Suggestions for a Highschool class debate

[Drowzy_Shooter]

So currently, I'm in AP World History and this coming tuesday we're doing a debate on socialism vs capitalism. The teacher has already told me ahead of time that he's putting me on the socialist side to help foster debate, as I was one of the class' best debate participates (I think he knew which side to put me on when I was the only person in class able to recant word for word definitions for proletariat and bourgeoisie). This being a history class, we're supposed to base our arguments on the time period of 1750-1900 with minimal support from event happening after that. Any suggestion for main talking points or other strategies?

[#FF0000]

That's a pretty good time period to work with. Actually, my mind immediately went to Chapter 31 of Capital, where Marx talks about the beginnings of industrial capitalism:


The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England’s Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China

You can talk a lot about colonialism here. We're talking about Manifest Destiny and the tail-end of the Native American genocide, we're talking the Scramble For Africa, the Opium Wars, the British Raj, the Great Game in Central Asia, etc. etc. etc. That era was basically a parade of atrocities.

[BIXX]

Also talk about how in general capitalism restrains people (as that has always been the case, so it applies to any year).

[synthesis]

Be sure to stress the Marxist definition of capitalism (mode of production) as opposed to the bourgeois definition (true freedom!). I mean, you don't actually have to say the words "mode of production" - maybe even better if you didn't - but it's a good opportunity to explain Marxist class analysis/historical materialism to your classmates, on your own terms and as rhetorically up front as you'd like.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

That's a pretty good time period to work with. Actually, my mind immediately went to Chapter 31 of Capital, where Marx talks about the beginnings of industrial capitalism:



You can talk a lot about colonialism here. We're talking about Manifest Destiny and the tail-end of the Native American genocide, we're talking the Scramble For Africa, the Opium Wars, the British Raj, the Great Game in Central Asia, etc. etc. etc. That era was basically a parade of atrocities.


I was thinking about bringing up the Opium Wars, and you've brought up some other great examples of the atrocities in the name of blind pursuit of profit. I appreciate the help. Are there any good marxist texts of analysis, besides the previously mentioned capital, that I could bring up in reference to the Opium Wars or the British Raj?

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Be sure to stress the Marxist definition of capitalism (mode of production) as opposed to the bourgeois definition (true freedom!). I mean, you don't actually have to say the words "mode of production" - maybe even better if you didn't - but it's a good opportunity to explain Marxist class analysis/historical materialism to your classmates, on your own terms and as rhetorically up front as you'd like.

My struggle is definitely going to be the fine line between being over political/specific for a highschool audience and being specific enough to bring up my points. You're definitely right though that I think it'll be important to set the tone of the debate by using marxist definitions and analysis.

[Bala Perdida]

Also the 1770 Bengal famine. It killed around 10 million and the British still violently collected taxes. Proof that Imperialist capitalism is just as/more deadly than authoritarian Soviet Marxist-Leninism.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Also the 1770 Bengal famine. It killed around 10 million and the British still violently collected taxes. Proof that Imperialist capitalism is just as/more deadly than authoritarian Soviet Marxist-Leninism.

Yeah, this is seriously a good point. Nobody ever points to the multitude of famines that happen under direction of capitalist systems and blames it on capitalism. They just act as if it's a completely natural phenomenon. The Irish Potato Famine is another good example. It's a complete double standard, and that realization could really help OP win the debate.

And I seriously wasn't aware that "potato" doesn't have an E at the end….

[Red Economist]

So currently, I'm in AP World History and this coming Tuesday we're doing a debate on socialism vs capitalism. The teacher has already told me ahead of time that he's putting me on the socialist side to help foster debate, as I was one of the class' best debate participates (I think he knew which side to put me on when I was the only person in class able to recant word for word definitions for proletariat and bourgeoisie).

sign of a good teacher. I'm a brit, so I'll give you the low down, but as you're in the US, you might want to do some research and see if you can spin it so it fits from a more American context.


This being a history class, we're supposed to base our arguments on the time period of 1750-1900 with minimal support from event happening after that. Any suggestion for main talking points or other strategies?You're arguably in the best position you could be in; as you don't have to deal with the utter mine field of how revolutionary 'socialism' went wrong in the USSR, etc.

19th century history is not my strong point but, at a guess here are certian themes you can hit on; What you argue FOR, I'll leave up to you. This might even be a bit much, so pick and choose if you want. BUT CHECK EVERYTHING- if you're debating with someone else, you don't want to make a point and then fall down on it because you're asked a question you don't know the answer to.

> By way of an introduction, you could show that whilst we have grown use to the 'capitalism-socialism' debate in the twentieth century, at this time these were news ideas. Marx (I think) coined the term 'capitalism'. This well help contrast the new "capitalism and socialism" debate against the tradition of monarchical rule. These were revolutionary ideas and people took notice because these news ideas helped understand the new social realities.

