Instigator / Pro
4
1309
rating
272
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#5228
Communism is good
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
7
1469
rating
340
debates
40.88%
won
Description
Communism definition:
"system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
Good definition:
"That which is better for society"
Upon accepting the debate, you accept these definitions and cannot use any other.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Hi and thanks for accepting the debate!
Dialectical materialism
Dialectical argument is based on law of non-contradiction.
It is made of:
1. Thesis
2. Antithesis
3. Synthesis
Thesis is the first position.
Antithesis is negation of thesis.
If antithesis is true, the thesis is false.
If antithesis is false, thesis stands true.
Synthesis either maintains original thesis either creates new thesis which is different from the original one.
Synthesis is one of these:
1. Negation of the antithesis while maintaining thesis
2. Negation of antithesis while changing thesis, creating new thesis
3. Negation of thesis while upholding antithesis, where antithesis becomes new thesis
Lets now look at how dialectical materialism applies law of non-contradiction to society.
Capitalists are seeking to get as rich as possible.
Workers are seeking to get as rich as possible.
There are limited resources in society.
Therefore, the more capitalists get rich, the less wealth is there left for workers.
1. Worker's wealth is thesis
2. Capitalist's wealth is antithesis
One cannot increase without other decreasing, because they are in contradiction.
My opponent might try to counter this by saying that capitalists increase total wealth, so both wealth of workers and of capitalists increases.
But wealth does not increase by a large amount all the time, and the word "wealth" already includes all wealth.
Since wealth is limited, not infinite, it follows that when distributed between two groups, if one group gets more, the other has to get less.
By basic laws of math, if wealth is limited, the more you give to one group, the less you are able to give to other group.
So the wealth of two groups is in contradiction even when total wealth increases, because even increased wealth still has to be distributed to two groups.
Wealth doesnt increase very fast, but in fact very slowly, and the two competing groups still must fight over who gets more.
The synthesis only has 3 options:
1. Negation of worker's wealth
2. Negation of capitalist's wealth
3. Balance between capitalist's wealth and worker's wealth which creates a new thesis.
Karl Marx argues that both 1 and 2 lead to Communism, as it is not possible to abolish worker's wealth or capitalist's wealth without abolishing capitalism.
While Karl Marx concedes that option 3 maintains capitalism, he argues that option 3 is much harder to achieve correctly than option 1 or option 2, and much harder to keep in good balance and prevent one side from prevailing more.
This is because correct balance in option 3 is the only thing maintaining capitalism in existence, and both workers and capitalists are actively working to abolish the correct balance in their favor.
Marx argues that crisis in capitalism is caused when capitalist's wealth prevails over worker's wealth, or when worker's wealth prevails too much over capitalist's wealth which places capitalists in desperate position.
Since its impossible to keep them in balance all the time, crisis happens often which shakes foundations of society.
Since government regulated economy is, by nature, difficult to keep in check, since it often either leans to workers or to capitalists, it is not good solution to the given problem.
In capitalism, not only is capitalist's wealth an antithesis to worker's wealth, but there are also richer and poorer workers, the unemployed people, the workers working more for very little money.
If richer worker takes more wealth, he leaves less wealth for poor workers.
So a richer worker's wealth is an antithesis to poor worker's wealth.
This creates a great amount of injustice and poverty crisis, because richer worker naturally seeks to get richer, and is able to, because you are able to make more money if you start with a more significant amount of money than if you start with smaller amount of money.
The one with more money is more willing to invest it to make more, as he has extra, where the ones with small amount of money are unwilling to risk as they barely have enough to cover basic needs.
This creates a system where the richer you are, its easier to get even richer, and other way is true: the poorer you are, the harder it is for you to get any richer.
We can see from the start that Capitalist system is immoral, where people step over each other in competition to take from the available supply of wealth, and those who succeed in taking more are enabled to take even more in the future.
Communism solves this by its very definition: to each according to need.
In fact, "from each according to ability" comes into agreement with "to each according to need",
as one is less able to work properly and contribute if his needs are not being met.
Greatest democracy
Communism, as taken from agreed definition, is a society where means of production and wealth are collectively owned.
So the ownership is democratic in nature.
The ownership is based on democracy and a democratic vote, as opposed to private ownership.
So in this sense, distribution of wealth is also done in a democratic way, as opposed to being privately managed.
So the management of a workplace is also done in a democratic way.
