Communism Is Not Bad.

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production, and the end of wage labour and private property. It generally states that the only way to solve the problems existing within capitalism is for the working class (a.k.a. the proletariat) - the main producer of wealth in society - to avoid being exploited by the capitalist class. Communists aim to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a society without class divisions, called socialism, as a prelude to attempting to achieve the final stage of communism [1]. My opponent suggests that this is not a bad system, i.e. a non-harmful one or one that can achieve positive or fair results. I negate. There are two ways in which people object to communism: rejecting the policies of many communist regimes, or rejecting the philosophy and ideology in general. I'll discuss both types of criticism in this round by looking at different aspects of what communism entails. Economic Development: The most prevalent criticism of communism is that rooted in economic theory. After all, some of the other things associated with communism (such as tyrannical dictatorships) could in theory be avoided. However, economists argue that communism is structured specifically to result in economic stagnation. Resources cannot be effectively allocated in a communist system. Economic calculation is impossible without a feedback system like prices. This is partly because value is subjective rather than objective. Value depends on people's choices and decisions, not on a measure such as the cost of production [2]. Additionally, this system is seemingly contrary to human nature. One writes, "The concept of providing for all at your ability and taking from all at need is wonderful until someone does not put all he can in or takes out more then he needs" [3]. Indeed it does not seem fair to allocate everyone the same amount of resources regardless of their various jobs, skills and results. Clearly this system does not reward productivity, giving people less of an incentive to profit and stimulate the economy. The result can have a devastating impact on an entire nation. This also brings up questions of human rights, and whether or not it is a fair or moral thing to subjugate a population to this kind of theft and control. People's civil liberties and other rights would be severely inhibited. While Pro says that communism aims to keep everyone equal, the reality is that we're not all equal (in terms of economic contribution) so it's not fair to be treated as such. Moreover, when my opponent writes that health care is "free," he really means that other people in society are being aggressively forced to pay for others. This is theft; theft is immoral. Also, Pro says that communism would put an end to racism and sexism though there is no indication or proof of this being true. Communism has nothing to do with racism and sexism. My opponent's final point is that communism isn't bad; it's just been poorly represented. It's true that communist leaders in the past have politically oppressed their subordinates. However whenever communists have come into power, they typically created a new ruling class with powers and privileges far greater than those previously enjoyed by the upper classes in the pre-revolutionary regimes. This is one hint that human nature again rejects the idea of communism. People will be tempted to violate major principles for their own gain. While this is encouraged in a "free" i.e. capitalistic society, for example, communism is supposed to reject this quest for advancement for the greater good. However, in practice, it seems that those in control can't seem to suppress their own nature and thus it actually hurts many in what is supposed to be the "ruling" class. In short, my opponent's points seem to be that communism has a bad reputation, but is fine in theory. Sure communist camps in the past have instigated violent foreign policy. Sure they showed no regard for scientific progression or the environment. But isn't the *theory* of a classless society good? I've explained why this idea of economics seems to fail and why it seemingly violates human nature and thus human rights. Consider the fact that Stalin forced people to work in "labor camps" as a means to bolster the economy, while not rewarding the workers properly according to their output. They essentially became slaves. People did not have the ability to determine value; this is inherent to communism itself (and I've explained why this is both bad for the economy and simultaneously immoral). Conclusion: Communism is "bad" (not good) in both theory and practice. It's rooted in an ideology contrary to human nature that mandates the oppression of its laborers who essentially become slaves with little to no say in economic affairs let alone government affairs. The result is usually a lot of violence, war mongering and corruption among the hierarchy (that ironically should not exist). It's economic theory is rooted in fallacious assertions, and the principles seem to conflict with human rights. Communist leaders in the past have effectively demonstrated the ways communism is bound or severely likely to fail perhaps more than any other system. For these reasons it cannot be considered a good system. Thanks and good luck. [1] http://www.encyclopedia.com... [2] http://allphilosophy.com... [3] http://answers.ask.com...