The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Capitalism as an economic system functions better than Socialism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 104768
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




Do your best to maintain focus on the logical reasoning for how each system functions. I know it will be tempting to talk about unfairness and unjust societies oppressing the working class and such but we are not here to debate your feelings about how people are treated. If you want to take a logical position of the negative externalities created by a working or oppressed class that is acceptable, I have no interest in hearing about evil corporations or the ruthless people of the national socialist party.

Argue as close to the point of what the system is in an ideal world and in principle why the way it function produce a benefit and how that benefit is translated to people. I will ask, if the ideal world is attainable? Principles and logical progressions may require some real life examples and that's fine. I am not here to defend or argue that evil doesn't exist on either side because both sides have had their share of atrocities.

let it begin:

I think Capitalism functions most accurately from theory to reality and has been built over time through the barter and trade system. I think it is ultimately a unifying system as there can be many steps to a complicated process and a lot of people involved to the process which may benefit and are willing to trade their time and effort for their labor to receive benefit. I think this is the main reason why socialism fails.

I think that at the individual level socialism makes the worker think why should I spend my time and effort to have the benefit removed and spread out to everyone. I do not think socialism addresses the issue of scarcity in a productive manner.

I think the fundamental difference between socialism and Capitalism is one values people equally and one values production variably. I think each can be applied at different level to different degrees of success. And it is both of these points that make it such a challenging subject. Although both are economic systems it borders debating apple and oranges because of the different fundamental beliefs.

If you disagree with my presupposition of eith system let me know how best you would describe it.

I also think the in a larger sense capitalism is actually less rigid than socialism which allows it greater flexibility. It can be more strict in times that call for it, it can loosen the reigns if needed as well. I think socialism requires tight controls and creates a torrid rigid system that attempts to maintain controls for nature which is inherently chaotic.


Socialism is far better than capitalism. In fact, I like communism better than socialism. Socialism is communism for sissies. So, from now on, I will refer to the system as "Communism".

Communism was invented by the greatest revolutionary genius of all time, Karl Marx. If Karl Marx was still alive today, I would be his biggest fan. I still am his biggest fan. He's a great guy. He was a nice, German Jewish guy, and he realized that rich people were monsters and they needed to go to hell.

That's why he's very nice.

I want to talk about why communism is good, then we can talk about other stuff. Communism is good because it takes money away from rich people and gives money to poor people. This makes a lot of sense. RICH people don't need money, and poor people do. In extreme communism, currency is abolished entirely, and the society functions on goods instead of money. This may be hard for an idiot mind to grasp, but easy for one with a high intellect to grasp. I like this system because rich people are the spawn of Hell, and poor people deserve things that they need. Communism rules!

If you don't like communism, then you're a bad rich person. I also like Stalin. He's a nice guy to implement communism in Russia. Keep going.
Debate Round No. 1


I am fine with that. and would agree with the comparison to sissies

are all rich people Monsters? I would guess by the fact that you can read and write english fairly well that you are in the United states and by virtue of that fact you are in the top 1 percent of world's wealth distribution. If that is the case then aren't you a monster? This is why I don't like the monster arguement. There are good people and bad people that can exist in both systems. Barack Obama lived in the United states which I would argue is a good real world example of capitalism. (for the most part) He is consider a very nice guy by most standards and he said he was against evil greedy people. Does this mean Barack Obama is the spawn of Hell? I would consider him wealthy by most standards.

Question, who is going to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor? how do we know they won't keep some for themselves? Even if you abolished currency how would you value goods? How would you make sure that no one is being evil by producing low quality goods that is being distributed by the government I would presume?

Do you value life? or your own life for that matter? are you a bad rich person? should stalin kill you?
I ask you all of these but recognize that you are nowhere near the boundaries for this debate. you have provided no logical reasoning for how the system functions well or benefits people other than saying poverty is bad and you want to end it. You made no comment on scarcity or how it effects a communist society. and you completely ignored the request for me not have to listen to you about evil people or governments.


