Instigator / Pro
1493
rating
3
debates
16.67%
won
Topic

communism works.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the contender's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Economics
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Judicial decision
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Judges
Contender / Con
1615
rating
365
debates
65.21%
won
Description
~ 260 / 5,000

definitions:
communism:
possession of the means of production by workers.
works: does not generate economic decrease.
rules:
1. stick to the definitions.
2. The burden of proof is shared.
3. Any violation of the above rules means losing the debate immediately.

Round 1
Pro
argument:
1. When the causal connection of a thing changes, and the thing itself does not change, then the causal connection did not belong to the thing, but to a set of distinguishable characteristics of the thing.
2. Communism has not always had a causal connection to generate economic decline.
3. The causal connection with the economic recession does not belong to communism, but to something that is distinguished from it.
1. For the first premise we have the ontology of the causal, if I say that the cause of autism is the lack of attention of mothers, but it shows me cases of children with indifferent mothers, and who did not develop autism, I will being forced to accept that inattention is not the cause.
2. I think the Soviet Union is a good example, in this there were several communes (they were called kolijos) where the workers actively participated in the decision-making of the farms, the main means of production at that time, for their part the urrs maintained an economic growth of 2.4% per year, the United States was 2% per year.
Accepting the premises, the conclusion is true, communism is not the one that generates economic decline.

Con
5 Round, 10k char per Round, alright no worries I'll just use this to lay out the irrefutable.

We are defining 'works' as (on balance) or perhaps (at all, but that favours Con) generates economic decline.

We are defining 'Communism' as possession of the means of production by workers. Though, of course that alone is indeed going to lead to economic decline and is in fact the very element of Communism that leads to the decline.

Communism refers to the most extreme end of Socialism, it is considered to be the apex (amongst believers) dream where we have all those that actually do any labour working for the benefit of any who happen to have an immediate, obvious need.

Wants are discarded as unnecessary, credit for one's work is nothing more than a sidenote because all credit is to the collective 'community' (hence 'communism') and the only pride or gratification one can have is in the system being justified in the equality it achieves.

The problem, for Pro, is that the very thing that is exchanged is both motive and means to maintain a strong economy, it is exchanged for a morally just society where none get more than they need to use financially nor are accredited with any more than the raw work they put in to anything.

The absolute foremost flaw is that if the workers seize the control of the economy, everything will be rigged against the wealthy, who then will pack up and leave unless it's a psychopathic tyrannical kind of Communism with closed borders but that still will lead to decline and here is why:

People never have in any attempt at it, not ever will in any attempt at it, get genuine gratification from working in a system where the inventors and brilliant creative minds are accredited as nothing more than a simple cog in the very machine they inspired. On top of there being zero selfish motive to progress anything in any industry, there is also lack of capacity for the economy to thrive because Communism inevitably appeases the workers that seize it by taking maximal amounts from those who could use the wealth to produce more and redistributes it to those who will only use it for menial, immediate things.

There is, in fact, no system other than Communism that will result in such a decline with such severity and assurance but even if that weren't true if we are saying it goes from a variant of Capitalism to Communism, it is without a doubt going to decline the economy since that is what it sees as morally just in exchange for equally well-off and happy/sad workers.
Round 2
Pro
"The problem, for Pro, is that the same thing that is exchanged is both a motive and a means to maintain a strong economy, it is exchanged for a morally just society where no one gets more than they need to use financially or is credited with more of the raw work they put into anything. "
The possession of the means of production by the workers is not related to only acquiring financially or what raw labor gives, so in those cases it would not be communism that causes the decline but the limitations of financial acquisition beyond of the basics.

"The most important flaw is that if the workers take control of the economy, everything will be manipulated against the rich, who will then pack up and leave unless it is some kind of tyrannical psychopathic communism with closed borders, but that will still lead to decline. and here's why "
The first point is not necessarily true, if the rich obtain less taxes, and easier to invest, although the workers have the means of production, they will prefer to invest here while creating companies in other places, instead, in a hypothetical socialist world, they will not they would have somewhere to go.
I could refute all this argument of my opponent, but suffice it to point out that this is aimed at egalitarianism, not at the possession of means of production by workers, so it is irrelevant, leave many arguments aside, and I will answer them all , in the next round.

Con
The possession of the means of production by the workers is not related to only acquiring financially or what raw labor gives, so in those cases it would not be communism that causes the decline but the limitations of financial acquisition beyond of the basics.
Yes, it is. It is entirely related, causal in fact.

For the workers to seize control of the means of production will render the entire nation as needing to serve the interests of even the lowest working class individuals since they will have the control. If any particular industry that is needed enough had workers that were unhappy, they'd hold the entire nation at ransom until it gave them what they wanted.

That's the idea anyway, in practise it's just whoever is the tyrant in charge but I won't go into that.

If the workers seize control, it means that all factors surrounding leniency on, let's say, maternity leave, taxation on the rich, percentage of profit made going into the pockets of each worker are all maximised and the resulting money left over to spend on anything to develop, invent or build beyond the bare necessities gets choked out because it's the workers deciding it, not the bosses or 'owners' (well they're relegated to just placeholders the workers own everything now).

The first point is not necessarily true, if the rich obtain less taxes, and easier to invest, although the workers have the means of production, they will prefer to invest here while creating companies in other places, instead, in a hypothetical socialist world, they will not they would have somewhere to go.
Workers are not going to do that. They never have and never will, to prove Communism doesn't generate economic decline by arguing that human nature and the way workers will use their seizing of the means of production will defy what has always been and always will be done by workers who gain such control is indefensible and ludicrous.

What Pro is essentially saying here is that for the first time ever Communism works (not will work, works) because he knows for sure that when the workers take control of his imaginary state, they will keep the rich CEOs just as rich and tax them just as little as they already were... This is beyond semantics-abuse, it's blatant lying to win.
Round 3
Pro
"Yes it is. It is completely related, in fact it is causal.

That the workers take control of the means of production will make the entire nation need to serve the interests of even the individuals of the lowest working class, since they will be in control. If any particular industry that is needed enough has workers who are unhappy, they would bail out the entire nation until it gave them what they wanted. "
It is not causal, one thing is the means of production, and the nation is quite another, if a group of workers does not agree, but the others do, then the improvement of some industry would still be allowed, now I return to My argument original, nobody wants the industry in which they work to collapse, it is most likely that this group of disgruntled workers only wants an improvement in their conditions, that is, socialism does not generate the collapse of industries, instead, it improves the conditions of the worker, but again, none of this involves receiving only what you need.
"If the workers take control, it means that all the factors surrounding indulgence in, say, maternity leave, taxes on the rich, the percentage of profit that goes into each worker's pockets, and the resulting money are maximized. that remains to spend on anything, invent or build beyond basic needs is drowning because it is the workers who decide, not the bosses or the 'owners'
no"
This argument is interesting, however, this does not imply that you only get what the gross work generates or what you need economically, now, it is not necessary that all those indulgence factors disappear, now, the money is left to invest in anything, As in capitalism, however, if an invention appears that benefits the industry in which the workers work, they will invest in it.
The workers are not going to do that. "They never have and never will, to show that communism does not generate economic decline by arguing that human nature and the way workers will use their vision of the means of production will challenge what has always been done and always will be done. To obtain such a benefit, the control is indefensible and ridiculous. "
They already did, to be exact, during the socialist government of tomas shankara, where taxes were lowered and the means of production (the land) were put under the control of the workers, human nature does not exist.
In the next round I will accumulate answers to the arguments that I was missing.

Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet