplied to them. Well, who gets priority over what? What if there are only a set amount of product X (let's say 5), and 11 people need product x. Who will get it? What if the need is the same? Will it go down to a democratic vote, or will something like currency show who has given more to the society in order to obtain such a product in said case?
My opponent's arguments on competition can be followed up on by my former arguments about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators.
I already argued that everyone can provide for a society in some way (Steven Hawking being physically impaired but providing intellectually, etc), so I don't see where my opponent thinks he has an upper hand there. And also, my opponent fails in his critique, again, that Capitalism doesn't supply a channel for intrinsic rewards. Also, my opponent is advocating that successful people's resources be taken from them - I hope he doesn't think he can trade one "wrong" for another one, as I presented in my former round and he didn't answer.
Also, i never used the USSR to attack the governing process of Communism. I was suing it as an example of giving things up for the community (which I can also use Nazi Germany as an example for, which was not a communism).
Concluding, I'd like to ask my opponent if he is advocating Communism or Anarchism? His rounds are confusing the governing of the political systems immensely...
Also... sure John Locke says there are "natural" laws, but that doesn't mean people naturally follow them. Let's have a reality check here, seriously....
Landon Roberts
>this will 100 % trigger all commie
Adrian Mitchell
Doesn't that prove communism is crap?
Logan Howard
Kefka's refute to my Justice System argument relies on no hard evidence (nor any period of history in the world) that could give his conclusion a shred of legitimacy. All it is looking to me is like a good, old ideological shout, "Some day in the future we will be smart enough to be peaceful with one another." Well, my opponent is relying on humanity to take a shift into perfect, and, well, he doesn't have hard facts that it will. Under the grounds that my opponent can't predict the future, and including that his communist system can't be implemented on current day citizens and still work (which, I am advocating that humanity from now and until perfection can use Capitalism - giving it a one up, I'm afraid), he fails this premise.
Currency
I never related Communism to bartering - I related currency to bartering. My opponent miss read my above argument. His re-issuing of the trading technique can be re-argued against with my former statements to it.
Motivation
A person does not blow up the price of something like an AIDs cure, because the profits from selling low would out do the profits of selling high - the demand would be strong enough in whole continents like Africa. Obviously the communists don't make very good businessmen. And if my opponent is ruling selfishness as a wrong doing, that is a far greater ethical debate that can't possibly be fit here for me. In other words, he can not argue that selfishness is a down bringer without providing statistics on such a claim.
Blake Thomas
Jámon de merda, ninguém gosta de ti em lado nenhum, conheço bem a tua laia seu FDGP.
Jackson Wright
>this wont stop the commies from getting triggered
Evan Jones
Education
My opponent's argument against this is empty. He knows nothing of the motivations for the countries to use socialist ideals in their education system. He claims that it was behind their motivation, but has zero hard evidence to prove this. He is just blowing smoke and making up motivations. I could say their motivation was garlic, and have just as much proof. If my opponent insists on comparing current day Capitalist and Communist (at their purest form that can be presented in this day and age), he can look to the economies and education systems of Hong Kong (for Capitalism) and North Korea (for communism). He also can't say it is Capitalism bringing down these schools, because the reason the schools are preforming low is because they are run socialistic (your taxes paid for them here in America, and the idea that the government supplies and distributes the money to all of them). He can't present a hard fact that Capitalism is the doubt, because both systems are mixed into the wielding. (But, as we can see with the money distribution aspect, the socialist half is sinking the system).
My opponent gave no reasons why supply and demand should not be the system. All my opponent said was that it shouldn't.... Without reasons, it's a pretty empty argument...
Also, this is not a battle for which system is more equal (a miss wording that favors my opponent. I could say that Capitalism is a much greater system for quality in this debate, and still not prove that it is best over all-- as the debate requests - but, it seems, this is the only thing my opponent has been able to say all debate).
---
I can cross apply arguments if they apply to your redundant statements, thank you very much.
