Communism vs. Democracy

dagmaraka wrote:

the 'truth' doesn't really matter, what matters is to crush the opponent in a debate.

Dag, I guess you're asking for an advisory post in the incoming Kerry-Bush debates. Wink

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Even if the debate were Communism vs. Capitalism neither side would be able to "prove" superiority.

yes they would, there's historical precedent for both.

Historical precedent does not prove superiority.

That is easily the most fallacious argument I have read today.

Quote:

I think you are afraid of the word prove.

I think you didn't think very well. <shrugs>

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

the 'truth' doesn't really matter, what matters is to crush the opponent in a debate.

http://www.tnamotorsports.com/4d9d9d90.jpg

+

http://www.qualitest-inc.com/images/sock.gif

Nuf ced.

0 Replies

Your avatar is starting to control you, joefromchicago!

0 Replies

I have been following this thread with great interest. Whoever said that the assignment was a poor one, has the right idea. Quite frankly, I would discuss this with my teacher. (in a tactful way, of course). You have some good input here, and I would approach your teacher by asking some of these questions. Perhaps the teacher can learn a thing or two. I know that I learned a great deal from my students, because I was not afraid to be questioned.

0 Replies

Interesting discussion
Of course, Communism vs Democracy cannot be debated. It seems that either the teacher is ignorant of the subject matter or purposly framed the incorrect debate. It would be interesting to read how the debate went. Hopefully, Kevin will report back.

0 Replies

Try something different
It would be far easy to look for the similarities between the Russian government and the American government.

1) Demonstrate the hierarchy in each
2) Give examples of the overburdening system of laws in each
3) Graph out the percentage of wealthy versus poor.
4) Detail modern problems resulting from decades of mismanagement of business, the environment, and the Cold War.

I guarantee you, you will be amazed at how similar our governments are, despite the differences.

The hint here should be obvious, even though most Americans ignore it.

Russia and America both have hierarchies involving the powers and resources of their economies, and the corporate powers that exist run the government no matter which side of the Atlantic you are on.

This goes beyond politics, as is necessary, because politics do not exist in a vacuum. They have resources and special interests backing them up.

Don't believe me. Do the research. You will find the comparison you are trying to make is more of slightly divergent views on the same system, much like our two political parties in this country.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

0 Replies

For a communist state that was actually a communist state, research the Inca in South America.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Even if the debate were Communism vs. Capitalism neither side would be able to "prove" superiority.

yes they would, there's historical precedent for both.

Historical precedent does not prove superiority.

That is easily the most fallacious argument I have read today.

Quote:
I think you are afraid of the word prove.

I think you didn't think very well. <shrugs>

In a debate it can. And I'm serious, this is an issue you repeatedly bring up - that no one can ever prove anything - and I disagree with you.

0 Replies

Certainty is impossible Portal, you'd have to employ the fallacy of equivocation to say that things can be "proven" by using a more inclusive meaning of the word.

If you'd like to "proove" that things can be proven it will be entertaining. I welcome such an attempt, you'll inevitably have to rely on an unproven axiom.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Certainty is impossible Portal, you'd have to employ the fallacy of equivocation to say that things can be "proven" by using a more inclusive meaning of the word.

If you'd like to "proove" that things can be proven it will be entertaining. I welcome such an attempt, you'll inevitably have to rely on an unproven axiom.

If you'll notice I corrected my spelling of prove. But you have a good memory.

To provide someone with enough evidence and a good enough argument that, overwhelmingly, one thing is viewed as correct and the other incorrect.

For example, if someone posed the question, "Which economic system - American Capitalism or the Socialist Soviet Union - was best for the welfare of its citizens"
I could prove that American Capitalism was best for the welfare of its citizens. I would cite the evidence of the standard of living, among other things.

0 Replies

USSR started with an atrocious standard of living and moved up to a bad standard of living. Not to defend their managed economy, which was an abysmal failure, but the Tsars didn't exactly pass on a thriving nation.

0 Replies

I once tried to explaim to my brothers that nothing can truly be proven, and they just said "yeah, prove it." Of course, we were little, so I don't blame them.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

If you'll notice I corrected my spelling of prove. But you have a good memory.

I wasn't picking on your spelling. I was exhibiting my own poor typing skills (hunt and pecker).

Quote:

To provide someone with enough evidence and a good enough argument that, overwhelmingly, one thing is viewed as correct and the other incorrect.

Convincing != proving

Quote:

For example, if someone posed the question, "Which economic system - American Capitalism or the Socialist Soviet Union - was best for the welfare of its citizens"
I could prove that American Capitalism was best for the welfare of its citizens. I would cite the evidence of the standard of living, among other things.

But you could not prove that the ideology was the cause and you could not prove that excluding circumstantial factors is justified.

As fbaezer notes some argue that the initial wealth is the cause, that the fact that WW2 decimated the wold world was the acuse etc etc.

