- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Everyone seems to be misinterpreting this; communism is a form of society in which the people are equal. That doesn't mean the means of production are divided equally. Learn the difference.
As for your strong disagreement, tough luck. Many people 'strongly disagreed' with Obama's reelection, but guess who's in the White House now. Capitalism gives the illusion of importance of every individual, when really the only person that cares about you is yourself. At least communism doesn't hide behind a lie; it blatantly states that we're all the same. Any differences that come between us are materialistic, like money, guns, and race. These differences have been brought about by capitalism, in an attempt for people to get more money.
Which brings me to my next point. This motive that capitalism apparently brings about. All it really does is inspire people to push others down so that they can bring themselves up and get their own money. They don't give a damn about anyone else. North Korea isn't a pure communist country, so it can't be used as an example for anything. There have never been any pure communist countries, because the leaders that try to implement it fail to interpret it correctly, and then execution is another problem entirely.
Next, you think people should have their freedom? Brilliant! Let's send that to the papers! See how many people in high enough places actually agree with you. No one gets their freedom by working hard; you always have to work hard. If you stop working hard, you slip, lose money, and then have to work even harder. Think of the course of your life. You had to go to day care, then preschool, then elementary school, then middle school, and now you're in high school. That's around fifteen to seventeen years spent with you working hard to keep a good grade. Why do you need a good grade? To get into college, which is another four to five years of your life down the tubes. Then you have to get a job, and unless you happen to be extremely gifted, you're stuck working until you're at least seventy years old, so you can get a good enough pension to live the rest of your life freely. Except that by then you're too old to do anything. You spent your years of 'freedom' working your butt off so that you could have this nonexistent freedom later. Capitalism is an illusion, nothing more. It is a system built on lies.
If you think the government doesn't interfere with your life under capitalism, you must be delusional, because as long as the government exists, it will mess with you. For example, in France the rich are being taxed 75% of their earnings. Who imposed these taxes? The government. Is France a communist country? No. See the problem with your logic?
Now, this last paragraph I love. I'm going to say this in advance, I may be a lot more offensive about this than any other comment I've made, because now you're just spouting nonsense. Those who insist on communism are the poor? Tell me, how is that a justification for anything? Since when could you just shrug off an argument because someone is poor? And plus, who are you to make a generalization? Such an insane one, as well. Where does this level of 'poor' stand? To someone like Bill Gates, we're all poor. To one of the beggars on the street, another beggar that got some spare change is a wealthy man. Poverty and wealth are relative terms, and you have no right to even attempt to justify your argument by claiming someone else's poverty.
People that become impoverished aren't necessarily the good-for-nothing worthless pieces of trash that never did an honest day's work in their lives, either. It isn't that people want to be poor, but if some people want to lead a life of luxury, there will be people that are forced to be miserable. That is the truth in capitalism; the motivation and whatever other nonsensical fairy tale ideals that have cloaked its image may be extremely convincing, but capitalism INSPIRES poverty. It requires people to be poor so that it can get the rich to sing its praises all day. The whole system is just dripping with deceit.
POOR PEOPLE AREN'T THE SAME AS LAZY PEOPLE GET THAT IN YOUR HEAD. Suppose someone was to be put in life support because maybe he lost all four limbs, a tongue, and, just for good measure, his right nostril. Now, assuming of course that he could actually take all these injuries and not die, and also that there was a way to heal him, he would be metaphorically bled dry. If he did somehow survive this incident, he would have had to use his every last penny to get to that state, and then some. He would be, as you so crassly stated it, poor. Does that make him lazy? Is there an opportunity for him to rise up? He needs rehab! He can't get a job or anything, and if he did, he would have to be insane. Unless he managed to get money off of press coverage for surviving something so implausible, there would be no way for him to raise any money for himself, but that doesn't mean he's lazy. Having no money is rarely a result of lethargy, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Finally, I have reached the final line of your argument, which in itself is just plain stupid. You strongly agree with capitalism? Congratulations, I strongly agree with cutting your head off and feeding your rotting corpse to the vultures after your comment on laziness, but that doesn't necessarily make that the right choice. Assent doesn't equate to authenticity.
