Communism > Capitalism

Now. .. What if I am advocating Anarchism? On justice systems People, inherently, are not immoral and won't break natural laws for the purpose of breaking them. People are fully capable of operating under the Golden Rule. My opponent seems to ignore the most important part of my advocacy. At the time when Communism would be seriously considered, a major shift in cultural thinking would happen, which as I said before, comes from education, both in school and at home. My opponent dwells largely on the idea that I present no "official" judicial system. These negative assumptions come from our current system of "justice," probably originating from living in the system of a developing Democracy/Republic. This is turning into a debate of first world judicial systems vs the infinite capabilities of a judicial system in a time of socially evolved ideologies. The argument "people aren't good right now, so they can never in the future socially evolve" isn't very viable or well backed up. Just because people, in this day and age, couldn't handle a Communistic judicial system, doesn't mean that we couldn't in the future. On Currency Communism isn't bartering, I was just using this as an example to point out that money hasn't always been there, meaning people inherently don't need it to thrive. I'll explain the theory of services and goods one last time, to make sure I am clear. The farmer doesn't go to the tailor and say "I have this much grain, I will trade for [X] amount of clothes". The farmer simply produces crops, with the needs of the entire community in mind, while the tailor produces clothes. They both contribute necessities that they produce, without need of 'payment'. It's a collective contribution. On motivation The wrongly named 'intrinsic' motivators in a Capitalist society are still out of self love, and cannot be compared with a motivator seen in Communism. A person could discover a cure for AIDS for the sole purpose of relieving the suffering of millions in a Communistic society. In a Capitalist society, the founder of this culture changing cure would immediately be able to market this cure, and to turn a profit would most likely set a high price, hence preventing millions from being cured. In Communism, this person's reward would be an unrivaled sense of accomplishment, charity, and the life changing knowledge that countless will be saved. On education First of all, look to all neo-Capitalist societies in the world right now. All of them include some socialist policies, and you yourself said that Capitalism is an economic theory, not a political one. Most schools in the first world are public and private. This is because Capitalist nations have conceded, in order to educate the masses, education cannot have a Capitalist model; something much closer to Socialism is required. Education systems are right now, in the most Capitalistic nations in the world, much closer to a Communist model, and would be failing much worse than at the present if it were hindered by the need for private funding. But, that wasn't actually the important part of the analysis; and too much focus on it, misses the point. On Athlete/Teacher reference I understand that being a professional athlete isn't THAT easy, but to argue that their far superior income is well deserved because they are more televised, popular, and have merchandise is seriously flawed. Should teachers increase their ability to be televised? Popularity should play no role in the evaluation of a profession. This is a flawed system. It is a system in which whatever is popular makes more money (Supply and Demand). Communism is universally a much greater model for equality than Capitalism. On. .. anarchy? My advocacy may be defined as Anarcho-Communism, as I've seen in comments, but this really doesn't change anything. Marx directly called for an overthrow and abolition of government, which is Anarchy. ------ "My opponent says that if someone needs an item, it will be supplied to them. Well, who gets priority over what? What if there are only a set amount of product X (let's say 5), and 11 people need product x. Who will get it? What if the need is the same? Will it go down to a democratic vote, or will something like currency show who has given more to the society in order to obtain such a product in said case? " --------- The idea being that enough of product x is produced in order to satisfy the needs of the community. I realize that the concept of selfless production is completely antithetical to neo-capitalists, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored entirely in the debate. Communists have the community's best interest in mind. They understand and can calculate the need of a community. What person makes 5 of what the community needs, when 11 is needed, and can still claim he is acting to equally benefit his fellow community members? ------ "My opponent's arguments on competition can be followed up on by my former arguments about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. " ----- Please don't cross apply arguments. On societal contribution - ------ "I already argued that everyone can provide for a society in some way (Steven Hawking being physically impaired but providing intellectually, etc), so I don't see where my opponent thinks he has an upper hand there. And also, my opponent fails in his critique, again, that Capitalism doesn't supply a channel for intrinsic rewards. Also, my opponent is advocating that successful people's resources be taken from them - I hope he doesn't think he can trade one "wrong" for another one, as I presented in my former round and he didn't answer. " ---------- Nothing is taken from anyone. I can't actually repeat this enough. The culture is one of giving: resources are entirely shared, so no particular person is more "successful" than another. My opponent is only demonstrating her inability to work outside of current economic rhetoric, and to fairly examine the prospect of Communism. I must refer you, again, to the RD 1 posting in which I established a specific philosophical world for our consideration. My opponent accepted this world. There are plenty of ways to argue against that world, but she chooses not to. ------ "Also. .. sure John Locke says there are "natural" laws, but that doesn't mean people naturally follow them. Let's have a reality check here, seriously. .. . ------ As I appreciate the reality check, and am sure it was in good spirit, Locke gives us a reminder of humanities potential to operate under a natural law. Lock and I can't claim that humans act perfectly as robots, but perfection isn't necessary for Communism to work. And with using our tools that are the gifts of logic and love, we can realize a world where people are truly equal and free, and resources are truly communal. Con has given no real argument to prove that Locke's state of nature cannot be lived by. People surpass imposed ideological barriers with no end. Christians and other religions maintain that God and religion are required for lawlessness to be transcended. Atheists prove this wrong on a regular basis, showing that human beings, free of dogmatic checks, can act morally. The same thing is true of the population in general with regards to resources. Free of the current strictures of a Capitalist society, which is currently the dominant model of the world, people can easily be seen as transcending it to something different. Humans cannot be limited by their current state of affairs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx I would like to express my thanks to my opponent for partaking in a debate about a subject I dearly enjoy.