The Instigator
iliketodebatestuff
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Can socialism work?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 53881
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

iliketodebatestuff

Pro

People point to examples like Nazi Germany and the USSR and use those as examples as to why Socialism can't work but they're wrong about those two examples. Nazi Germany and the USSR were Fascist nations. There is pretty consistent agreement on that in the history books. There are countries now that have a pretty strong Socialist government, for example those in the Scandinavian regions in the world and they seem to hold the case that Socialism can work. Even though those countries are doing it well they tend to be ignored by the media and in turn by the public because they're too lazy or whatever to do their own research about things.
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept. BOP is on you because you are the claimant, and you can state your contentions.
Debate Round No. 1
iliketodebatestuff

Pro

So you say it's up to me to prove it can when you can't give a suitable 1st counter argument as to why it can't. See the points i made in the comment section of this debate for my proof that it can.
CJKAllstar

Con

Premise: Socialism

For socialism to be socialism at heart people should have to earn at least the living wage, If we take the U.K for example, there are 63.7 milion people living there[1]. The living wage is £7.65[2]. This is £487,305,000 needed every hour to pay people. With 252 working days, eight hours a day, that figure rises to £982,406,880,000. In 2013, the government spent approximately £675,000,000,000 in total[3]. But this is not all. Socialism requires more than just a solid safety net, but a solid safety bed and a solid public sector. The government has the responsibility to pay for education, healthcare and the safety of the people. For the sake of equality, autonomy is infringed. The whole country is red-taped and regulations against large corporations are huge. In order to afford this enormous sum, redistribution is based on taking from the rich, giving to the poor. Money is something that needs to be in government hands for equality thus tax is high.


You argued that Scandanavian countries are socialist. This is not the case. Free healthcare, education and high tax does not equal socialist.

"Although sensitive to global business cycles, the economy of Norway has shown robust growth since the start of the industrial era. Shipping has long been a support of Norway's export sector, but much of Norway's economic growth has been fueled by an abundance of natural resources, including petroleum exploration and production, hydroelectric power, and fisheries. Agriculture and traditional heavy manufacturing have suffered relative decline compared to services and oil-related industries, and the public sector is among the largest in the world as a percentage of the overall gross domestic product. The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system."[4]

With a lot of money, and a not very large popuation, a strong welfare system is easy. A powerful safety bed is easy to afford and manage and the same applies for Sweden and Finland, but both are also very capitalist and trade within and without is important for the countries. They are not socialist. For them to be socialist countries, capitalist traits should not exist, or should exist with intent of it being for the benefit of providing for everyone and not yourself. Competiton cannot be a main issue and businesses have the main intention of providing, which is why many insitutions become state owned, to avoid this and be able to make it fair for everyone.


This has been my premise, and there are actually a series of problems with this model.

C1: There Is No Incentive to Work

With socialism, one does not have to get work to be paid. In the end, a guaranteed minimum income or welfare will bring enough money to support a life. As nobody is living in luxury and the need to is reduced, and because education and healthcare is free, there is simply no incentive to work. Those who do not have the skills can just not work and still live, whether with relatives or by themselves. People aren't incentivised to work and implimenting a system in which they have to work will lead to unemployment for those who cannot and defeats the point of socialism. Implimenting a system in which they have to be looking for working does not change the fact that they can go through any legal ground trying to work, whilst living off the government's money. To combat for less money being generated by this, there would need to be more tax revenue and higher costs.


C2: Stagnant Innovation

The need for innovations stems from the need to sell and make money. The need for new technology comes from the need to fulfill the want of the market to maximise profits. Socialism as explained above does not have the primary purpose of maximising profits, thus in turn people do not need to innovate but rather have substantial profits. Socialism will in turn reduce the need for innovation and technlogy drastically. This is not good. Technology is a large market and that is said uncontested. For socialism to be successful, money needs to be generated by the people and technology to designs and innovation are key drivers of the economy. The amount of money will be dratically reduced as a result of this which cannot afford to pay the sheer amount of money.

C3: It Infringed Upon Supply and Demand


This is the supply and demand curve, crossing over in harmony. With demand, the higher the price the lower the demand and vice-versa. With supply, the higher the price there is more supply because selling is more profitable. The market regulates itself. When there is a high price, there is not much demand so supply is increased to maximise profits from each one they sell. The market regulates itself. High price means less demand but more supply. More supply means that there is more of an incentive to sell so as they do prices lower due to competiton, and as prices lower there is less supply. Less supply means that they have to increase their prices. This cycle continues until they reach a point where their prive generates demand equal to the supply. At this crossover, we have an equilibrium. Money is made here and things are in harmony. Profits are maximised and people are happy.


Socialism however, wants to make everyone equally happy, which depending on the market means higher price or lower price. If prices must be lowered or are made lower for certain markets, as will happen to moderately luxurious goods, then there will be less of a supply. If supply is low and demand is high, then price will be higher to compensate this. But it cannot be so, because it is socialism, so businesses will be making less. If prices are increased, then supply increases but demand goes down. For demand to go up, prices will have to be lowered to compensate this, and once again, business will make less money.

Summary

In genral, socialism cannot generate enough money to afford the huge costs it has. I urge the floor to side with me as I have proved this in detail.


Sources:





[1] http://www.ons.gov.uk...
[2] http://www.livingwage.org.uk...
[3] http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk...
[4] http://www.globaltenders.com...