One could argue that Communism would work if it weren't for capitalism corrupting ait and waging war on it.

I don't believe any of those arguments but I recognize that they can't be disproven.

Winning a debate is not the same as proving something. Being more convincing isn't the same as proving something.

Proof is only possible if you accept unproven axioms.

Try it. You can't prove even obvious thinks like that you are human without relying on an axioms that can't be proven.

It's just a matter of how lateral you want to go.

0 Replies

I think that having a certain accumulation of evidence on one side that clearly outweighs the other is proven. The standard of living was better, people wanted to come to America and flee the Soviet Union (but it wasn't allowed for them to do so), and doctors got paid the same as janitors so there was no incentive for higher learning. It didn't provide any avenue for invention or entrepeneurship, and thus had to be dependent on America for importation of new technologies. The concept of socialism is also ignorant of basic biological conepts about human/animal nature.
I think that is enough evidence, if the only evidence for communism being better is that they would have been better if it weren't for being surrounded by capitalists. The capitalists didn't fight them directly, only prevented them from expanding past a certain point (containment.) The socialists may have started poor but America was coming out of depression when the cold war began. They didn't start in the same place, but America wasn't at it's full glory. Also, the soviet system went up a little bit, then back down. Without new conquests to fuel their economy, and with their laborers unwilling to work unless at gunpoint, the soviet union collapsed.

I consider that information to prove that the people were doing better under capitalism then they were under socialism. I could be disproven if my evidence/information was incorrect, but given the above information, wouldn't my statement be proven?

what axioms that can't be proven?

What about science, testing, and creation?
You say a car can go if you do ____, and then when you do ____ that car can go. I would say that you proved your theory.

0 Replies

Unsurprisingly hafta agree with Portal here. (Unsurprisingly because Craven and I had a related flap recently). Not necessarily on the example in question, mind you, but on the usage of "proving".

Natural laws are considered proven, say, because they can be reproduced endlessly in a neutral environment. When you talk of social or political affairs (or sciences), however, you dont have the advantage of such possibilities. Now one way to react to that is to submit that, thus, nothing on the matter can be considered proven or even provable. But I think this is actually quite an unusual approach.

I mean, isn't that what the notion of "paradigm" is about? A paradigm is the whole of assumptions that are currently considered "true", based on our current insights of everything that's happened, thought and written in the past. The fact that paradigms, themselves, change over time may underline Cravens point that nothing here is irrefutably provable, it's true. But that doesn't, nevertheless, stop the notion of paradigm from representing an agreement among the scientists in a specific field to consider the complex of assumptions covered by it proven ("true") on the basis of what we do know.

Portal had a point by simply quoting the dictionary on this: "prove" = "1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence."

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

people wanted to come to America and flee the Soviet Union (but it wasn't allowed for them to do so)

Unlike Cuba, and perhaps the DDR, most Soviet citizens ate enough propaganda to discard the possibility of migrating.

Portal Star wrote:

doctors got paid the same as janitors so there was no incentive for higher learning.

False.
This applied in China during the Cultural Revolution.
The average Soviet student knew a lot more science, a lot more literature and a lot more history than his US counterpart.
If something was appaling in the Soviet Union was the difference between the high level of education and the low standard of living.

Portal Star wrote:

It didn't provide any avenue for invention or entrepeneurship, and thus had to be dependent on America for importation of new technologies.

Amazing.
Leads me to suppose that the Soviets didn't put the first man in space, or put him with American technology.

Portal Star wrote:

The capitalists didn't fight them directly, only prevented them from expanding past a certain point (containment.)

How many American nuclear heads were pointed towards the USSR?
How many Soviet nuclear heads were pointed towards the US?

Portal Star wrote:

Without new conquests to fuel their economy, and with their laborers unwilling to work unless at gunpoint, the soviet union collapsed.

So perestroika and glasnost had nothing to do with it.
And for every worker, there was an armed commissar.
Good lord.

-------

Honestly, it seems to me that, even after all these years, you haven't been able to digest all the cold war propaganda you consumed.

Finally, this is about a debate class, not about what system was actually better. And, as Dagmaraka said, what counts is to win the debate. At 11th grade level, I insist, the Communist allegations can win.

0 Replies

Just read nimh's post.

Well, of course history has proven the defeat of Communism.

But not with Portal Star's "facts".

0 Replies

Ehm, fbaezer ... ->

nimh wrote:

Unsurprisingly hafta agree with Portal here. [..] Not necessarily on the example in question, mind you, but on the usage of "proving".

No doubt, I agree with pretty much all your criticisms of Portals "facts" in the example in question - I just allowed myself to digress to the more abstract bone of contention in that interaction there, about the nature of "proving" in human sciences.

0 Replies

Sure nimh. We agree.

0 Replies

Communism vs. Democracy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know