Hmm. I may have been a bit inconsistent. I'll elaborate. I'll get better as we go along, don't worry. I just wanted a strong opening argument.

I do understand that the United States is one of the richest countries in the world, and, thus, if I live in the United States, I am in the top 1% of the people on earth. However, this doesn't matter, because we aren't a utopia, we have poor people here, too. Averages don't matter. What does matter is that one person is poor. It doesn't matter if they live in the best country on earth. If they are poor, their lives are awful. Communism should be applied everywhere, in my opinion. Whether the country is first world or third world doesn't matter. If there's poverty there, something needs to improve, because poverty is a detriment to humanity and it shouldn't exist in the 21st century. Communism is a good system for eradicating it completely, and people refuse to use it because they have gotten used to capitalism, and, since rich people have the most power and make all the decisions, capitalism is preserved as something that should have gone a long time ago, like some kind of rotting mummy.

I'm OK with Obama, just so long as he's nice to poor people. Rich people are fine if they realize that being rich is wrong and poor people are in a bad situation. Obama is my favorite president, because he's black. he represents the beginning of a new era, for me.

Anyway, I'll answer all your questions, one by one. In future rounds, though, I suggest you don't hit me with too many questions at once, OK? Take it easy, save some debate for later.

1. Who is going to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor?
The government. The government can do whatever the Hell it wants to, it just chooses not to take money away from rich people because the government itself is composed of rich people, so taking away their own money seems ridiculous to them. Thankfully, they do implement taxes and stuff, but poor people rarely ever see even a fraction of those taxes. Poor people have to pay things like parking tickets, which drives them even further into debt. The government uses the money to build new buildings, like bridges. Bridges that homeless people can sleep under.

2. How do we know they won't keep some for themselves?
This one is pretty simple, we need to implement a law that prevents it. Laws can prevent anything. If a rich person has, say, three million under his mattress, he goes off in the paddy wagon. He'll also be forced to pay a certain sum every year, more than just income tax. Instead of going through some kind of government process, I suggest the money is broken up into ones and sprinkled over the city in a helicopter.

3. Even if you abolished currency how would you value goods?
This one is simple too. If one product has more value than another one, it's worth more to someone. For instance, take a hamburger and a TV. People will need hamburgers every day, so a lot of hamburgers will be produced. But people only need one TV, or two at the most, so less TVs will be produced. This is how products are manufactured today. There are more French fries than cars. The only difference in my new ideal utopia is that everything is given away for free. If people get too greedy, and take four TVs or something, they go to jail for two weeks or so. Simple and effective. Most people will just take what they need, if greed is prevented with reasonable punishments.

4. How would you make sure that no one is being evil by producing low quality goods that is being distributed by the government I would presume?
This one is the weirdest, and kind of sounds like Kindergarten gibberish, but I'll try to get it as best I can. The goods don't need to be low quality. They can be top notch. Just so long as everyone gets roughly the same stuff. And, like I said, people are prevented from being evil by going to jail. And, if your question refers to a person who wants to make his own stuff, he can make whatever the hell he wants to, just so long as everybody else gets to. People can farm, make art, or whatever, and they can trade stuff with other people just so long as the trade is fair.

And, as for those last 4 questions, I do value life, I do value my own life, I'm near the bottom as far as class goes, and I would not like Stalin to kill me. I don't like communism to be associated with death, because it's not something evil, and to associate it with fascism is a sign of ignorance, just like perceiving Islam as an evil devil cult. Our idiot minds percieve new things as a potential threat to our existence, so we turn those things away, even if they could be used for the benefit of our species and a major step in progress.

I love communism, and Stalin, and Karl Marx. They are all very nice people. In the next round, I way talk a little about the Cold War. Until then, I await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 2


I would argue that poverty is one of the greatest accelerants for success and also safety net for those who would waste their life.

