Upcoming debate, need some modern, easy to understand communist sources.

[DecDoom]

I'm in the debate club in school, and we have an upcoming Communism vs. Capitalism debate. The debate isn't until December (we only have clubs once a month... apparently that's our school's commitment to "student morale"), but I'd like to get some sources ready anyhow.

A bit of background on this: My team (arguing in favor of Communism) consists of myself and 3 other people, one of them also a communist, and two of them communist-sympathizers. Our opponents are two other sympathizers, who only took on defending Capitalism because someone had to do it. There are no winners, it's just people shouting on a stage. The audience consists of even more sympathizers, and a group of freshmen who just joined because they thought nothing would happen and they could just sleep. In short, this is quite possibly the least important debate I will ever be in.

That aside, I'd like to provide a good argument and maybe sway some of the sympathizers in my audience. For this, I'd like some good, easy to understand modern works. While I'm not trying to downplay the significance of historical works, I think that something from the 2000s would be more interesting to them than something from 1917.

Any help is appreciated. :)

[Scary Monster]

I cant think of anything sources right now, but I will say that a point you should focus on, which always works, is that in capitalism, a surplus of goods is detrimental, since that would drive prices and demand way down. So this surplus is thrown away, meanwhile the majority of the world's population die because of a lack of basic necessities.

In communism on the other hand, there is no profit motive, and looking at history, a socialist country always provided their population with plenty, without the need for sweatshops or invading other countries for resources- no starvation, nor was there homelessness, unemployment, and everyone has higher education.

[Adil3tr]

Facts. Facts are communist.

Try, umm, Marx's Kapital for Beginners. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-39-s-t41211/index.html) Also, try The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) to clear things up. There are probably more, but I can't think of quick ones of the top of my head. In defence of Marxism.com (http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/129/64/) might have some arguments.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm in the debate club in school, and we have an upcoming Communism vs. Capitalism debate. The debate isn't until December (we only have clubs once a month... apparently that's our school's commitment to "student morale"), but I'd like to get some sources ready anyhow.

A bit of background on this: My team (arguing in favor of Communism) consists of myself and 3 other people, one of them also a communist, and two of them communist-sympathizers. Our opponents are two other sympathizers, who only took on defending Capitalism because someone had to do it. There are no winners, it's just people shouting on a stage. The audience consists of even more sympathizers, and a group of freshmen who just joined because they thought nothing would happen and they could just sleep. In short, this is quite possibly the least important debate I will ever be in.

That aside, I'd like to provide a good argument and maybe sway some of the sympathizers in my audience. For this, I'd like some good, easy to understand modern works. While I'm not trying to downplay the significance of historical works, I think that something from the 2000s would be more interesting to them than something from 1917.

Any help is appreciated. :)
:confused: Why does you're location say Conservatown, USA. Seriously what state is this. In my high school there are only about 15-20 communists with perhaps a few more sympathizers, but there are always enough capitalists for debate, out of an entire grade of over 400 and I would consider that a lot compared to most high schools in my area.

[WeAreReborn]

:confused: Why does you're location say Conservatown, USA. Seriously what state is this. In my high school there are only about 15-20 communists with perhaps a few more sympathizers, but there are always enough capitalists for debate, out of an entire grade of over 400 and I would consider that a lot compared to most high schools in my area.
I agree, sure in my school there are mostly neo-liberals but I am the only Anarchist or Communist in my entire school. It sounds like your town is pretty leftist.

