The Instigator
wrichcirw
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
MenimeSaransh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.

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 4 votes the winner is...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,297 times Debate No: 42533
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

wrichcirw

Pro

Welcome to this debate. CON requested this debate is so that he can get more debates under his belt.


Resolution


Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.


Definitions

(from Merriam Webster)

By accepting this debate, you agree to the following definitions:

Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in afree market

Socialism -any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Mutually Exclusive -being related such that each excludes or precludes the other


I will simply note here that according to these definitions, any tax would be considered socialistic policy, and that capitalism simply requires that such taxes simply be a minority of total production, so that production is "mainly determined by free market".


Rules


My standard boiler-plate:

This will be a NO SCORING debate. I am far less concerned with the scoring mechanism of this website, and much more interested in furthering constructive dialogue on this matter. I see the scoring mechanism as being extremely politicized and subject to all manners of corruption, and also see it as an inhibitor to constructive dialogue as many people who vote simply do not want their vote challenged or discussed.

Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to make a decision on this debate, declare a victor, and leave (hopefully) an insightful RFD, I merely ask that no one score this debate.

I will make exception to the scoring of conduct. Any forfeited rounds, ad hominem attacks, or breaching of the rules of this debate will merit a conduct point against the offender. Otherwise, no scoring, thank you.

---

Burden of proof (BoP) is on PRO.

4 rounds
1st round acceptance only
2/3 rounds argument and rebuttal
4th round closing, no new arguments or sources.

3,000 character rounds.
MenimeSaransh

Con

Alright, I have gone through the rules and theyre perfect. Let's start .
Debate Round No. 1
wrichcirw

Pro

I wish CON luck in this short debate!

My argument will elaborate upon three simple points.


Pure capitalism is impossible


The anarcho-capitalist model is a pipe dream - the key issue lies in the phrase "free market", i.e. a market with no government intervention of any sort.

Government regulation is pervasive in any society - in America the dollar itself is government regulation, therefore, in a "free market", there would be no agreed-upon currency that would facilitate trade. This relegates "free market" activity to an exceptionally inefficient barter society.

Furthermore, any and all contracts are useless without enforcement when contracts are broken. Currently the government fulfills this role of enforcement as a third-party arbiter. Without government, any "private" actor could interpret any contract as they see fit and enforce it at will - this is anarchy, and it would be exceedingly violent and chaotic.

Therefore, there must always be some minimal government regulation on any market for the sake of contract integrity and efficiency, without which a market would cease to provide any benefits to its participants. Any government presence would make a market not a "free market", and so rendering pure capitalism to be impossible.


Pure socialism is impossible


Pure socialism involves a 100% tax on any and all means of production, i.e. land, labor, and capital. In practice, this entails the abolition of private property...or does it? After all, the government would become the sole holder of all property, and by virtue of the 100% tax, the government would never share any of this property with anyone. What would occur is that all citizens of such a government would also become the property of the government.

This sounds plausible in theory, but in practice, there's every reason to think that any government officials who are charged with administering this awesome power and responsibility will become corrupted by the absolute power inherent in their position. Government officials would become the "haves" and everyone else the "have-nots". Government officials would cease to work for the public good in favor of bettering their own lives. What would occur is that government officials ostensibly charged with administering public property will privatize this property in their own names for their own benefit. This is the common perception of what has occurred in most socialist experiments around the world.

Therefore, any instance of corruption would destroy the socialist experiment. If there is any corruption, then pure socialism is impossible.


Any society will have capitalistic and socialistic components


Pure capitalism involves a 0% tax (i.e. no government), and pure socialism a 100% tax (i.e. no private property). Both are extreme impossibilities. Realistically, we are taxed to some degree, meaning that we have some private property, and some notion of public good. Therefore, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive - they are symbiotic.
MenimeSaransh

Con

MenimeSaransh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
wrichcirw

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this debate. In our correspondences, I expressely told him to not forfeit, and so built it into the rules of this debate.

I request conduct against my opponent.
MenimeSaransh

Con

MenimeSaransh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
wrichcirw

Pro

Extend. My opponent has forfeited this debate.
MenimeSaransh

Con

MenimeSaransh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
We'll see. Space is quite limited. As it is, I do differentiate - pure socialism is 100% tax, pure capitalism is 0% tax.

Anyway, not going to get into a debate in the comments section while the debate is still ongoing.
Posted by ModerateLiberalism 3 years ago
ModerateLiberalism
Inasmuch as you do not differentiate between pure capitalism, pure socialism, and a mixed economy, which is technically in accordance with neither system to the fullest extent, you may find yourself in a bit of trouble depending on con's argument.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
wrichcirwMenimeSaranshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments were uncontested.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
wrichcirwMenimeSaranshTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Shame, could have been an awesome debate. Pro raised some great points, although I disagree that our economy would become a barter one without a government to enforce a currency. I believe that gold and silver would return to being the most popular currency were government to step back.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
wrichcirwMenimeSaranshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
wrichcirwMenimeSaranshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Full Forfeit... Also yes, pro made an uncontested argument.