While it is nice to say poverty shouldn't exist the reality is that apple cannot make enough Iphones for the entire world, yet.
Furthermore, Capitalism has been one of the single greatest tools for elliminating poverty in all of history. Our current version of capitalism and freedom has brought more people out of poverty than any other system ever designed.

I would also reccomend you take a look at Dr. Thomas Stanley's book "The millionare mind" aggregaites data on decamillions in the united states and attempts to connect the similarities between them. I think you will be amazed to find how they think about money, wealthy and society.

1. The government by definition is a group that should represent the people. They do not have absolute power. I would argue that even the most tyrannical governments do not have absolute power. rather they have whatever power the people will tollerate. That is a good point regarding the life of the impoverished. But think about why do poor people pay parking tickets?* is it because they are poor?* no, in our system they pay those tickets because they park incorrectly and I know people that make a signifcant amount of money and people that have signifcant wealth. Do the wealthy pay parking tickets?* yes, if they break the parking rules.
  • I think the deeper issue you are getting at is the ticket itself is a big deal to a poor person where as a welathy person can get 100 parking tickets and it not really effect them. I agree that is true. This issue is if poor people will pay attention they can avoid a lot of these costs and if they focus on what they want to accomplish they can find a way to make money doing things people will pay for or they will find they need to try to do something else. Does this work all the time?* no. will it help?* yes. If someone is poor and they pay attention and i mean really watch what rich people do and try to figure out why they do it. if they watch out for things that cost money and they really think about why they should or should not spend the little bit of money they have then they will have put themselves in a position where they can get out of poverty. Once they figure out how to lower their expenses now they can really focus on how to make money and there are almost an unlimited number of ways to make money in a capitalist system and there are a huge number of ways that very few people would have ever thought of if not for the freedom under a capitalist system.
  • This is why I don't think communisim works as a system. It centralizes power and control over scarce resources. The people that are in governments, especially communist governments have a tendenacy to want to hold all or most of the iphones for themselves. They do not find creative solutions to problems because they don't have problems. They spend there time trying to stay in power. In a capitalist system many people have power and although 1 may be in control for a little while they are not in control forever because there are to many powerful people.
  • The government does not actually build those bridges. They use the peoples money in both systems to pay workers to build the bridges the difference is the people in an ideal capitalist society will be the people that optimize the bridge building process. They focus on spending the least amount of money to build the best bridge possible so that they can afford to continue building bridges in the future. in the communist society they spend the most amount of money possible because they are guarenteed by the government to be allowed to build bridges forever. They can take as much time and money as they want because the goernment controls the value of money. This has negative effects in society. If any government does this for to long the people that produce goods and services will not accept the money the government has issued. They wont want to trust the money because they don't know if they can exchange the iphones they make to buy more supplies or if the government will use all of the supplies. There is to much uncertain in the market because of the impact of government rules. and often governments don't understand the near infinit number of busienesses well enough to establish rules or prices that make any sense whatsoever.

2. If you believed that laws can prevent anything then why would we need prisions in your utopia? Laws are just words on paper. If the Government forces the 3 million dollar man to pay taxes and they do that to every 3 million dollar men in the country the only people that will have money is the people in the government. If the money is broken up and sprinkled off a helicopter and you dropped 3 million dollars over a city like New York do you realize that over 5 million peopl would not even get 1 dollar. 0 dollars is pretty poor. and if the government just prints more money then the money will be just like owning 100 pairs of shoes.
  • if you own 100 pairs of shoes you own 200 shoes but only have 2 feet you cant wear all the shoes at the same time. So the only shoes that have any value are the ones on your feet the other shoes are not as valuable as the ones on your feet and the next pair is only valuable if the first pair breaks but the chance that you will break 200 shoes in 1 years is almost 0% which means each pair of shoes is even less valuable than the one before it. If the first 2 shoes are worth 3650 days (10 years of wearing shoes) the second shoe is only worth 3,650 days and the following shoes 3650 days, following 3650 and the next 3650 and next 3650 and next 3650 this will take a person with a full grown foot out to age 85 where they will die not having worn 193 of the 200 shoes. which makes 193 pairs of shoes worthless to you as a person.
  • The same thing happens with money because we have seen it happen with other governments like zimbabwe where the government keeps printing money to buy things even though people do no trust the money is worth what it is supposed to be worth. like if you wanted to buy a pizza and i gave 20 dollars to buy pizza this should be enough, so you walk to the counter and you say 1 pizza and they look at you and say oh pizzas now cost 30 dollars so you walk back to me and say pizzas now cost 30 dollars and I give you 10 more so you go back to the counter and say 1 pizza and they now say pizzas cost 40 dollars and so on and so on.