Since its practical to let workers manage the workplace and work to produce and sell their product, it follows that this practical way is the way which Communism will be implemented,
and is being already implemented in forms of worker coops everywhere around the world, and those coops are already more effective in terms of profit than typical capitalist mode of production.
Since workers in workplace get richer if they produce more, each worker makes sure the other worker does his job, removing the need for extra supervision needed in capitalism.
The economy of workplace would still be based on costs and profit, just managed by the workers who are working there.
Communism does not abolish cost and profit, but abolishes Capitalist's ownership by creating democratic ownership.
This is done on an increasing level in many countries in the world through distribution.
Since capitalist cant take extra wealth and buy himself a new house, workers have more, which they can either use to increase their wages either invest in improvement of production or safety in the workplace.
Since ownership based upon democracy is the most desirable ownership by tautology, since votes are an expression of a desire, and democracy ensures that largest number of votes are fullfilled, thus greatest number of desires in society are fullfilled.
So the Communist society is most desirable, the highest form of democracy possible, not just democracy in politics, but also in ownership and workplace.
The decisions which are unpractical to be made by a large scale democratic vote, such as smaller decisions in a workplace, are done by small scale democratic vote of those involved in that workplace.
The democratic ownership of everything on a large scale is moved to democratic ownership of everything on a small scale, so people in a small place make decisions about their own lives.
This is the highest level of democracy a society can have.
It is also morally good that each person gets a say, which is most possible in Communist collective ownership.
Greatest democracy is the greatest form of government, since all other forms are logically non-democratic or less democratic.
And since Communism is greatest democracy possible, it follows that Communism is the greatest form of government.
In non-democracy, needs of the few outweigh needs of the many,
But in democracy, needs of the many outweigh needs of the few.
Good is that which is desirable.
Communism satisfies greatest amount of desires.
Saving society's resources
Since the amount of resources in the world is decreasing, not increasing, it is better to share resources democratically to ensure everyone gets enough while contributing to society if able,
as opposed to some getting too much while others living in severe poverty which causes less stable society which is more likely to collapse in revolt.
So the more resources are used to buy expensive houses, expensive boats, expensive cars... the less resources are left to solve poverty and build the rest of society, and the less resources are there left for poorer parts of population.
This brings more balance to society, as opposed to Capitalist's extreme wealth for some and extreme poverty for some.
Wasting resources and increasing poverty when resources are limited increases possibility of war and civil war, as society due to incorrect distribution needs more resources than it has to sustain its population, causing part of population to be unsustained, as those who took more have basically took the sustain from others.
Capitalism by basic law of math, by greatly increasing the wealth of one small part of population, demands more resources to properly maintain other parts of population,
Where Communism, by not wasting resources to multiply wealth of few, demands less resources to maintain other parts of population, and is even able to direct more resources towards many.
Creating equality
Since in Communism, everyone contributes according to ability and gets according to needs, this further helps those in poverty.
The needs, contrary to the popular belief, are not to be given anything you want, but are equal to needs of other people, as wealth is distributed in a more equal way,
the balance between needs of all people is met.
When faced with these options:
1. Society in which everyone has basic needs met
Or
2. Society in which some people have too much, while some other are denied of many basic needs
We see that society 1 is more moral and more desirable to live in.
Conclusion
From any of these 4 main points, which all stand true, follows that Communism is good.
Con
#2
Due to not having much time I will start with listing the downsides of this thing called communism taken from coursehero.com titled
COMMUNISM.docx - List of the Disadvantages of Communism.
List of the Disadvantages of Communism
1. The government owns everything, including property, businesses, and production means.
The most significant disadvantage of communism is the fact that it eliminates the free market from domestic society. That means there are no laws of supply and demand available to set the prices for consumers to pay. This issue causes planners to lose the feedback they need to understand what is necessary for the production cycle and what could use an upgrade. There is no up-to-date information about what the needs of the consumers happen to be either. Because of this disadvantage, it is not unusual for the government to produce too much of one item and too little of another. Surpluses and shortages in critical need areas can be strong enough at times that government disruptions can occur.
2. There is no freedom of speech in the typical communist government.
The needs of the government are indistinguishable from the best interests of society in a communist system, which means the idea of individual freedoms is incompatible with the ideology being practiced. The only reason to suppress this right is to keep those who are in power from losing it, which is why there are restrictions made on individual expressions, journalistic thought, and other challenges to the actions of the government. Even Karl Marx, who is often vilified because of his ideas involving socialism, argued in favor for the people to have a right of expression. He even defended the free press in such a society, stating that censoring these ideas would lead to the implementation of a class he referred to as the bourgeois elite. Marx said that censorship is a tool that the powerful always use to oppress the powerless.