You might want to throw in how definitions of 'right' and 'left' in politics, originated from the 'left' and 'right' sides of the National Assembly in 1789 (split between the 'right' who supported the King and the 'left' who supported the revolution) and this is the beginning of modern politics as we understand and recognize it today. This is a minor thing, but it could give it a bit more flare and detail.

> have quick look at the origins of 'socialism' in the French revolution (1789 to 1799/1804 depending on how you fit Napoleon in to it). This will show that Socialism is well within the period your studying and give you a 'starting point' to show how liberalism turned into socialism.

> Adam's Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. this is the same year as the US Declaration of Independence and so I think historians crudely say this is when 'liberalism' began. It is important to point out, that Smith advocated capitalism as a harmonious society in which the forces of competition meant everyone would benefit from 'capitalism'. Then go on to show how the industrial revolution distributed the wealth, particularly in Britain, unequally.
wealth or property was the means by which personal freedom was established, so you then show how only a few owning property gives them freedom, but if the rest don't have property, they cannot be considered free.

Robert Owen is worth mentioning as he was what Marx called a 'utopian' socialist; he gained widespread attention and demonstrated that you could treat your workers well, have education etc and still have productive factories. It was an assumption that the only way to get results was to treat the working class like Sh*t [We still have this today with cutting benifits as a way to 'motivate' people to go out to work] In this context you can introduce the idea of the contrasting views of human nature; capitalism as selfish and individualistic, socialism as relatively 'selfless' and based on theories that man is innately 'social'. because of these problems most of his attempts at building utopian communities were unsuccessful- but they did have 'highlights'.
Owen tried this out in New Harmony, Indiania. he is basically the 'father' of the co-operative movement and this DID have an influence in the US (I'm not sure how much).


Marx and Engels pointed out how the Chartist movement in Britain and the rebellion of 'canut revolts' of Silk workers in Lyon France in 1831 and 1834 were considered to be the first signs of a 'working class' movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_revolts

I know almost nothing about the Mid- nineteenth century but the 1848 revolutions and the publication of the communist manifesto will definitely come up. From the point of the view of the US, I think Marx was one of the first people to say the American Civil War (1861-6) was about slavery. you can use this to show how a Marxist conceptions of history (with economics determining politics) 'works' in theory and how it continues to influence our understanding of history. I think he would argue the US civil war would be about the conflict between The Union's 'capitalist' wage-labour and the Confederates 'slave labour' which are incompatible economic relations.

> In the nineteenth century the term 'socialism' covered all three ideologies in the far and center left; (Reformist) socialism, Communism and Anarchism.

The Paris commune (1871) can be used to show that these ideas had become practically mainstream, but the collapse of the 'first international' shows how anarchists and socialist/communists fragmented over the issue of the role of the state.

> by the late 19th century- you really want to discuss GERMANY as THE centre for the socialist movement. At this point 'socialism' and 'anarchism' had split and 'social democracy' covered what would become both evolutionary socialism and revolutionary communism. I'm not exactly sure whether this is within the scope of your 'world history' class, but if it's Eurocentric, you should be able to cover it. Under Bismarck, The German empire banned the 'Social Democrats' as they were then under the "anti-socialist laws". Bismarck then set about trying to quote "kill socialism with kindness" by introducing 'state socialism' in which workers could get pensions etc.

> the anarchists had a brief renaissance in the late 19th century and engaged in terrorism (aka. "propaganda of the deed"). This is how they got the stereotype as destructive, nihilistic terrorists.

> at the In the nineteenth century the term 'socialism' covered all three ideologies in the far and centre left; (Reformist) socialism, Communism and Anarchism.

At the very very very end; you might want to introduce Eduard Bernstein who wrote "The preconditions of socialism" in 1899; he was influenced by the British Fabian movement and brought ideas of 'evolutionary socialism' to a wider audience in Europe. This forshadows the split between reformists and revolutionary socialists in the twentieth century and lets people know where the story goes next.

Best of luck and, most importantly, have fun!:)

[Drowzy_Shooter]

sign of a good teacher. I'm a brit, so I'll give you the low down, but as you're in the US, you might want to do some research and see if you can spin it so it fits from a more American context.

You're arguably in the best position you could be in; as you don't have to deal with the utter mine field of how revolutionary 'socialism' went wrong in the USSR, etc.

19th century history is not my strong point but, at a guess here are certian themes you can hit on; What you argue FOR, I'll leave up to you. This might even be a bit much, so pick and choose if you want. BUT CHECK EVERYTHING- if you're debating with someone else, you don't want to make a point and then fall down on it because you're asked a question you don't know the answer to.

> By way of an introduction, you could show that whilst we have grown use to the 'capitalism-socialism' debate in the twentieth century, at this time these were news ideas. Marx (I think) coined the term 'capitalism'. This well help contrast the new "capitalism and socialism" debate against the tradition of monarchical rule. These were revolutionary ideas and people took notice because these news ideas helped understand the new social realities.