Connor Phillips
AHI TE PUDRAS Y TE MUERAS HIJO DE LA GRAN PUTA
Joseph Nguyen
The system of the strong and intelligent vs The system of the weak and incapable.
Robert Sullivan
>this setence will trigger any commies
Parker Wright
But, that is quite the thing that is taken away -- a person being able to be greater than another. How do communists view bad actors, or bad painters? Can they provide paintings even though no one will buy them? Can a horrible producer of light bulbs keep producing them and receive exactly what everyone else is receiving, even though he is contributing nothing productive to society? I don't see any real progression in this.
Also, atheists prove that humans can act justly when it comes to social contract being implemented -- they are still afraid of punishments -- my opponent has proved nothing here. My opponent has no lawless society that has thrived to point out it's capacity to work. Human beings must transcend their current emotions and humanity in order to act in the perfect way (and produce goods in such a perfect way) for communism to work. Because communism can't be implemented in any other society but a perfect one, it is less than Capitalism.
"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him." -- Ayn Rand
Thomas Reyes
piss off
Easton Scott
>this pic will always trigger the commie scum
Henry Howard
Having no currency offers problems for communist nations. There is a problem to its growth from there being no incentives for working more or working better. Only Capitalism gives workers incentives for better, more productive work. If a worker is given incentives for their work (example: more money that they can use to on needs and wants) the economy would no doubt rise accordingly. If a hard worker is getting the same pay and same benefits as a worker who is doing the minimum, they will eventually stop working to their best and do what the other guy is. Why not? They are getting the same things. There are no incentives to work harder, invent anything, or progress anything in a communist nation.
Also, workers have better environments in a Capitalistic nation. Where as in a communist nation, workers are not allowed to go on strike. Capitalism allows for workers to negotiate their wages, where in communism, there is a set wage for work - doctors and factory line workers make the same amount of money for completely different work. In Capitalism, the value of your product or service to the buyer effects the price. If the quality of your work is horrible, people wont pay a high price for it - losing you money and allowing your business to fail. In a communist nation, the product or service can be horrible, but there is no real way of getting better product because the supplier can not go out of business. In communism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo.
In a Capitalist government, everyone has the same potential to achieve wealth, but of course this all depends on their personal abilities. Smart and creative people make more money, thus encouraging a social Darwinism that supplies better products and services. People do business with people that are good at what they do. Money is a reward for good, creative, wanted/needed work.
Julian Ramirez
>Marxism-Leninism >Spain gg
David Baker
Don´t waste your time, he won´t care how well constucted or how truth it is you write, this is like this every single day.
Adam Fisher
>this always trigger the commie scum
Benjamin James
...
Owen Bennett
The economy and living standard rises, and the progression of society furthers. In a communist government, as my opponent stated, there is no monetary incentive and thus leaving the workers to do minimal work for the same pay they would be getting doing greater work. Capitalism increases labor productivity because of these incentives, and thus trumping in that regard communism.
A large problem with communism is their central planners don't even know who needs what in their society. Capitalism enables more efficient resource allocation. Capitalism also allows for saving and investing, where as communism uses all of its resources (as it only produces a set amount, never more than it needs) each year, leaving them nothing in case of something like a famine. Supply and demand is a forceful mistress, and it will most definitely create a richer economy that will meet all of the citizen's needs (instead of a group of planners giving a list of set services and goods to supply the society without ever really progressing or changing to suite new needs etc).
Communism doesn't supply the rights that Capitalism does. Capitalism gives individuals the rights of life, liberty, petition and property. The citizen owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and tangible and intellectual property he creates. Communism only supplies theft. Communism takes the hard work of one individual and uses it to aid another individual who is of no use to the society. In this way, it is not moral. It forces people to sacrifice in order for other individuals to survive - encouraging parasite behavior. Countries with a majority of capitalistic standards have higher standards of living for their citizens. Communism does not deal with the human condition.
Michael Brown
Communist faggots
Nicholas Mitchell
When communism mostly puts emphasis on equality, capitalism emphasizes freedom and quality. Freedom is, above all, the most moral ideal. Forced equality is not moral. It creates a slave like attitude and forced liking. Underneath it all, people will get jealous that the lazy worker is making the same as them, and this communism can't control.