3. Central planning is challenging to achieve in a communist government.
Although the government can mobilize significant resources for almost any need at a moment’s notice through the structures of communism, there is a difference between the ability to centrally plan and its overall implementation. Because a free market doesn’t exist under this structure, the citizens will setup black markets to help them trade the items they want or need that are not part of the planner’s provisions. This disadvantage destroys the trust that is found in the pure vision of communism. The goal is to give people what they need according to who they are as individuals. Communism looks at each person as a resource, provides them a common set of basic essentials, and then expects compliance under the threat of further freedom restrictions.
4. Efficiency and productivity are difficult since there is little motive for workers.
There is never a need to have entrepreneurs operating in a communist space because the government maintains control of everything. That means the production cycles operate just well enough to produce what is needed for domestic consumption and the limited export market that may be available.
Because innovation is what pushes an economy forward, shepherded by the development made possible by entrepreneurs who wish to experience success, the living situation in a country practicing this form of government can be exceptionally stifling.
5. The needs of the consumer are not taken into consideration in a communist government.
There is a reason why only five active governments in the world today practice communism. North Korea, China, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam are transitioning from socialism and are not true forms of this government structure any more either. Even modern communism must rely on the concepts of a mixed economy so that it can survive, so the state chooses to own components of supply while encouraging free-market demand. China began moving to a mixed economy as early as the 1970s. It phased out the collective farms, allowing private businesses to take over some industries. Even though the nation still follows a specific five-year economic point and its policies favor state-owned enterprises, it has grown to become the largest economy in the world.
6. Diverse populations may be challenging to govern with their need for different rules.
Cuba might be a small island, but it has a significant area of cultural diversity that is unique to the rest of the world. Even though it became a communist nation in 1960 when Castro proclaimed it to be the ruling party to encourage the Soviet Union to provide economic support in return for access to the United States, it has struggled to provide each sector with the needs that are necessary for even an average quality of life. It took over 50 years for the Cuban government to recognize that different people had unique needs. In 2011, residents could take advantage of new economic reforms to purchase vehicles, cell phones, and appliances. Now one set of workers can sell items to another set, like farmers selling their crops to a hotel .
7. Internal balances for supply and demand may be impossible to achieve.
Communism struggles to find the right balance between supply and demand because it has no motivation to do so. The government only needs to produce items based on what it believes the population needs to continue working. In North Korea, that means supplying workers with drugs that make them forget they are hungry instead of giving them actual food to eat. Supply and demand tend to focus on the export market only. This process allows the government to bring in currency that it can use on the global stage to reinforce its own importance domestically. That places further pressure on the general population to listen to production mandates since the consequences for disobedience can be quite high.
8. There are strict rules in place that govern the structure of a classless society.
Not only does communism control the means of production in society, but it also places strict regulations on businesses that operate in the market so that there is a lack of class structure within the population. The same amount of funding is allocated to each organization, regardless of their industry, and each worker receives the same reward. That means farmers are going to receive the same compensation as an administrative worker, which can cause problems in some societal segments since the work can be more demanding. This disadvantage can cause high levels of emotional unrest for a variety of reasons. You never receive recognition for your work because this would set you apart from the rest of the society, so there is an expectation to be productive and remain that way for basic survival.
9. It is a government structure that comes with high levels of official abuse.
Because ownership in a communist government lies with the state instead of in private hands, there is a higher risk of abuse for monetary purposes, power and control, or to pursue a personal agenda. The people at the highest levels of government are the ones who control the resources, which means they can decide in an instant if someone is “worthy” or not of receiving something. Each household is always at the mercy of the government and its potentially ever- changing views on what they deem to be acceptable behavior.
10. Communism takes a step backward on industrial evolution.
Most of the jobs in a communist country are tied to agriculture in one way or another because there is a significant need to provide basic food needs to each person. Without nutrition, there is no society that can exist.
Due to character limitation I'll start with these points to introduce my stance and expound next round.
I do want to briefly summarize that the opposing side's position is communism is good.
Anything that is connected with "is" would be saying what that thing constitutes in nature defined as such.
Communism in nature or in and of itself IS good.
My opposing position is that it in and of itself is neutral.