3. Ok I make hamburgers and you make TV's why do you are you making the TV's and what do I get for making hamburgers? hamburgers are smelly and it is hot work in the kitchen and I have to stay clean. I don't like standing up all that much, and I would much rather play video games than make a bunch of different burgers for different people that wont pay me to do it. So instead of making hamburgers I am just going to go get in line and wait for someone else to make me a hamburger that is a lot less work.
  • besides that idea of not wanting to work because I will do all this work and I wont get anything for it, Where am I getting the buns from? who is going to make the buns? why would they bring buns to me? can they bring buns to me? what do they get for the buns? and If i don't have money to give them then why would they give their buns to me? People don't make things just because they wont to. Making things is hard and takes time and energy. and if everything is free why should I work if I can just play all day and get free hamburgers and watch tv? Plumbing is a great example of something people would not do for free but has saved more people than all doctors have saved combined.
  • Furthmore how do you know if someone is really being greedy or needy?* what if the person that took 10 hamburgers was going to give to his family. or even worse how do we know that the government wont just come handcuff someone and say they were being greedy and take them off to jail. There are bad people in this world and if there is no money then the only power is in government and they will join the government to put people in jail and take their things.

4. saying that the goods don't need to be low quality will not prevent them from being low quality. the way we make goods high quality in the capitalist system is we find a way to lower the cost of production so low that we can produce a lot of them for a very low price. sell them to as many people as possible that can pay that price. we want to sell them to as many people as can pay for them but to get people to want to pay for them we have to make them very well. So they wont break, or make people sick because doing that makes people not want to buy them.
  • in a communist society if you put people in jail for all bad things there will be a lot of people in jail and very few people farming and making art or doing whatever. who feeds the people in Jail?*
I think you need to look at what assumptions are being made.
Assumption 1: Do we live in a perfect world?
Assumption 2: will people work hard and disgusting jobs volunterrily for nothing in return?
Assumption 3: will this actually result in less poverty?
Assumption 4: Do we have an unlimited number of hamburgers so that everyone gets food?

Which is better a system:
requireing men with guns to threaten to take your life if you don't do what you are supposed to?
would you be happier choosing to spend less money or finding a way to make more?

Note: I put an astriks* by questions that are retorical


Ha, ha. I like how you say poverty is a "NATURAL THING" and people who are in poverty are destined to be there, and rich people deserve everything they have. Hee hee hee. Capitalism does not eliminate poverty, because in a capitalist society one person will always have more than another person. This is undeniable. People in a capitalist society are always unequal. Why not completely abolish inequality? That seems better than keeping it around. I also like how you talk about those garbage "rags to riches" stories. those are capitalist propaganda. Once you're poor, you're stuck there, and stuck good. the rules and regulations that we have set up prevent any social mobility.