The point of communism isn't to give everyone the same amount of wealth, that would be warped in under twenty minutes. Communism is intended to give people equal value. JasonX already brought up the 'brainwashing' issue, although I would like to commend you on your stunning intellect for instantly assuming people would resort to solutions of a science fiction novel. Really, great creativity!
Alright, I wanted to stop you before you started, because you're wrong. Communism isn't a system with a strict government, it is a system with no government. It aims to create a classless society where everyone is equal, and I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure having a government wouldn't qualify as equal. Also, there is no money in communism, but rather it is a system where everyone watches out for everyone else. I can't word this right, but Quinn/Hydro did, so just check his wording of it. I believe he mentioned it while refuting Jordan's argument, if you need any help finding it. Now, on to the actual argument.
First, no. As I said, communism gives no rights to a government to do anything, because there is no government. As for your point about people 'working hard,' we both know that is complete rubbish. “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.” (Bill Gates) The people that work the hardest generally get moderate jobs, but to rise above, you don't have to work harder at all. That's just how delusional capitalism has made people. People that strive to succeed in an area may sometimes actually rise above, but more often than not, they are overshadowed by people that just happen to be gifted, and aren't actually trying to perform at all. Just take school as an example; some of the top students in our grade don't do as much work as some of those with the lowest scores. There is clearly far more to getting rewards than just 'working hard.'
As to the second, there are no salaries. There is no money with which to have a salary. Communism is like symbiosis; a mutually beneficial way of life in which people work together to keep everyone from losing out. I'm not even going to mention anything about the rest of your argument, since it is fundamentally flawed.
The flaw is in the mindset. You live according to economy, which means you have already been sucked in by the propaganda of capitalism.
Consider capitalism and communism as two people, each showing their basic traits. Capitalism would be someone completely full of him or herself, with some results to show its worth, but always sings his or her own praises far more than necessary. On the contrary, communism is a person that doesn't tell people s/he is above anyone else, because s/he believes people are equal. As a result, s/he doesn't believe him or herself to be above capitalism, but simultaneously it doesn't fall below capitalism, either. Capitalism gets a larger group of people supporting him or her because s/he makes him/herself more noticed. This doesn't mean capitalism is in any way better than communism, it just means the former is louder than the latter. If you sing people a story long enough, they start to believe it. Guess how much time capitalism has had to drill him/herself into your brain. Every time communism has decided to attempt to rise up, capitalism feels threatened by him/her, and stomps him/her out immediately using his/her gathering of friends that eventually try to model him/her because s/he managed to use his/her small array of successes to form a bandwagoning.
Communism keeps getting kicked down before s/he can get up because capitalism knows that if s/he ever does stand, there will be a new kid in town that can take away all his/her followers, because communism is, in the end, far more likable. Think about it, would you rather a friend that always pushes you down to pull him/herself up, or would you rather one that treats you as an equal? Because that's communism for you; a system where the realism of equality is evident. A system of truth.
First off, Kav, no offense, but I'm a little lost in what you said... Some things didn't make much sense to me, so I might not have understood you right, but are you saying in a capitalist society you only blame yourself? Please tell me you're joking. How many times have the politicians been blamed for screwing up a country? I mean any country: India, USA, France, Spain... No one blames themselves in a capitalist society, they just learn how to pass the blame on to someone else.
You also mentioned something about the law protecting you? Sorry, no... Law works based on money; no one cares who's right and who's wrong in law, if you can't provide enough proof, or enough cash, then you've lost no matter what. The law won't protect you, it's far too political.
And that last point, about learning? What do you learn? Or rather, let me rephrase that, what positives are you learning? You learn how to create a story to say how you're not at fault; you learn how to hate the world when you fail; you learn how to get ahead by cheat and deceit. Capitalism inspires the loss of morale and conscience through this motivation for money. All you learn from this system is how to ignore everyone other than yourself.