Why? We both the opposing side and I can present positives and negatives for communism.
I rest for now.
Round 2
Pro
#3
My opponent says that government owns everything, but in Communism, people are the government.
Some free market is possible in Communism, because society's ownership of property doesnt mean that there is no free market.
Free market usually means trade, and parts of society can be allowed to trade with other parts of society, even if they arent the only owners of things they trade.
I already showed the example of worker's coops which work based on cost and profit.
My opponent also assumed that there is no market in Communism, but that is clearly false.
My opponent says that there is no freedom of speech in "typical communist" country, but that doesnt have to be true for all Communist countries.
Also, my opponent didnt state which countries are "typical communist" countries.
Many countries in the world dont have complete free speech.
In fact, none do.
My opponent says that Communism means central planning of everything, but it doesnt, nor is that even mentioned in the definition of Communism which he agreed to by accepting the debate.
My opponent then listed 5 countries "North Korea, China, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam" as Communist countries.
But what makes these countries Communist?
Are they democratic? No.
Are they society in which everyone's needs are met? No.
Since these two are what makes the definition of Communism in this debate, we can conclude that these countries are not Communist countries.
In fact, Canada is much closer to Communism than any of these countries my opponent listed.
Maybe my opponent goes by logic "if they call themselves Communist, they are", but that is an obvious fallacy as if I call myself a billionare, it doesnt mean I am.
My opponent makes an irrelevant argument of cultural diversity, but its already clear that democratic society satisfies greatest amount of needs.
My opponent makes an argument that government has no motivation to produce, but no one ever even made the claim that some central government will be producing something.
In fact, in my round 1, it is clearly explained that workers are motivated to produce because it gives them profit.
Nothing in definition of Communism given in description excludes profit and free market.
My opponent made a bunch of false claims, even assumed that in Communism everyone will be equally paid irrelevant of effort, but definition of Communism literally says that effort is needed to get payed, as not only it needs a system in which basic needs of all are met (not possible if people dont work), but it says "from each according to ability".
My opponent says that few individuals in Communism control all resources, so maybe my opponent could show us which part of definition of Communism says that?
Because if definition doesnt say that or doesnt include it, its irrelevant to discussion.
Also, my opponent says that in Communism, most people work in agriculture, which is just another unproven claim irrelevant to debate.
Con
#4
Most of what I put in text was from the website that I got the information to present.
So that the opposing side isn't confused, this is the round to focus on what I state from my argumentation. Last round were points from a website.
Ok so let me expound like I said last round starting with the first point.
1. The government owns everything, including property, businesses, and production means.
The government is a people when you get down to the root. In a socialist or communist society, the structure of a people in accordance on several elements to include law, labor, economics.
How could this be bad or a downside to a society?
Someone like me would be confined to a communal economy of business cutting the liberty of having my own entrepreneurship venture.
The opposing side would have to argue for hope . Meaning making an argument of hoping that others like me won't be a part of that society that the opposing side is arguing for.
2. There is no freedom of speech in the typical communist government.
A system established where the ideology is communal and hive minded in order to function and operate in a unionized fashion, it eliminates the point of speaking in an individualized sense. Depending on the society, does there have to be a restriction on words as long as the actions are not opposing? Not necessarily but there'd be no point in having words that express your thoughts when your thoughts are supposed to be in a communal based agenda.
3. Central planning is challenging to achieve in a communist government.
My individual plans are not my own because I'll always have limitations based on my allowed amount of resources. For instance, people that wish to arrange their food sources in stock or reserve cannot exceed the next person. If I like more of one thing than another, it's a downside because in this system, all has to be equalized. I'm a person that wishes to be stocked up for weeks. I can't do that for the sake of equalization. I can expect to receive amounts of some items unwanted for the sake of equalization possibly going to waste.
4. Efficiency and productivity are difficult since there is little motive for workers.
The little motivation is a downside when there are individuals in said society that may slack in performance causing an efficiency and productivity problem. These are people again who are business oriented and have business ideas , inventive ideas and the restriction on materials, goods, resources will not allow any individual to push themselves to move up a ladder that would stimulate the economy.
5. The needs of the consumer are not taken into consideration in a communist government.
The needs of a consumer is met in a free market and of course allows for some free enterprise. The communism that exists today is collapsible on its own without making a hybrid of private businesses. This is a point I'll finalize at the end of this round for the opposing side to consider. Mark a star * here for later .