[Revolution starts with U]

Your opponent will (may) try to trap you with the "socialism leads to totalitarianism" emotional appeal. It would be wise to have sources refuting as such.
Also, any cursory glance of anything Chomsky or Perenti (or numerous others) will show you the inherent authoritarian nature of capitalism.
The US has the highest per capita prison rate in the world. It commits genocide and autrocities across the globe (close to half a million in Iraq alone). Even in laissez faire it still had slavery and mass slaughter and displacement of native peoples.
The mixed economy is a straw man, mixed economies are capitalism. Where people got the idea that anarchism was a capitalist thing is beyond me.
Note that the countries at least half-assed adopting socialist ideals are the ones most stable and prosperous right now; China, Scandanavia, and other parts of Europe.
Note that the Russia went from a bacwards agrarian feudal nation to an industrial superpower rivaling the US and UK in just a few short years under the Soviet Union.
If they say attrocities say Cherokee.
They can't use poverty, look at America. It's terrible. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Give them "Economic Hitman."
Stagnant economy? First half/few years of USSR, early China, now China. Cuba's stagnations is mostly/all because of capitalist embargos.
Capitalism is not, nor ever has been compatible with individual liberties, that's democracy. Next time you think capitalism = liberty walk into work with a "FUCK YOU" t-shirt on.

[RedMaterialist]

I think that something from the 2000s would be more interesting to them than something from 1917.

Any help is appreciated. :)

You could do a lot worse than starting with The Communist Manifesto, 1848. I'm serious. Then go with Capital, Vol I, Chapters 1-3, 1867. Just try to translate some of the 19th century language into 21st century-speak.:D

[mikelepore]

You might want to write here some of the arguments you intend to use, and the people here will help you develop them.

[Martin Blank]

You might want to write here some of the arguments you intend to use, and the people here will help you develop them.

I would agree with this. We could help more if you could be more specific about the arguments you want to make.

[DecDoom]

:confused: Why does you're location say Conservatown, USA. Seriously what state is this. In my high school there are only about 15-20 communists with perhaps a few more sympathizers, but there are always enough capitalists for debate, out of an entire grade of over 400 and I would consider that a lot compared to most high schools in my area.

That's about the same number as in my school. This is a small audience, and when I say "sympathizers" I should have said that they are the types that say "it's a good idea on paper." I consider these people to be more open to communist ideas than, say, a Reaganite. Outside of the school, only the Republicans have any political representation.


You might want to write here some of the arguments you intend to use, and the people here will help you develop them.

At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, I really don't have any arguments, other than arguing against the human cost of Capitalism, detrimental costs of surplus (thank you, Scary Monster), and attempting to defend socialism as an alternative. That said, I'll talk to the other members of my group and ask them if there are any real arguments they want to make.

Like I said, this is probably the least important debate I'll ever get into. I expect that this, and every other debate in this club, will mostly be made up of strawman arguments and rhetoric. I figured that having easy to understand arguments for socialism wouldn't just help me in this debate, but in other political/economic debates I might get into.

[RedMaterialist]

I'm in the debate club in school, and we have an upcoming Communism vs. Capitalism debate. The debate isn't until December (we only have clubs once a month... app :)

I think capitalism in its simplest form is this (at least in the economic sense):

1. Profit = Price - Cost
2. Cost = Labor ($10) + Materials (and anything else, rent, electricity, risk of money, "opportunity cost" etc.) $5.
3. Profit = Price, say $20 - $15
4. Profit = $5

The question is where does the $5 come from? The capitalist argument is that it comes from the market (the magic of the market place;) the competition of the market. And, believe it or not, they are right. The capitalist sells something for $20, which is its true value on the open market. Sure, some days he gets $21, some days $19 but over time he will average $20. Adam Smith agrees with this. He said market prices tend to gravitate to their real values over time.

But why would anybody pay a capitalist $20 for something which cost the capitalist only $15? Especially another capitalist, after all they sometimes have to buy and sell to each other. Are customers, out of their own pockets, supposed to provide capitalists with their profit?

And, the capitalist put in $15 and yet he is getting $5 out. How is this possible? After all, our capitalist is not a thief, he is an honest businessman.

It happens because a human being, when she or he works or labors produces more value than when they started. Thus, a shoemaker starts with leather which has a certain value, he ends up with a boot which is worth more than the leather and his time. He has put his labor into the leather. He has created more value than the cost of the leather and the cost of his time. That is where the extra $5 comes from. The shoemaker then sells his boot on the open market and gets the full value for it.

