The Instigator
Coveny
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
TheUnexaminedLife
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Coveny
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,000 times Debate No: 102335
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Coveny

Pro

For this debate "best economical solution" is defined as:


The most effective, and desirable solutions for the use of resources to provide for human beings both short and long term.

I would also like bring your attention to the character size of 2,000 for this debate, and have done that in an attempt to prevent going to deep into what is a very broad topic. I'm looking for a high level view rather than going into technical detail.
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

Going straight into the argument...

I think that what your write is practically impossible. Every economy where capitalism is practiced becomes monopolised by capitalism. Look at China's socialist market economy-- practically it is capitalist. Cuba, Vietnam where we see an extreme form of capitalism where the few have the majority of wealth. It is true that all these regimes have a bourgeois class but because profit is the key prerogative of any commercial enterprise, all socialist principles must over time give way and corrode to this model of profit.

It might be that this hybrid you write of might be the most desirable solution (that I am unsure of and would hope you can persuade me of). To say it is the most effective solution however, simply ignores the demonstrable practical consequences of both socialism and capitalism being enacted in a country.

Debate Round No. 1
Coveny

Pro

Capitalism does not consider the people or the planet. Because of this capitalism will destroy tomorrow for profits today if left unchecked which is not desirable. Socialism provides no incentive to produce, no reward to create. Because of this socialism will not provide enough resources which is ineffective.



To be both effective and desirable for the short and long term we must take a holist look at not just money, goods, and services, but also the planet, health, and happiness of the people. The Capital Institute released a report on regenerative capitalism. From The Guardian “holism wouldn’t approach global economics from a capitalism-or-socialism perspective, but rather from a capitalism-and-socialism perspective.”



https://www.theguardian.com...



The purpose of regenerative capitalism is to promote and sustain human prosperity and well-being in an economy of permanence. So it is designed to be both effective and desirable for both short and long term by utilizing capitalism and socialism. We need a sustainable economy that’s stable, has good production, and happy people.



http://capitalinstitute.org...



We can already see capitalism and socialism in every developed country. In the US we like to think of ourselves as a capitalism, but we have regulations (which could be considered socialist by themselves), and socialist programs like the military, roads/highways, Medicare/Medicaid, and a whole host of other examples.



You mention China but it's an example of a hybrid economical system. Not the best example, but an example none the less.



http://www.pewresearch.org...



We need to start looking into the best combination of the two holisticly.

TheUnexaminedLife

Con

The USA might be said to have some socialist policies governing its economics but it certainly does not have a hybrid socialist-capatilist economic system, hence my reference to China. The USA has market capitalisation and not a market socialism-- which is the social ownership and democractic control of the means of production.

Confino, in the article you gave, raises the social comparison of socialist values and idealism. This was essentially my point. Fusing socialist/capatilist dichtomies together is idealistic and practically impossible. To have an economic system which contains both 'efficiency and resilience, collaboration and competition, and diversity and coherence' is impossible given that human economic values have been shown historically not to be in sharing but in possessing. An efficent, competitive company will outcompete the company which is also socialist. Capatilism aims towards profit, so if is taken-up will reward those who reject socialist principles and find ways of making more money until the other companies go out of business.

I see now that your hybrid of capitalism and socialism is beyond economics, which you did not specify; it is a capatilist economy accompanied by socialist institutes and values. It is when the government provides 'public services' (though the defence budget I would hardly call a public service since it takes enterprise beyond the welfare and self-defence of US citizens, often with a commerical incentive such to promote the Arms Trade). Medicare still functions under capatilism; it is taxpayer money paying private companies to satisfy a demand in the elderly or certain disabled persons. The same goes for roads. This is not ecnomically socialist; it is only politically socialist in that it offers equity to certain groups accessing social services.

Capatilism is like an ecnomic infection; it takes over what it gets into. Now we sare seeing it become globalised:
http://www.nytimes.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Coveny

Pro


Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.



Captialism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.



I refute the claim they are mutually exclusive. Ownership, and trade can be controlled by both private and state depending on the sector. (like national parks versus water parks) Also it could be private ownership with state regulations. In either case, it’s a possible situation of socialism AND capitalism,



The socialism addresses not sharing, while the capitalist portion addresses efficiency. When you take a holistic approach, efficiency becomes more than just profits. So, it’s no longer efficiency to strip mine the world in unsafe working environments just for profits. The only difficult part, and the reason we need to look past pure capitalism is the regulations we apply ff we want to survive long term. We must utilize our resources efficiently (capitalism) and desirably (socialism).



I refute that claim we do not have socialism in the US. Owned and controlled by the goverment: roads, military, USPS, etc. These are examples of socialism in the US. Others mentioned are hybrid, controlled by the government but privately owned.