The ideology was to create a society where no one is above anyone else solely according to monetary superiority. To create a world with no contrasts, and no disputes. The ideology of communism has been modified by people to take the form of a system where there is no money, no class, and essentially no humanity. As I have mentioned in Calder's argument, the main reason why capitalism is seen to be better is because the world has been converted to capitalist. A communist world being seen from a capitalist point of view sounds illogical, because capitalism created places that people must stand in, and those places simply can't be filled the same way under communism. We haven't seen how the world would run under communism, so this is more of a battle between capitalism and the capitalist view of communism, than capitalism versus communism.
Regarding the changes, I did mention Sofia's argument. "The fundamental flaws of Communism are typically at the fault of the leader attempting to interpret and execute Communist ideals versus fundamental flaws in the ideologies themselves." She put it quite well; the leaders that attempted to execute communism couldn't understand it properly, and thus failed the system as a whole.
Communism has changed from the original idea, as you say. But what about other things? Humans have changed from unicellular organisms to be what we are today, and we will continue changing until our race is wiped out. Will we stop being humans at some point? Ideas have evolved and adapted to fit present conditions. The giraffe used to be short-necked, but then they evolved to have longer necks when their food sources were running short. They were giraffes then, and they are giraffes now. The only difference is that back then, they were short-necked giraffes. Different branches of communism still are parts of communism.
As for the last part, there are no truly communist countries, admittedly. Some countries still choose to call themselves communist, such as the ones I named before. Pure communism takes a long time to set in place, because it requires that people accept equality, which is extremely hard to do. That doesn't mean the final product from communism is a failure, it just means it takes more work to achieve.
I would like to point out that you have only ever experienced a capitalist lifestyle, in which all these issues you brought up about factors of production and the like are necessary. This is purely theoretical, but wouldn't a communist lifestyle be far different? People adapt to meet their situations, so if we lived in a communist world, then maybe the world itself would be completely different. We would have adapted to gain balance among us.
Also, I would like to question the point of this debate entirely, since capitalism is largely an economic system, thus the whole system is based on money, whereas communism is more of a political or social system. Since capitalism runs on money, it would have adapted to get better economies, and that is undeniable. Capitalists have more money, just look at Adam Smith, but money isn't everything. Remember that saying? "Money can't buy you happiness?" You can say anything you want, but that statement holds true. It takes a lot more than monetary success to be happy, can capitalism provide that?
First off, I never said anything about communication. I don't understand your first sentence, so I will believe it to be senseless and ignore it. Now that that is out of the way, how about we examine the rest of that dispute, shall we?
"Dynamic, selfless, and efficient ruler" is the first phrase that jumps out at me. Are you trying to say that any ruler has been selfless and efficient? Actually, let me rephrase that: Are you implying there has ever been anyone selfless and efficient? People don't work that way, there is always a self-serving reason for people's actions, even if it's something as abstract as love or jealousy. People only do what they feel is best for them, which, thanks to American and European domination worldwide, appears to be supporting capitalism. Back on topic of the 'selfless' ruler, since that word is probably the most painfully inaccurate in the phrase, there has never been any ruler that has acted selflessly. No one. At all. There is no arguing this, it's a fact. If you don't believe me, try human psychology, because everyone has their own motives to do anything they want. How they justify themselves later may be true or false, it's impossible to tell, but there is always a core reason that people almost never reveal, which ever extends past their own being. At the basics, everyone looks out for themselves, and only themselves.