The capitalist employs a worker(s) to make the boot (actually millions of boots) pays for the leather, pays for the workers' time (as low as possible) and then takes the boot from the workers and sells the boot on the open market. After all, it is now his boot. He pockets the $5 because he doesn't pay for the extra value put into the boot by the worker.

Don't let them pull the "risk" argument (also called opportunity cost): The capitalist gets a profit because he "risked" his money or he could have done something else with it. First that applies to all capitalists. Any profit he gets that way has to be shared with all other capitalists and he would not end up with anything extra. Second, our capitalist is not a gambler, he is a righteous, upstanding member of the community. He made his profit honestly, he does not gamble.

[RedMaterialist]

I'm in the debate club in school, and we have an upcoming Communism vs. Capitalism debate. :)

Here are some more ideas:

On the social argument between communism and capitalism:

1. Capitalists say that the free market is best economic system. That each person should be free to develop his or her own potential and make a profit. This has several consequences:

a. A capitalist should be allowed to use child labor. In fact until about 1935 child labor was used extensively in the U.S. Congress made it illegal around 1915 and the Supreme Court ruled that law unconstitutional. Only 20 yrs later did the Court uphold the banning of child labor.
There is nothing in capitalism which says that child labor is wrong or should not be used. Using child labor was something capitalists thought was their right; that they had a right to enter into a contract with a child’s parents or “guardian.”

b. A capitalist who owns a private business which serves the public should be allowed to say who he or she will or will not serve. We know that Rand Paul is devoted to the ideals of capitalism; however, he claims now to have discovered the ideals of the Civil Rights laws.

c. A capitalist should be allowed to say whether he or she wants to hire a woman or not, or whether he wants to pay her the same salary as a man.

d. A capitalist definitely should be allowed to say his or her employees cannot form a union.

e. A capitalist should under no circumstances be prevented from dumping sludge into the local rivers.

f. A capitalist should never be forced to pay income taxes or pay a portion of his profit to Social Security or Medicare, or to public schools, or the police or fire department. Everybody should pay for these things themselves, like free citizens.

g. No capitalist should ever be forced to pay taxes for food stamps. That only drives up the cost of labor and the cost of everything else. If people don’t work they don’t eat. Simple as that.

h. If a capitalist wants to require his employees work 12 hr days and 72 hrs a week with no overtime, well, that is just the free market at work.

All of these social changes were made as the result of decades of social struggle. Not because a capitalist agreed to them, but because socialists and communists demanded them.

[RED DAVE]

Several points that I've found useful in such debates:

(1) Make a distinction between the USSR and China, on the one hand, and socialism on the other. I suggest you avoid the word "communism."

(2) Discuss the current crisis, which is quite clearly a crisi of capitalism.

(3) Discuss the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which are clearly capitalist wars.

RED DAVE

[Amphictyonis]

I'm in the debate club in school, and we have an upcoming Communism vs. Capitalism debate. The debate isn't until December (we only have clubs once a month... apparently that's our school's commitment to "student morale"), but I'd like to get some sources ready anyhow.

A bit of background on this: My team (arguing in favor of Communism) consists of myself and 3 other people, one of them also a communist, and two of them communist-sympathizers. Our opponents are two other sympathizers, who only took on defending Capitalism because someone had to do it. There are no winners, it's just people shouting on a stage. The audience consists of even more sympathizers, and a group of freshmen who just joined because they thought nothing would happen and they could just sleep. In short, this is quite possibly the least important debate I will ever be in.

That aside, I'd like to provide a good argument and maybe sway some of the sympathizers in my audience. For this, I'd like some good, easy to understand modern works. While I'm not trying to downplay the significance of historical works, I think that something from the 2000s would be more interesting to them than something from 1917.

Any help is appreciated. :)
Talk about absurd. Sounds like RevLeft ;) You guys should just argue about the one true strain of socialism! Forever. The vanguard party against the anarchists? LOL



(mod) lighten up.