Communism has no future, where as Capitalism supplies the potential for progression and quality.
Even education in a Capitalist nation is far better than a communist one. The individual pays if the individual wishes to go. The system works better as they don't have the problems of teacher motivation and work quality, and school funding like elementary, middle, and high schools. Private colleges have the best professors, the best education provided (because the professors get incentives for working there… higher pay, help in advancement of their research with better equipment, etc). The list could go on and on about how the system offers better education. If there were more private colleges, there would also be more competition, and lower prices because of this competition.
There is another key word; competition. Competition raises quality and lowers prices, helps specialize fields, leads new developments, a higher demand in research, and pushes toward perfecting goods and services. Communism supplies no competition.
My opponent claims that communism is superior to Capitalism because it gives society equality - and this, he states, is the main ideal of society. Unfortunately, humans get bored, want more out of life, and want to learn, explore, and discover things about reality. Giving a false sense of equality is, actually, the real injustice. A smarter individual is superior over a dumber one. A stronger individual is superior over a weaker one. A more creative individual is far superior over a dull one.
Henry Perez
>this trigger wont stop the commies from getting triggered
Luke Reyes
Communism breeds stagnation, breeds an "aristocracy of non-value" in which groups claim privileges for disability, poverty, misfortune, incompetence—i.e., for a lack, rather than for achievement. If a person is physically unable to do work, there is mental work he can do (just look at the great Steven Hawking). If he is unable to do either one, then he shouldn't suck up resources of an individual that is striving. That striving individual has the right to his own accomplishments and shouldn't have them taken away from him. Unfortunately, communism tries to trade one supposed "wrong" for another greater wrong -- advocating theft. If self-sacrifice is an ideal—if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action—why not force people to act accordingly? This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, where several generations lived in misery and oppression as a sacrifice to a future workers' paradise. Capitalism makes less people miserable. Communism lets everyone share in that misery.
As Adlai E Stevenson is quoted in saying, "Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." There is no individualism and no creativity.
Citizens of a capitalist nation earn their homes, earn their cars, and earn their glories. No one has the right to anyone else's work, anyone else's sweat, anyone else's time, mind, and energy. To distribute such would be robbery. This is what communism is.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'" -- Quote Phelps Adams
Capitalism is superior to communism.
Evan Rogers
I almost feel sorry for these losers.
Dylan Flores
My opponent advocates for no justice system and for punishments exercised by the common people. My opponent is advocating anarchism.
Though Communism vs. Capitalism is an Economic debate, communism also holds a reign over governing of the country - so I will address the problem of justice to further show communism's flaws even though Capitalism doesn't go into the area of governing.
What my opponent does not understand is that if there is no justice system, most crimes will go unpunished (without a properly trained investigation team, most crimes will go under the radar). A court system gives an accused person the the ever needed ability to hear out their case and dismiss them if they are in fact not guilty. Further more, a court system helps the punishment of crimes go along faster. Would there need to be a public vote every time someone did something that irked another person? The amount of "bad things" that could happen are numerous, and a justice system (a fair one at that) helps keep the public in check and helps move things along faster so that everyone else could go on with their day. I should also ask my opponent: who exactly in the community gets to vote on the punishment? Would it be fair to execute a punishment if not everyone in the "country" got to vote if such a thing was immoral or not? Wouldn't that be "unjust"? Isn't it more fair to have a system where people know what is wrong and what is right, instead of having everyone's heads in the hands of the citizens who live in that town? How would people go about their day if they in one area of the "country" doing drugs is just fine, but when they shoot up in another area the community wants off with their head? Laws don't just come into being without vote in a Democracy (and of course they can be ammended).
Brayden Wilson
There is no such thing as Equality, anywhere
Samuel Collins
>This triggers the commie scumms
Alexander Sanders
Saluton! Mia Amikoj! THIS is now an Esperanto thread
