CreateDebate


Debate Info

39
68
YES NO
Debate Score:107
Arguments:81
Total Votes:126
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (30)
 
 NO (51)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11172) pic



Is the Democratic Party really the Communist Party of USA?

Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, to love and cherish her? In sickness and in health? For better or for worse? Until death do you part?

DemsCommie

I DO!!!!!

YES

Side Score: 39
VS.

NO

Side Score: 68
3 points

I still don't see what's wrong with communism.

Side: yes
lburner(1) Disputed
0 points

Nothing is wrong with communism... in theory. In a real world application, however, things start to get ugly. Just take the USSR for example, everything SOUNDED great but then it turns out that someone has to have all the riches. Stalin turned out to be that someone. As of now, there is no way as of now to perfectly support the ideas of Marx and the others, but if someone got it right, there probably wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

Side: yes
-1 points

Problems with Communism

Failure in Practice

Communism's main failure in practice comes from the failure of a centralized economy to function. Though socialists often attribute it to problems elsewhere, the simple reason behind this occurrence is the mathematics and physical impossibility of managing an economy from a centralized form. One of communism's main ideals is complete control over industries.

Failure in Theory MOST IMPORTANT

As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job. In an attempt to make more money, people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply. Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero.

Middle Class

A third order was coming to power and it would prove to be the larger and more powerful than either the proletariat or the capitalist aristocracy. This third middle grounds was completely misjudged by Marx and incorrectly lumped in with the bourgeois rich. Marx's entire theory was based on class struggle and a difference in these classes forcing a revolution to be followed by an "equality" of all classes.

The petit-bourgeois, Marx's term for the middle class, was only to further divide the upper and working classes by an irreconcilable rift. In reality, the opposite happened and the middle class actually bridged any "rift," that is to say if there was one in the first place!

Free will cannot be suppressed

Communism attempts the impossible: to control human individualism by making a society of inherently individual people uniform. Thought is free and independent and, no matter how hard anyone tries, can never be fully controlled.

Massacres

See Stalin and Mao Zedong.

Anyone who disagreed with the Communist Party for freedom and liberty were killed.

Failing Still today

In capitalist world, socialism will fail. EX. Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam.

Side: No
1 point

Fine, sure. True communism, much like true democracy, would never work. You caught me.

Side: No
aveskde(1936) Disputed
1 point

Failure in Practice

Just like the Industrial Revolution and modern Free Markets.

Failure in Theory MOST IMPORTANT

Interesting parallel with free markets too.

As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding.

Communism ultimately moves to eliminate wage labour and private property. In effect, you are provided for. Guess you didn't know that.

Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle.

Not everyone is defined by their job. When you are a great singer, you work hard to become better against other singers. Besides, communism may eliminate wage labour.

Communism attempts the impossible: to control human individualism by making a society of inherently individual people uniform. Thought is free and independent and, no matter how hard anyone tries, can never be fully controlled.

I would argue that if you're provided for, and removed from the need to toil for survival your individuality may blossom since you have time to find yourself.

See Stalin and Mao Zedong.

Don't forget all the kids killed and maimed working in factories in the capitalist golden era.

Also, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

In capitalist world, socialism will fail. EX. Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam.

Socialism isn't communism. Besides, what about all the failed capitalist states in South America and Africa?

Side: yes

Some cowardly idiot down voted me without a dispute. Typical Liberal.

Side: No
1 point

Of course! Stalin is still alive (with Elvis) and is hiding somewhere near

Nashville. He will be attending the next Democratic convention. What idiots right-wing nuts are asking these questions? Do they really believe President

Obama is a Kenyan, socialist-communist about to subvert the glorious USA?

By the way, if you like economic success, you should be a Democrat or

a communist-- look at China who soon will be the world's

number 1 economy

Side: yes
0 points

China will be the number one economy, but China is progressively moving from a agrarian to industrial economy, so the 500 million workforce is a major contributor, and China will continue to be a third world country with its low GDP per capita.

Side: No
busie(2) Disputed
1 point

China has gained the world economic top spot by the rapid growth,

probably unprecedented in history, of manufactured goods exports.