You might want to throw in how definitions of 'right' and 'left' in politics, originated from the 'left' and 'right' sides of the National Assembly in 1789 (split between the 'right' who supported the King and the 'left' who supported the revolution) and this is the beginning of modern politics as we understand and recognize it today. This is a minor thing, but it could give it a bit more flare and detail.

> have quick look at the origins of 'socialism' in the French revolution (1789 to 1799/1804 depending on how you fit Napoleon in to it). This will show that Socialism is well within the period your studying and give you a 'starting point' to show how liberalism turned into socialism.

> Adam's Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. this is the same year as the US Declaration of Independence and so I think historians crudely say this is when 'liberalism' began. It is important to point out, that Smith advocated capitalism as a harmonious society in which the forces of competition meant everyone would benefit from 'capitalism'. Then go on to show how the industrial revolution distributed the wealth, particularly in Britain, unequally.
wealth or property was the means by which personal freedom was established, so you then show how only a few owning property gives them freedom, but if the rest don't have property, they cannot be considered free.

Robert Owen is worth mentioning as he was what Marx called a 'utopian' socialist; he gained widespread attention and demonstrated that you could treat your workers well, have education etc and still have productive factories. It was an assumption that the only way to get results was to treat the working class like Sh*t [We still have this today with cutting benifits as a way to 'motivate' people to go out to work] In this context you can introduce the idea of the contrasting views of human nature; capitalism as selfish and individualistic, socialism as relatively 'selfless' and based on theories that man is innately 'social'. because of these problems most of his attempts at building utopian communities were unsuccessful- but they did have 'highlights'.
Owen tried this out in New Harmony, Indiania. he is basically the 'father' of the co-operative movement and this DID have an influence in the US (I'm not sure how much).


Marx and Engels pointed out how the Chartist movement in Britain and the rebellion of 'canut revolts' of Silk workers in Lyon France in 1831 and 1834 were considered to be the first signs of a 'working class' movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_revolts

I know almost nothing about the Mid- nineteenth century but the 1848 revolutions and the publication of the communist manifesto will definitely come up. From the point of the view of the US, I think Marx was one of the first people to say the American Civil War (1861-6) was about slavery. you can use this to show how a Marxist conceptions of history (with economics determining politics) 'works' in theory and how it continues to influence our understanding of history. I think he would argue the US civil war would be about the conflict between The Union's 'capitalist' wage-labour and the Confederates 'slave labour' which are incompatible economic relations.

> In the nineteenth century the term 'socialism' covered all three ideologies in the far and center left; (Reformist) socialism, Communism and Anarchism.

The Paris commune (1871) can be used to show that these ideas had become practically mainstream, but the collapse of the 'first international' shows how anarchists and socialist/communists fragmented over the issue of the role of the state.

> by the late 19th century- you really want to discuss GERMANY as THE centre for the socialist movement. At this point 'socialism' and 'anarchism' had split and 'social democracy' covered what would become both evolutionary socialism and revolutionary communism. I'm not exactly sure whether this is within the scope of your 'world history' class, but if it's Eurocentric, you should be able to cover it. Under Bismarck, The German empire banned the 'Social Democrats' as they were then under the "anti-socialist laws". Bismarck then set about trying to quote "kill socialism with kindness" by introducing 'state socialism' in which workers could get pensions etc.

> the anarchists had a brief renaissance in the late 19th century and engaged in terrorism (aka. "propaganda of the deed"). This is how they got the stereotype as destructive, nihilistic terrorists.

> at the In the nineteenth century the term 'socialism' covered all three ideologies in the far and centre left; (Reformist) socialism, Communism and Anarchism.

At the very very very end; you might want to introduce Eduard Bernstein who wrote "The preconditions of socialism" in 1899; he was influenced by the British Fabian movement and brought ideas of 'evolutionary socialism' to a wider audience in Europe. This forshadows the split between reformists and revolutionary socialists in the twentieth century and lets people know where the story goes next.

Best of luck and, most importantly, have fun!:)

I appreciate the help. I think this course being as Eurocentric as it is it'll be important to mention a lot of the politics of europe during the debate. I actually wrote a paper about the National Assembly being the root of the terms "left" and "right", so I found it interesting you mentioned that. So far I'm thinking that I'll have a pretty huge advantage considering I know for a fact that the capitalist side will (misguidedly) attempt to bring up the "atrocities" of the Soviet Union. The Canut Revolts seem like a great example of a workers movement as that's one of the criteria we're going to need to have for the debate (examples of early movements that align with the policy we're debating for).

[Invader Zim]

How did it go?

[Drowzy_Shooter]

It went very well! Won a couple people over and was able to give them some suggestions for further reading.