The two words that are almost as blasphemous as selfless also happened to be used in the same sentence. "Without bias or partial." I'm not going to talk about the faulty grammar in that, but nothing at all is unbiased, or impartial. Nothing. People judge before they even know what they're judging. Imagine a sickly thin man, with hollowed-out cheeks, and a stoop that forced him to walk with a cane. What do you think about him? Is he rich or poor? High class or low class? A king or a sage? For all you know, the princess of Jordan (who happens to live in Chennai) got a sex change, and decided to starve herself for two months, and this person here was the princess. Would you have guessed that by the initial description? No, because your brain was biased towards believing the person was either a poor hungry old man, or a con artist. Since we all live our cushy lives, we tend to think cynically of the underprivileged, because we know, whether subconsciously or not, that people do attempt to cheat us by putting on a show. It is impossible to be unbiased. And, since impartial is a synonym, the absolute lack of partiality is equally impossible.
As a final point, where have you seen this "unrest?" Did you see it personally? Was this a first hand account? Or do you maybe have a relative that visited these areas of "unrest," and video taped them? Or did you just read about the alleged "unrest" from the biased history documents, written by the self-serving winners? Communism is obviously going to be described to have been terrible, because if it was described as heaven on Earth, then the people would be mad at capitalists for getting rid of the system. The truth is that, unless you lived the communistic life, there is no way you would know what this "unrest" really was. Capitalism is contagious, but that's only because people always want the easy way out: buy stuff until you get happy, and then get rid of a small amount of the stuff to make room for more stuff. Communism requires more effort from everyone, but the end result, content and peace, are well worth the struggle.
This dispute is flawed. You can't ask for examples, and then deny the most famous one. China is a communist country, and everyone knows that. There are many different branches of communism, and China falls under the branch called Maoism. Aside from China, however, there are also Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, and North Korea. People still follow communism, it isn't that they don't, but it has been modified by the rulers. The ideology of communism isn't flawed, it's the leaders that attempt to enforce it. Check Sofia's argument about that, she stated it better than I did.
Equality in voting? California gets far more votes than other American states, simply because it has more people. Concerning race and gender, do you know how much fighting there was to achieve the lowered social status that non-white people have? And women? There's a reason there are strikes for women's rights. Women still get paid less on average than males for most jobs. Racial discrimination is practically written into us. Even now, if you see an Arab on the streets, you would be slightly more cautious than if you saw an American walking around. While it's true that race and gender don't matter when you vote, that is only one aspect of America. In almost every other aspect of life, we still hold these stereotypical views of people.
And as for happiness, people are like cats: if you give them a ball of string, they'll be obsessed with it for ages. In most males, the ball happens to be guns and destruction, which America happens to do extremely well (congratulations for killing two countries, you must be so proud of all the innocent lives you ruined), and for girls, this ball is generally anything that improves their aesthetic appeal, which, due to the inarguably larger economy, America is able to provide. However, this simply increases consumerism. People are materialistic. If all it takes to make someone happy is a new iPhone, is it really worth it? "You get satisfaction out of feeling better than someone or something else." (Désirée Tan) Is that really happiness, or is it the capitalistic view that, by being better than people, you can gain merit? If you're happy you got the WII U simply because no one else has it, or that you have more money than the people on the streets, is that humane happiness? Or is it just greed?
Greed is a sin, no matter which way you look at it. Capitalism inspires people to be more greedy, because the reward is higher for having more. People get on top by pushing others down, even though they were fine where they originally stood. Also, once they reach this higher point, if they fall back to the point they were initially at, they feel worse than they did before. This is what leads to suicide and murder. People suffer losses because they fall from a place they took so long to reach, and as a result, they feel like they're worse off than they started. They start to see no choices, and eventually succumb to the hopelessness inside.
Note that all this starts from an imbalance. An imbalance created by capitalism, not communism. An imbalance created by the theory that people will strive to achieve more when they have the extra pot of gold at the end, but the problem is that the rainbow never ends. Some don't stop chasing, and when they reach their last breath, they realize they missed all the sights along the way to get the gold, and others, that give up early on, initially lose themselves out of the desolation experienced from realizing they will never get the gold, but then after this phase of depression, it occurs to them that they have found balance. People don't need more money than the minimum to survive. If they learn to be content with as much as they need, and not as much as they desire, they will understand how much better a place the world is. Communism is based on this contentedness, this peace. The true happiness.