6. Diverse populations may be challenging to govern with their need for different rules.
This speaks to the equalization issue. There are some situations so unique, that the communal structure will have to be broken over and over with a disproportional amount of resources based on a living location, individual health circumstance, mode of transportation. It's a simple idea that attempts I guess to alleviate poverty to provide everybody with essentials through the communal operation but it's a formula that bites back from its restrictions.
7. Internal balances for supply and demand may be impossible to achieve.
This is a point I meant to mention earlier about supply and demand. There is no need for greater demand for no extra supply that is known not to exceed. We have no incentive or push to work as much because product is not expected to ever be in high demand in combination of only supplying with what is believed to be required to fulfill the needs of people to do their jobs. When everything is so centralized and equalized in a communal operation, outliers get overlooked. There are special situational problems that need corrected that a one size fits all won't cure.
8. There are strict rules in place that govern the structure of a classless society.
This should be the most obvious downside and disadvantage of all . The reality is all work is not created equal. But a communal society aims to make the rewards, compensation, recognitions and values of it equal. Sure, as everyone gets their fair share. There's no one up another or against another or one up of another. This will be problematic with people that get distraught with this form of society. We may encounter major suffering of mental, emotional, miserable breakdowns resulting in rebellion out of these constraints.
9. It is a government structure that comes with high levels of official abuse.
Even though all in a communist society are of a hive mind like operation with no one above another in perspective,once that union is set in stone, it is law, it is a governor itself. Those that have the urge or start to derail, showing signs to break free, that governor of course will overrule each time. That governor will dominate and can be used as a guise in a way that oppresses every person's behavior in a tyrannical state to maintain sharp strict communal behavior. This refined guise is so well fine tuned, it's hard to point to any one person as an oppressor because the accountability is always directed on the "governor" (the unified systemic agreement of community ownership/non private ownership living).
10. Communism takes a step backward on industrial evolution.
This last point I could not get the full explanation on from the website without signing up for an account. I'll expound with the little information received.
Having no change in the industrial world, no expanding new industries from inventive concepts because the centralized agenda is just central basic resources and needs, the focus is on that thus canceling out any shifting to advancing new businesses. Due to all individuals locked into a community with no branching businesses to head others with new or different opportunities that separate from the central basic essentials, people can't go off to do other desirable things of work .
If a communist society decides fundamentally that it's basic equal needs first, everyone is assigned to some sort of farming, harvesting occupation first. Forget about individual dreams. But it's because we have individual aspirations now, some people do one thing, others do another according to their individual governance and possibility for exclusive ownership.
With that , society is still surviving. Do we still have a poverty issue? Yes. Other ways can fix that than a straight Communism system. A hybrid system could work but it would continue to deny communism.
It would have aspects of communism but not a head-on forefront running system. Another alternative could be a government stipend that is closely regulated so it is not lost or squandered.
Back to the point that I put a star by .
The opposing will have to argue for communism explaining how it would work.
In order for it to work, it has to be proven that there is no possibility of individuals rising up seeking their own. Not to mention the collapse of the pillars which are people that slack effort to maintain a flourishing a society as communal based.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I concede because governments are corrupt and governments are unmotivated, they violate rights of individuals, so Communism cannot work in any way.
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
-Ayn Rand
Research takes priority. We can debate later. I dont rush to have debate.
I may take you up on that if possible in a couple days. I want to first say I am sorry for the late reply. I am a PhD student in educational research and I had a big project due in my quantitative analysis 2 class. I did not want to say no, so I just waited until I finished the project before I would accept. One of my education classes has an assignment due on multicultural education, so let me finish that and I should be ready by tomorrow or Monday if you are up for it.
Well, antinatalism is a belief that its wrong to reproduce.
Military first policy is a policy which says that building the military is the greatest priority of society.
Now, if you are interested in debate, it seems that we can debate abortion.
I would like if topic was something like "Abortion is morally good" with me as Pro.
If you are not interested right now, we have at least established point of disagreement.
I think the only area we disagree is abortion due to me being religious and viewing it as a life. Typically though I understand why it happens and that the decision is difficult on the mother at the time. That and I feel like even though I lean to the right on this issue, many individuals who are pro life aren’t pro life for the whole life. Trans issues I agree (I was the only religious person in my family that believed it was not our right to say these people couldn’t get married and they deserved equal rights). Corporal punishment for children I agree. Mass child circumcision we agree. The other two I don’t know what they are to know enough about lol! I would rather be honest on that lol!