Once it shifts its emphasis from exports to its vast internal markets, it

will become even more powerful. As it is now, I believe its world

power is getting close to the States'. All this has been achieved by

a political structure that could be considered 'oxymoronic': State

Capitalism, with protected economic barriers, led by a very

authoritarian Communist Party.(No, Victoria, capitalism and the

creation of a wealthy class doesn't necessarily lead to democracy).

China is the world's banker. It has amassed enormous amounts of

foreign reserves and ,economically, it holds the States by the throat.

That country subsidizes our fiscal and commercial deficits, and we

are almost powerless against its undervalued currency or its

economic, and therefore political expansion.

And so I believe GDP per capita tells little of the story, and the term

'third world country' is misleading.

Side: yes
1 point

a communist party headed by wall street bankers? neil kashkari, tiny tim geitner, ben bernanke, larry sommers, rahm emanuel. go figure. since when do communist parties have 35% maximum income tax? danmark has a maximum of 60%, and they are largely regarded as a CAPITALIST country.

Side: yes

The Communist and the Democrats are virtually impossible to distinguish:

Minimum wage

No privatization of Social Security with increase benefits.

National health care system.

Welfare

Free Public education without voucher system.

Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations.

Strong regulation of financial industry despite its failure in 2008

Prosecute corporate polluters

Public works program to clean our air, water and land despite private sector capability

Aid to cities and states

Side: yes
aveskde(1936) Disputed
4 points

The Communist and the Democrats are virtually impossible to distinguish:

Just when I thought you couldn't sink lower in forced connections and tenuous arguments.

What's next? Christianity is really communism in disguise? Please.

Side: No
1 point

Just when I thought you couldn't sink lower in forced connections and tenuous arguments.

What? There is irrefutable evidence.

What's next? Christianity is really communism in disguise? Please.

You know this as much as I do that there is no religion in a communist society.

"Religion is the opium of the masses. ---Karl Marx

It may be hard to believe, but I have read the Communist Manifesto.

Side: yes
busie(2) Disputed
1 point

This person should stop debating and keep on praying; and

stick to the idiot tea-partiers (the anti-masturbation league).

Side: No
0 points

What is so bad about the Tea Party? They want a responsible government.

Side: yes
-1 points

i don't think that communist would be the right word to describe the democratic party but out of the main parties in the USA wouldn't the democratic one be the closest for isn't their main idea to give our money back to the government?

Side: yes
busie(2) Disputed
1 point

The Government is Us, we voted for it democratically, and usually, if we voted conscientiously and in an informed way, we deserve it.

Side: No
4 points

And now have I lost all respect for you.

Side: No
2 points

Politics aren't all black and white. There's a spectrum, and as with any specturm, there are extremes. Have the Democrats gone that far left? No.

Side: No
2 points

Communism is chiefly concerned with the elimination of class, private property and the community ownership of production.

The Democratic Party is chiefly concerned with social progressiveness, government intervention to fight social inequality, and progressive taxes.

This is at odds with business interests (who prefer a flat tax - better for their profits), the wealthy (who can afford a flat tax more than the poor), the religious right (social inequality has become their platform for dividing voters and keeping a support base), and small government conservatives (who probably just hate regulations most of the time because of how suffocating they have become especially with regards to tax codes).

Libertarians hate communism because it abolishes the thing that they seek most - the ability elevate themselves above their peers using wealth.

Libertarians hate socialism because it keeps them from paying their workers slave wages, forces them to jump through hoops to fire someone, prevents them from dumping waste cheaply, and disallows them from cutting corners.

Libertarians hate Democrats because they hate the health care reform bill, because they think that Insurance ought to be as profitable to the Insurance companies as possible, and they hate the idea that they might one day be forced into health care equality, I.E. where a man off the street receives the same urgency and quality of care as a middle-class man.

Side: No
2 points

As a Social Democrat living in Europe (16 and born in the States),

I completely agree. I believe health care for all should be available,

and no one should die or go bankrupt because they or their family are

seriously ill. I believe that the financial industry should be regulated so

we avoid the social miseries caused by depressions and recessions. I believe

in achieving social fairness and justice through opportunities for all

in education ( at all levels). Business interests are contributing to

the destruction of the environment and should also be strongly regulated.