Debate Round No. 2
iliketodebatestuff

Pro

lol So you use a talking point made up with half truths from some governmental bureau from god knows where... Lets see, how shall I tear it apart. You say that a living wage is required which is true but totally discount the amount of taxes that would be brought in by the amount of spending that people would do with that added income, not having to worry about healthcare, education and the like. You then say that income equality takes away from autonomy when in reality it would make it greater. Everyone would have fair say it what goes on because everyone would have the same amount of money so that argument is out the door. Scandinavian countries may not be 100% purely socialist but they sure have more socialist programs than capitalist ones. About your motivation to work.. Ya that's totally bs. Sure people may choose to sit around and do nothing but I can tel you from experience that would likely not happen. Everyone wants to be doing something though with capitalism they don't exactly have the chance to step out on their own with the amount of risk that brings with it. With that being said with the amount of people being able to do what they wanted to do in terms of work would more than likely bring innovation to pretty much everything. There doesn't need to be a Supply and Demand curve. If anything Wall Street is an abomination on the entire human race so whatever they say should just be relatively ignored. Hell they're the ones that got the economy so bad not only once but twice with what I would call illegal practices. Socialism doesn't need a lot of money to be able to work. It can manage with what it has making sure that people are treated fairly.
CJKAllstar

Con

"lol So you use a talking point made up with half truths from some governmental bureau from god knows where...
Lets see, how shall I tear it apart."

Sources are required or this point is irrelevant.

"You say that a living wage is required which is true but totally discount the amount of taxes that would be brought in by the amount of spending that people would do with that added income, not having to worry about healthcare, education and the like."

This implies that everyone living on at least the living wage is greatly more than what the majority of people live on. There are no sources and this cannot be syllogistically proven, thus it is also irrelevant.

"You then say that income equality takes away from autonomy when in reality it would make it greater. Everyone would have fair say it what goes on because everyone would have the same amount of money so that argument is out the door."

I never stated income equality takes away from autonomy. Socialism does infringe on autonomy anyway, this is obvious and can be syllogistically proven. Socialism is based around and equality and diminishing inequality. Inequality can only be diminished successfully via redistribution of some sort. Redistribution in a socialist country is mandatory, either with high tax or regulation within business. If it is mandatory, it infringes on the autonomy for people to do otherwise. Therefore, socialism infringes on autonomy. It is fairly obvious.

"Scandinavian countries may not be 100% purely socialist but they sure have more socialist programs than capitalist ones."

Without sources, this cannot stand. I have shown that Norway for example relies heavily on trade and sourced it. You had to either refute this or concede this fact and take on the BOP to prove that there are more socialist. You have failed this BOP.

"About your motivation to work.. Ya that's totally bs. Sure people may choose to sit around and do nothing but I can tel you from experience that would likely not happen."

Experience is not enough. Sources or a logical conclusion must be made or this once again, cannot stand. Syllogistically; work requires skills. Skills require learning and learning requires time, money and effort. The incentive for work is money. Money is needed for goods of all sorts. If most goods of all sorts are government owned and the money of somebody else will also help you, then there is less of a use for money. Where there is less use for money, there is less of an incentive to work. If you remove this incentive, then the aforementioned negatives of work are strengthened. If these negatives are strengthened, then the desire for skills are less. If the desire for skills are less, then people work less.

"Everyone wants to be doing something though with capitalism they don't exactly have the chance to step out on their own with the amount of risk that brings with it. With that being said with the amount of people being able to do what they wanted to do in terms of work would more than likely bring innovation to pretty much everything."

Once again, a lack of sources means your premise is incorrect, thus is your syllogism here. Business is about maximising profits for oneself over others, greed. Maximising profits is about getting more people to buy your product. This means the better the product, the more you maximise profits. Innovative products are newer, more luxurious and more appealing, because they are innovative. This means financially, they are "better". Following this logic, innovative products drive profits. If you remove reason for business from greed, then everything else does not follow, including the need for innovation. Socialism changes the reason for business, thus everything does not follow.


"There doesn't need to be a Supply and Demand curve. If anything Wall Street is an abomination on the entire human race so whatever they say should just be relatively ignored. Hell they're the ones that got the economy so bad not only once but twice with what I would call illegal practices."

I repeat, without sources, this is completely invalid. Supply and demand are basic economic principles. You cannot have a successful economy with a high supply and low demand logically. The equilibrium is needed so that there is not excess supply or excess demand, because this logically once again, causes issues. I do not even need to do this. You have not met your BOP on this and it is automatically negated.

"Socialism doesn't need a lot of money to be able to work. It can manage with what it has making sure that people are treated fairly."

You have not proved this at all. I urge the floor to side with the side that is sourced, logically sound and factually correct.


Sources:

As before.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Chimera 3 years ago
Chimera
@EndarkenedRationalist

The USSR wasn't communist. They never claimed to be communist. What they were, was a centrally planned socialist state, with an uncanny resemblance to fascist dictatorships like Germany and Italy at the time. They attempting to move from feudalism, to socialism, to communism. They never got past the socialist part, mainly because that part of Marxist-Leninist theory is flawed.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Nazi Germany was fascist. The USSR was communist. They are ideological opposites.
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
Your Con and you're claiming that Socialism can work. Therefore, you should switch to Pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
iliketodebatestuffCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: To put it simply, Pro got totally bodied in this debate, using no sources, making no attempt at proper formatting, forcing Con to go first despite the BOP clearly being on him, and having arguments consisting almost completely of conjecture.
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
iliketodebatestuffCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a much structured argument and showed his sources and has used rebuttals. Pro didn't support his argument well enough. For these reasons, I am voting for Con.