[Decolonize The Left]

Talk about absurd. Sounds like RevLeft ;) You guys should just argue about the one true strain of socialism! Forever. The vanguard party against the anarchists? LOL

This is a verbal warning. This post is considered spam and possibly trolling - please keep posts productive, especially in the Learning section. Thanks.

- August

[Amphictyonis]

A bit of background on this: My team (arguing in favor of Communism) consists of myself and 3 other people, one of them also a communist, and two of them communist-sympathizers. Our opponents are two other sympathizers, who only took on defending Capitalism because someone had to do it. There are no winners, it's just people shouting on a stage. The audience consists of even more sympathizers, and a group of freshmen who just joined because they thought nothing would happen and they could just sleep. In short, this is quite possibly the least important debate I will ever be in.

:)

Hey mod- did you read his post? I've had 'debates' on socialist websites where I felt robbed of my precious time/life. You have to admit some of our infighting on various forums is absurd. Like what me and you are about to get into. Over nothing. Pointless. This isnt trolling this is poking fun at us all. Me included. Maybe I've been reading too much Camus lately? In either event I'd like an infraction- the anarchist in me want an infraction. Punish me.

[RedMaterialist]

I suggest you avoid the word "communism."




I think, in the end, that is a mistake. "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." Karl Marx.

Of course, I don't know how reactionary they are where he lives. But, then, 19th century England was fairly reactionary.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Don't let them pull the "risk" argument (also called opportunity cost): The capitalist gets a profit because he "risked" his money or he could have done something else with it. First that applies to all capitalists. Any profit he gets that way has to be shared with all other capitalists and he would not end up with anything extra. Second, our capitalist is not a gambler, he is a righteous, upstanding member of the community. He made his profit honestly, he does not gamble.
The simplest and least vulnerable argument against the risk argument is that profits are made even in industries where risk is nothing (or next to it.) Very high rates of profit can be obtained in new, risky industries, but this is an additional, logically separable gain. (In fact, the formal models used by portfolio managers do separate them out.)

[Adil3tr]

:confused: Why does you're location say Conservatown, USA. Seriously what state is this. In my high school there are only about 15-20 communists with perhaps a few more sympathizers, but there are always enough capitalists for debate, out of an entire grade of over 400 and I would consider that a lot compared to most high schools in my area.

Where the hell did you drum up 15-20 communists? There is only one other at my school, even though there are a lot of pissed of people. And he needs to do a lot more reading (He said communism and socialism are completely different :unsure:). Don't say I should work harder to convince them, because to do more would be to look like a psycho.

[mikelepore]

This is how I often debate the issue -- a few days ago I wrote the following words on another forum site:

The reasons for replacing capitalism with socialism are almost the same as the reasons for replacing monarchy with a republic.

The reason to choose a republic as the form of government: Since the members of the population are required to obey the law, endure the effects of the law, and pay the taxes, we have the best government when the population is permitted to elect the law makers.

The reason to choose socialism as the economic system: Since the workers are the people who produce all of society's goods and services, require access to that wealth in order to live, and have to endure the environmental conditions, we would have the best industrial management if the workers were to democratically elect the management.

[mikelepore]

The simplest and least vulnerable argument against the risk argument is that profits are made even in industries where risk is nothing (or next to it.) Very high rates of profit can be obtained in new, risky industries, but this is an additional, logically separable gain. (In fact, the formal models used by portfolio managers do separate them out.)

Yes, that's an important point. Being even more risk free than blue chip stocks and balanced portfolios, no money market mutual fund (a fixed one-dollar-per-share) has ever lost money since money market mutual funds were invented. The capitalist may be satisfied with the rate of return associated with absolutely zero risk, or may assume some risk to increase the return, according to personal choice.

But I like to point out several other dimensions to to the risk argument.