(Your link is broken)



All I’m saying that we need to accept it for what it is: A hybrid of capitalism and socialism. If we don’t, and we are not asking the right questions to fix our problems, then in my opinion we are doomed to fail. We can already see a hybrid approach in every major economic country in the world, to varying degrees. We can also see the problems with corruption that capitalism brings, socialism can address these if we have intelligent government regulations. I mean look at Iceland.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


TheUnexaminedLife

Con

'We can already see a hybrid approach in every major economic country in the world, to varying degrees.'
So, what we need is a hybrid approach to ensure that global economies are no longer 'doomed to fail'. Contradictory? The question you need to answer is to what degree.

I still don't see them as practically compatible given the data on global economy. Take my home, the UK-- a nationalised rail service, the NHS (free medical care) and of course the military (because the state always needs to have a monopoly on the permissible use of physical force). But, capitalism outcompetes socialist institutes every time... businessmen have more expertise than the government in their enterprises, they always make more money and thereby outcompete the frequently insolvent government. The result is that the government sells off national services to private powers--in the UK, British Gas, the buses, and now maybe the NHS and prison system.

My point was that the US government gets taxes, and uses these taxes to pay private companies to manufacture weapons or build its roads and so forth. It may be publicly-funded, but is fulfilled in practice by capitalism. The US doesn't have government-employed road makers. Only service industries (teachers, social workers, police...) could be said to be socialist and this requires our taxes. I exempt doctors and nurses for the USA. I would argue social services however exempt from economics in the sense we are using it; it is an economic outlet and not a source of profit and industry.

What is true of Iceland, is not true of the world: a small population that largely imports its goods. Each nation has to adopt the economic model which suits it best (in Vietnam, Communism was a better option in the 70s for it than Capitalism, given the village cotton industries of its people). There is not one universal economic model which is effective everywhere; the economy has to be catered to the country, its resources, trade links, wealth and industries.
Debate Round No. 3
Coveny

Pro

The argument is that a hybrid approach is best in general, not arguing for one of many specific detailed approaches. In R1 I stated this debate would be high-level rather than detailed. So, in this debate I am not require to go into specifics or degrees of socialism/capitalism which are the “best” option, only that the best end product be a hybrid approach.

Outcompete issues
Let’s take welfare for instance, from a socialist view it’s fine, from a capitalist view it’s a money pit. But what if you hybridize and build an apartment complex where half of the residents pay rent for a “nicer” apartment, and cover the costs for the ones who eat and live there for free?

For the US not to be considered a hybrid you would have to prove all services are not socialist. If the property is owned by the state and controlled by the state it falls under the preview of socialism by the vast majority of the definitions. It doesn’t matter if capitalist companies were used to create it or not.


AGREED! There is not one universal economic model that is effective everywhere, that is why we need to break free of capitalism OR socialism and start discussing the merits of combining them, how to combine them, and in what categories.

In conclusion, I have shown that hybrids are in use already. I have shown that neither capitalism or socialism is effective and desirable in the short and long term. If an economic solution is to work long term it must encompass more than just profits, and more than just resource management. There should be a balance between sharing the resource and giving the people and incentive to work. My suggestion is to take the best parts of both to cobble together the best solution. If we want a sustainable future we must get past the either/or mentality, and economics is required to encompass more.

TheUnexaminedLife

Con

I understand the brief as you put it in R1, but to argue that the USA is a hybrid system which is failing and then say 'what we need is a hybrid system' is clearly not a satisfactory argument. Specifics were required to clarify how exactly a hybrid system would be a better solution, given that you already think it's failing.

Your apartment example encourages poverty: why work or do anything if your housing and sustenance will be provided for free? Is this fair? Government councils can provide housing to some citizens, but it is never 'free' and requires some capitalist output (utility) from each worker.

'For the US not to be considered a hybrid you would have to prove all services are not socialist.'
I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a hybrid, it has been since the government became interventionist, just that it only uses socialist policies under capitalism. So this point is a straw man. The US government in providing Social Services and Medicare and other like services uses our taxes to pay companies for them. They do not own the means of production; in many enterprises you have mentioned like the military they invest in companies, they do not produce. Making missiles for the USA, companies like Lockheed Martin profit. Medicare is an insurance investment; it gives finances to certain people so that they are able to access private health care companies. In these cases, no market socialism exists. It is political socialism in that it provides services yet economically capitalist. Refer to your definition of socialism in R3; these cases violate it.

There are some exceptions however. The government owns several companies. This is why I pointed towards China initially. Their state has owned the means of production and yet operate de facto in what is called 'state capitalism'. We have to ask why. Is it that global capitalism forces each power to operate under capitalism in order to compete and have a strong economy?
http://www.economist.com...


Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
CovenyTheUnexaminedLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more sources and better argumentation in terms of practicality. The debate was very interesting and I would like to see a more in-depth approach with perhaps the same opponents. Con's argumentations were more broad and based in logical reasoning, but Pro's arguments were more convincing such as the apartment example. That example provided a picture that could be understood and weighed in terms of Pro's argument. Con's rebuttal of this example is one of speculation, despite that I agree with his conclusion.