Instigator / Pro
0
1493
rating
5
debates
20.0%
won
Topic

communism works.

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the judges is declared a winner.

The voting will end 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
0
1663
rating
370
debates
65.68%
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.

Con
Thomas Sankara... 

He was a pioneer of socialism in Africa which failed miserably everywhere it turned up, he specifically was influential inBurkina Faso... A country nobody hears about because its economy became ravaged beyond repair due to how seriously it took the cause of Communism.

It ranks 144th among 157 countries in the new human capital index established by the World Bank and 40.1% of the population lives below the poverty line.

That's right, as of today 40.1% of its population are considered to be brutally impoverished (to qualify as below poverty line in Africa is to be genuinely incapable of living beyond the absolute bare minimum to keep you alive, obviously it ranges from starving to just about coping but even the 'coping' are living in serious economic despair, paycheck to paycheck).

It irks me to the highest degree that this is what Pro uses to display that Communism can work. That, after all, is the debate here.

Pro also is abusing words and semantics here. At what stage am I allowed to call Pro out on a totally ridiculous and indefensibly biased definition of Communism (which is basically anything within Socialism according to Pro's definition) and 'works'?

If 'works' means that the workers seizing the means of production leads to the economic power of the nation reducing, this happens each and every time.

The only example of Communism-in-name not dwindling to absolute obselescence in terms of economy, is China and in China the workers own absolutley 0 of the economy, it is a tyrannical dictatorship in denial of its Fascist ways. Pro's semantics work against him, if the workers seize control of the economy, each and every time it leads to them making demands that hurt the economic progress of the nation.

I am not allowed to discuss more ways Communism destroys economies as it has only one, unreasonably narrow, definition in the description.
Round 4
Pro
"We define 'communism' as workers' possession of the means of production. Although, of course, that alone will lead to economic decline and, in fact, it is the very element of communism that leads to decline."
If that were the case, the Soviet Union would not have had an economic growth of 2.4 percent per year, which exceeds its tsarist era, and the current era of Russia.
"Communism refers to the extreme extreme of socialism, it is considered the dream of the cusp (among believers) where we have all those who really do any work working for the benefit of anyone who has an immediate and obvious need"
Not always, in Stalinism industrialization was put above the basic needs of the people.
"Wishes are dismissed as unnecessary, credit for one's work is nothing more than a side note because all credit goes to the collective 'community' (hence 'communism') and the only pride or gratification one can have is that the system is justified in equality. It achieves it. "
not really, within the urrs, important scientists were widely supported, proof of this is the history of great mathematicians (such as gregori perelman) who were born in the urrs, and not only that, but also a high degree of political recognition, examples as Yakov Zeldovich's show.
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. "
that something is replaced by another means and another reason, the benefit of the workers, within the urrs, commune leaders (kolijos) received 10 times more salary than others, and certainly received more than the value of their raw work.
"The most important flaw is that if the workers take control of the economy, it will all be rigged against the rich, who will then pack up and leave unless it is some kind of psychopathic tyrannical communism with closed borders but that will still lead to decline and here's why: "
the refutation to this is the commune of paris, where nothing was manipulated against the rich.
"People will never, in any attempt, ever get true satisfaction from working in a system where inventors and brilliant creative minds are credited as nothing more than a simple cog in the very machine they inspired."
the fact that Soviet families were happier than current ones refutes this.
"In fact, there is no other system than communism that results in such a decline with such severity and security, but even if that were not true if we say that it goes from a variant of capitalism to communism, it is without a doubt going to decline. economics since that is what it considers morally fair in exchange for equally affluent and happy / sad workers. "
if there is, it is called fascism.
"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 lower working class, since they will be in control.  If any particular industry that is needed enough has workers who are not happy, they would ransom the entire nation until it gave them what they wanted. "
not really, one thing is political control, another is economic control.
Or put another way, if the workers rescue the nation that will make the nation itself impose control, just as if a lot of businessmen impose control on the nation, they will receive reprisals.
"If the workers take control, it means that all the factors surrounding leniency on, say, maternity leave, taxes on the rich, the percentage of profit that goes into each worker's pockets, are maximized, and money resulting is left to spend on anything. "
This did not happen during the commune of Paris, it did not happen during the government of Thomas Shankara, it did not happen with the Incas (the most powerful empire in America,
who was a socialist).
develop, invent or build beyond basic needs drowns "
If true, the Soviet Union would not have won the space race.
"Because it's the workers who decide, not the bosses or the 'owners' (well, they're relegated to just placeholders, the workers own everything now)."
that doesn't prove your point.
"Thomas Sankara ...


"Thomas Sankara ...

He was a pioneer of socialism in Africa who failed miserably everywhere he appeared, "
The gigantic economic growth of Maoist China refutes your point, 2.8% per year, higher than the 2% of the United States.
"Specifically it was influential in Burkina Faso ... A country that nobody knows about because its economy was hopelessly devastated due to the seriousness with which the cause of communism was taken."
accusing communism of the crisis in burkina faso is like accusing the sweet I ate yesterday of the bad taste in my mouth that I had last week, the crisis in burkina faso was present before thomas shankara came to power, in fact thomas reduced considerably The crisis, with new irrigation techniques that increased production and thereby raised the domestic market, literally went from having food insufficiency to food surplus, which was sold, however, when Shankara died, the means of production (the lands ) passed back into the hands of feudalists and capitalists, so that socialism died with Shankara.
That's right, as of today, "40.1% of its population is considered brutally impoverished (qualifying as below the poverty line in Africa is actually being unable to live beyond the absolute minimum to stay alive. Obviously it ranges from starving to barely over coping, but even the 'coping' live in severe financial despair, paycheck to pay). "
read above.
"It irritates me greatly that this is what Pro uses to show that communism can work. That, after all, is the debate here."
I do not see why, it is necessary to analyze what socialism did, not what semi-feudalism does.
"Pro is also abusing words and semantics here. At what stage am I allowed to criticize Pro about a totally ridiculous and indefensibly skewed definition of communism (which is basically anything within socialism as defined by Pro) and" it works"?"
In no way, would that be equivalent to losing the debate immediately, as the rules say, although there are other issues about communism that we must consider, I want to discuss specifically the economic aspect.
"The only example of communism in name that is not being reduced to absolute obsolescence in terms of the economy is China."
false, vietnsm is another example, its economic growth was very high last year.
"in China the workers are absolute owners of the economy"
not even jokingly, in China almost all members of the aristocratic party, Chinese socialism died with Mao.
"It is a tyrannical dictatorship in the denial of its fascist customs"
More than agree, China is the first mature fascist state.
"The semantics of Pro works against them, if the workers take control of the economy, each and every time it leads them to make demands that harm the economic progress of the nation."
not really, in burkina faso, in the inca empire, and more importantly, in the commune of paris, this never happened.
sources:



Con
skip this round
Round 5
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Communism never worked and my opponent has incoherently fused quotation with their own writing to the point I really can't dissect what their last Round meant, it was just a source-dump.

Led by Vladimir Lenin, the Bolsheviks put Marxist theory into practice with the Russian Revolution of 1917, which led to the creation of the world’s first communist government. Communism existed in the Soviet Union until its fall in 1991. 
Today, communism and socialism exist in China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam—although in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires.

Communism just can't work, every time it becomes socialism instead.