A fair tax code as well as strong and democratic unions should be able to act as a countervailing power to wealth and corporate interests, in order to protect workers ( I include the middle class).

Contrary to what somebody said elsewhere, I believe that libertarians

are right wingers who defend corporate interests under the mask of liberty.

They believe in the survival of the strongest in the jungle of unrestrained, 'everything goes' markets.

Side: No
2 points

I believe that libertarians

are right wingers who defend corporate interests under the mask of liberty.

They believe in the survival of the strongest in the jungle of unrestrained, 'everything goes' markets.

Well keeping being that beccause you are wrong, libertarians beleive in personal liberty.

Side: No
2 points

Contrary to what somebody said elsewhere, I believe that libertarians

are right wingers who defend corporate interests under the mask of liberty.

They believe in the survival of the strongest in the jungle of unrestrained, 'everything goes' markets.

I endorse this message.

Side: No
1 point

While Democrats seem to prefer Socialism over Capitalism, they don't strike me as the Communist Party. That would be more like the Green Party (although even they are not extreme enough).

Side: No
4 points

That would be more like the Green Party (although even they are not extreme enough).

Or - y'know - the actual Communist Party of America (>_>). The Green Party is the Green Party, they have their own platform working for them - and they ain't Communist.

Side: No
1 point

Communists have more extreme ideals. Democrats want equality but not no government an happiness.

Side: No
1 point

I'm a member of the Socialist Party USA.... They aren't ^&@ing close at all! Number of reasons...

1.) Duverger's law pretty much prevents a far-right/left party from gaining power in a 'winner take all' type of electoral system. Like the United States, unlike the EU (thus why many parties are available). While there are some exceptions to the law, the USA isn't one of them.

Think of it like this (highly simplified)... If you have one fascist party that will get 70,000 votes (for a single seat), and two more parties that want freedom and hate fascism; that will both get 50,000 votes (for a single seat), they will be beaten unless they set aside their differences for a common desire. That is why all the large progressive parties and traditionalist parties set aside their differences to become part of a party that as a similar goal. It gives their politicians a chance of winning and inputing their policies, while making one party larger, while all the time it is seemed to be the same mindset. (Thus why some socialists go to the Democrats, larger chance of victory; even if you have to restrain a little.)

2.) Huge economic differences, The democratic party is more of a subscriber of the nordic model than of marxism-leninism. I'll let you guys read those on your own, as I think #1 is the big one.

3.) Least convincing argument I've ever is this.

Their names are spelled different, therefore they are different!!!1!* (PLEASE DON"T TAKE THAT seriously).

Side: No

I would say they are more socialist than communist. *

Side: No
1 point

no because Democrats and Republicans are to centralized. and they are for a reason. if one side radicalized people will tend to then shift gear to the other "centralized" side. thats why the Republicans or Democrats rarely take solid stone positions on subjects like abortion or gun control. that is left to the people in the party, not the party. in each party you then have people who are more radicalized in something (conservatives and liberals).

Side: NO
1 point

To even suggest that America has a political party which is so much as left wing is ridiculous. You have to look on it in a historical sense, not the immediate sense, because this sense is always distorted and perverted by the current circumstance.

We take America with its two major political parties, Reps and Dems. Both wholly concerned with corporate interests.

So, now look at the parties in their immediate, non-historical position in the political spectrum. Yeah, the Dems may be more toward the left, than the Reps. But they are still incredibly right wing, in a historical sense. Communism can only be observed in a historical position. Because it has never existed. In theory it is to the extreme left, the Dems and Reps are both to the extreme right, again, in a historical outlook. So to even link those two together is ridiculously absurd.

Maybe this will help in terms of Immediate and historical human ideology.

Historical

LEFT--------------------------------------------------------CENTER----------------------------------------------------------RIGHT

Communism------Socialism-------Liberalism-------Centralism-------Conservatism-------Capitalism--------Fascism

Immediate sense (Existing in the current U.S empire)

LEFT-------------------CENTER-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Dems--Reps-- RIGHT

Communism------Socialism-------Liberalism-------Centralism-------Conservatism-------Capitalism-------Fascism

Side: No

It's a shibboleth that the Democratic Party is the Communist Party of the United States.

Side: NO