(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment, or just click "edit". Sign your comment by writing "~~~~" at the end. Join us on Facebook for broader community discussion.
I named this "incorrect" because I couldn't think of a better summary
The arguments FOR communism seem more informed about the basic ideas of communism than the arguments against. While the Aff arguments talk about Collectively owning the means of production, the Neg arguments constantly refer to the "Communist state" and "governments". In reality, a "communist state" is an oxymoron, as communism means No government, no classes, no state. The Neg arguments continually argue that any attempt at communism will eventually devolve into a USSR, North Korea, or PRC type of government. The Aff argues for the theoretical basis of communism while the Neg continually argues for the pragmatic side effects of a communist revolution. This isn't very productive because it fails to address the real question at hand. For example, in the question "can communism help the less wealthy?" the Aff says yes it can, that's the point of communism, while the Neg says that governments who restrict the rights of the individual are only hurting people. As previously stated, communism does not entail restriction of rights, or even a government. Communism is mostly a sociological theory of societal evolution, claiming that the "endgame" of human evolution is a stateless, classless society. The neg mostly operates under the idea "If they call themselves communist, them must be communist", to which I ask: Is North Korea democratic because they call themselves the democratic people's republic of Korea?
The writer of this article needs to examine both sides of each question more carefully, as the Aff examines the theoretical basis for communism while the Neg talks about this mythical "communist state".