The "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, not to unite.

"I specified those two things in my opening statement and those two ends are my only obligations. You accepted that when you accepted the debate. And, because of my approach, I feel like it would be unfair not to accept, the "Communist Manifesto" does *more* dividing than uniting. Let's start with that. " Well, because you didn't use the word "more" in the resolution, I feel like it would be unfair of you to manipulate it. But it doesn't matter, because I'll win on your grounds, anyway. LET IT BE NOTED TO THOSE WHO ARE JUDGING BY WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS AND NOT WHAT THE PRO SAYS THE RESOLUTION MEANS THAT THE PRO HAS DROPPED MY ATTACKS BASED ON AN APPROPRIATE AND JUSTIFIED INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION. IF YOU ARE JUDGING BASED OFF OF THAT, THE CON SHOULD WIN RIGHT HERE. "Marx wanted communists to work with every other political party who opposed the existing societal structure, but of course only with the purpose of extending the communist agenda. From the Communist Manifesto, "the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. " Realistically, how many people do you think that will set against one another? Do you think that serves to achieve the simplistic proletarians against bourgeoisie war and that's it? All section 4 of the Manifesto has to declare is, ‘Communists support war! War in Switzerland, war in Poland, war in Germany, war in France, war is good, war is necessary, it's inevitable, communists like war! ' All that could ever lead to is mass division, and it did. So therein, 2. "The Communist Manifesto is more divisive than helpful. "" It supports war. Yeah. But the war it supports is one of unifying the many against the few. No matter what, there will always be more unity than division. This is an idea you have largely ignored. "You could only agree with that train of thought if you agree that the Manifesto really only serves to plot those two classes together and nothing else. To see it that way, you'd first have to believe that the world is only made of two classes and two opposing sets of goals… So Geek, is all of humanity and society explained in saying, "There exists the oppressor and the oppressed and that encompasses all. " No? Then what the revolution is actually going to achieve is more division than unification. Plus, it's clear the only reason for anybody to unite under this philosophy is for the purposes of war in the first place… Great, let's everybody get together and start a world war! " I believe that there are primarily the opressed and the opressors. You see, the problem is, the opressed tend to be divided into more groups, based on ethnicity, politics, religion, etc. "The Communist Manifesto" tries to unite these groups against the supposedly oppressive upper class. And furthermore, it doesn't matter if the purpose is war. A war can still unite. Once again, if we're looking to which side outweighs the other, this is clearly the CON. ""Law, morality, religion, are to him [the proletariat] so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. " – Communist Manifesto. Alright, let's attack all of the above mentioned concepts and see how much good comes of that. I just don't see it leading to peace, but instead leading to desperation for peace which leaves an even more vulnerable mass of people to exploit. Which explains why 3. "The Communist Manifesto does more harm than good. "" No, you're missing the point. Those are the institutions which draw those lines of division. By destroying these lines and these institutions, "The Communist Manifesto" attempts to unite groups against the ultimate institution that put thsoe institutions in place. "In Marx's world the only important thing in history is economic relations. His THEORY of history is very narrow and exclusive. I say this because he doesn't seem to find things like religion, culture, ideology or individual human beings historically significant at all… In fact, he doesn't seem to find the above mentioned things important to humanity whatsoever. Clearly stated, ". .. Communism abolishes eternal truths [such as freedom and justice] it abolishes all religion, and all morality. .. "" You just offered a quote where he talked about religion. .. How is that not important. Furthermore, even if I accept your claim, you haven't proven how his view of history is wrong, exclusive though it may be. You have not proven how his view of conomic classes is inaccurate. "So he's predicting what's going to happen in the future (the war he's describing is inevitable) by selectively choosing what he thinks is most important in the past to pay attention to. It's important to look at this closely because if a person were to reject Marx's interpretation of what history means to our future, then all of a sudden we're given back our free choice in where this world is headed and our personal significance as well" Wait. .. How does Marx's view of history take awway your free choice? What? Anyway, economic relations tend to be the most important factor. It defines every other factor, and every other factor is related in. Religion keeps the oppressed masses rom revolting. The same with law, morality, etc. Whether you like it or not, everything comes back to money. "The Manifesto in question *talks* a lot about uniting, but *serves* primarily to divide. That is what this debate is about and it's more interesting this way anyway. Why try to make this into a debate about semantics and literal interpretations? That's boring as hell and a waste of my time. " Alright. Then we'll talk about what it actually does. You have, at no point, given any evidence where it serves to divide. You have given speculation after speculation.