Are there any other topics you would like to debate?
Here is where I stand on different issues:
Abortion (pro)
Trans acceptance (pro)
Corporal punishment of children (Con)
Antinatalism (pro)
Songun military first policy (Pro)
Mass child circumcision (Con)
I understand.
I expected that someone who accepts this would defend Capitalism, and my opening argument mostly focuses on countering Capitalism.
We may have too many similarities to go with this debate now that I have read a little more into your definition/opening statement from your other debate (it’s my fault for half reading while at a family member’s house.) I fit more in the socialist camp, so our biggest dispute would be on property, is this system possible, and is there too much government control in this system. So I guess I will bow out and let someone else take the reins lol!
One could argue that historically any society that adopted communism immidiately becomes a target of the US, which renders it worse for society on average even if it had some hypothetical benefits taken in a vacuum.
If you feel like accepting, let me know which rules to change and which to keep.
Maximum time for argument in rated is one week.
If thats not suitable, we can do standard which has response time 2 weeks.
I am fine with any of those.
As for number of rounds, I think 3 or 4 is good, but let me know what you think.
Ok! I found it and will read it. From what I can see so far I may be willing to debate this unless someone snags it from me first. Based on what I am reading so far, I think that we have some differences along with some similarities which may make it worth while. I asked the weird question on the outset because I didn’t want to misrepresent anything if I accept.
"are you defending communism like how China is"
I defend the democratic management of ownership and workplace, along with needs being satisfied and everyone contributing according to ability.
I already have one debate about Communism, and you can see my first round there which will be same as first round here.
This debate is interesting and I may accept if I have time to ponder it. I am an independent, so I have a lot of liberal ideologies along with some conservative. I may accept this because we debated before and I enjoyed our conversation. If I do we may have some things we agree on a decent amount because I have some liberal ways of thinking. My question while I ponder is are you defending communism like how China is, or is there some differences. I am asking because if we do debate I don’t want to strawman positions by accident.
Well, what exactly do you suggest that I debate?
You can present Capitalism as an alternative to this system.
You can say that this system is unachivable.
Its true that I left very little room for my opponent to argue, as by definition this system is good for society and better for society than Capitalism,
and it would be very difficult to argue that its unachivable, given how many countries in the world have achieved "to each according to his need" to a great extent.
So yes, anyone accepting this debate would likely have trouble.
But what else am I supposed to debate?
Do you want to switch sides, so you defend this topic and I defend capitalism as an alternative?
Here I your definition
"each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
So apparently you don't actually want to debate this. You don't even want to debate communist policies only the goals of communists which is something even anti communists would agree with. You could atheist debate the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Well?
Yeah.
Communism is so bad that, is not worth the debate.
Anyone interested in accepting the debate?
"Does human greed exist in this society?"
Yes.
"What is the societal culture like?"
Culture? Each society has its own customs.
I dont see why would Communist societies be limited to just one culture.
"Who will enforce people to contribute, because of obvious backlash."
Well, if you can work but refuse to, you wont get payed.
Sounds simple enough.
"Who will regulate property and security of property, because after all, in your definition ownership is still a thing."
Ownership is always a thing.
Security of property is regulated by democratically elect government.
Property is owned collectively, thus cannot be regulated outside of collective regulation or its chosen representatives.
Its the definition I found on google.
You can consider it as democratic ownership, to make it simple, because thats what will be defended in debate.
You can present an option which would be a better system, as a counter.
However, I will not agree to some different definition of Communism, because that would change the topic.
Do you want to change the topic to "Communism vs Capitalism", where we keep my definition of Communism and use your definition of Capitalism?
I don't know. Something about it, the definition of communism seems super vague.
Like there are so many other questions:
Does human greed exist in this society?
What is the societal culture like?
Who will enforce people to contribute, because of obvious backlash.
Who will regulate property and security of property, because after all, in your definition ownership is still a thing.
I don't know. Just a lot of unanswered assumptions I would have to make.
I have added the definition you requested.
Since community owns everything, enforcing contributions is done in a democratic way, in a workplace, since I will be defending democracy after all.
The workplace is still going to operate by profit, as that is the best way to ensure contribution.
Good (Communism): That which is better for society
Also, quick question, according to your definition:
"system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
Who would enforce the contributions and receive in this definition of communism?
Which definition do you want?
Define good, and I might accept.