1. The argument neglects the worker's large risks to focus on the capitalist's small risks. The capitalist risks disposable funds that are not linked to personal survival. The worker often risks the rent and grocery money, for example, when buying a car needed to get to work, not knowing whether there might be layoffs after buying that car, or the cost of relocating to take a job in another city, not knowing whether there might be layoffs after the relocation. In addition, a worker who takes a job inhaling coal dust, constructing skyscrapers, maintaining high voltage lines, etc. takes a life risk. Lumber workers have some of the highest rates of personal injury, but how many stockmarket investors ever get injured by falling trees?

2. Someone who inherits a billion dollars and takes it to open an account with a stockbroker is only risking something that other people never had in the first place. If moneyless people had inherited it then they would probably choose to risk some of it too. So the real issue is about a few people being born lucky, and the discussion of financial risk is a distraction from that central issue.

3. If the capitalist loses everything, worst case, then the capitalist might have to go to work for the first time like everyone else. Therefore the capitalist is saying to the worker: praise me, because I took the risk that something horrible might happen to me -- I might turn out like you!

4. No ethical principle establishes any connection between risk and entitlement. If there were such an automatic connection, then a pickpocket would become the rightful owner of your wallet as a result of taking the risk to acquire it. Similarly, a bank robber, the target of bullets, takes a greater risk than the bank owner.

[Oswy]

I'm in the debate club in school, and we have an upcoming Communism vs. Capitalism debate. The debate isn't until December (we only have clubs once a month... apparently that's our school's commitment to "student morale"), but I'd like to get some sources ready anyhow.

A bit of background on this: My team (arguing in favor of Communism) consists of myself and 3 other people, one of them also a communist, and two of them communist-sympathizers. Our opponents are two other sympathizers, who only took on defending Capitalism because someone had to do it. There are no winners, it's just people shouting on a stage. The audience consists of even more sympathizers, and a group of freshmen who just joined because they thought nothing would happen and they could just sleep. In short, this is quite possibly the least important debate I will ever be in.

That aside, I'd like to provide a good argument and maybe sway some of the sympathizers in my audience. For this, I'd like some good, easy to understand modern works. While I'm not trying to downplay the significance of historical works, I think that something from the 2000s would be more interesting to them than something from 1917.

Any help is appreciated. :)

At the most basic level I'd have these things in mind:

1. Communism wants to empower everyone in society, not make them compete so that many lose and a few win; so that many go hungry and homeless so a few can get fat on cake and live in hotel-sized houses with country-sized gardens.

2. Communism aims to ensure everyone's basic and real needs are met and that everyone has opportunity to contribute according to their abilities. To help everyone and ask everyone to help. That is, at the least, a very rational way to organise a society. Capitalism, by comparison, sees millions go without and generates cycles of unemployment despite all the technical advances which have done away with real scarcity (what we have is artificially maintained scarcity).

3. Communism rejects the excesses of consumerism and obsession with economic 'growth' of capitalism, both of which are undisputably destructive forces, socially and culturally, but especially environmentally.

4. Communism emphasises human sociability and cooperation, qualities that have been present in our species long before different kinds of societies brought ever intense manifestations of inequalities, conflicts and alienation (from work and each other).

5. Some say communism can never work. Well, in the not too distant past all humans lived in a communistic way, as hunter-gatherers. While not perfect, hunter-gathering societies are highly egalitarian, highly socially integrated, highly interested in ensuring everyone has their needs met and that everyone has power to participate in meeting their own and each other's needs according to their abilities. Studies show that hunter-gatherers only work a few hours a day and spend the rest of their time socialising and having fun. In our technological era, where we have so much more productive power, how much easier would it be to live like that if capitalism didn't trap us into wage-labour for someone else's profits?

Also, if you can, walk into the debating chamber with a couple of smoking-hot babes on your arms, communism is sexy!*

I don't know if this is the kind of thing you want, but good luck anyway!

* just a bit of fun there, I'm a feminist of course.

[Revolution starts with U]

If the capitalist loses everything, worst case, then the capitalist might have to go to work for the first time like everyone else. Therefore the capitalist is saying to the worker: praise me, because I took the risk that something horrible might happen to me -- I might turn out like you!



Brilliant! :D