In my new utopia, Apple would not have to worry about making 200 million new iphones, because they would not have to pay for the resources used to make those iphones. Remember, money is not a thing. And a good amount of jail time will prevent crime.
Debate Round No. 3


Poverty is a natural occuring phenomenom.
there are over 7 billion people on the planet and over 300 million in the United states
I just sent 3 links to 3 different articles documenting capitalism lifting millions out of poverty.
people are always unequual in any society regardless of system. You just said government would have all power that makes the people in government all powerful.
which rules and regulations are inherent in a capitalistic system that lock you into abject poverty?

ideal communist society is not the same as a fairy tale land were we just inequity and scarcity because we feel like it.



Sorry how my last argument was a little short. I'll try to make it longer here.

First, I'll answer your stuff from round 1.

1. You claim that no government, no matter how strong, has absolute power. I disagree. If a government is strong enough, it can have absolute control over its people. In Nazi, Germany, anyone who said they were Jewish would get thrown in the coop. However, I agree that resistance is a good way to bring the fall of a tyrannical government. If enough people break out of their brainwashed stupor and observe the many flaws with their current system, they can overthrow the people who oppress the without any fear of punishment, because the government will be gone and there will be no one to administer the punishment. We simply don't notice that our capitalist society is a form of insane dystopia, and once we realize that, we can start working towards a communist utopia the way I describe it.

Now, as for the parking ticket thing, I am not suggesting letting poor people go completely scot free for breaking parking rules, I only suggest that the amount of money charged should reflect the person's income. For poor people, the cost should be reduced in half. As a side note, the amount of illegal parking places should be reduced, too, because sometimes people park absentmindedly, or don't look at a small detail, and can't eat for a month. A reduction of parking meters would also be nice. In fact, all parking should be free. You should not have to pay to park your car somewhere. Parking has no actual value besides getting out and resting. That would make a lot of sense.

You say there are a "huge number of ways" that people can become rich. I don't think so. For people who have been on SSI for a while, going back to the workplace can be very stressful. Our working system is very flawed. I think that people should only have to work if they want to. Not that they shouldn't be productive members of society, but in the past century, jobs have gotten more and more stupid. In the old days, there was a wide range of jobs for anybody. You could make pottery, sell fruit, write novels, or paint. Today, though, people sit in cubicles and push buttons, which has pushed most of humanity into a stupor. There must be a wider range of jobs, that people can truly enjoy.

Your conception of a communist society is a bit striking, because, like most ignorant people, you confuse fake Stalin communism with real Karl Marx communism. In real Karl Marx communism, the government has even less power than in our current system. They do almost nothing. In a communist society, people don't try to become powerful, because, as I said earlier, power is harshly punished in a Communist society.

And, finally, you seem to put a lot of emphasis on money, but remember, money has very little impact here. I know it may be hard for your primitive mind to imagine a world without money, but it is a very possible thing. Turn off your bias and think for a moment about a world free of currency would be like, and don't bring up money again, unless we are talking about a lightly socialist government where money still has some impact.

2. Laws can prevent anything, and in the case of this society, rules would be strictly enforced. In our modern day capitalist society, rich people are given an unfair advantage when it comes to prison, not much, but it's there. In my new utopia, the laws would benefit the poor instead, and once both rich and poor reached a state of equilibrium, then the laws would become more just for everyone. In the beginning, though, harsh taxes would be imposed on those who serve as an obstacle to freedom and liberty.

My helicopter thing was only a fun little fantasy. If everything was more organized, then poor people could just have the money split up equally between them. The helicopter thing could be a bit sloppy, because some middle class people could get some money. On second thought, it was a bad idea. Instead, how about this: Let's say a millionaire has 4 million dollars. Half of the money is split equally between poor people who assert that their income is less than twenty thousand dollars a year, and the other half is sprinkled with a helicopter. Or the four million could be split up any way between the two methods. One fourth is sprinkled, and three fourths is given to poor people. Whatever works and makes people happy. It doesn't really matter who gets what. What does matter is that the money gets taken away from the rich people and goes to people who need it.

Your "Shoe" metaphor seems to be some kind of illustration of inflation, am I right? I know about inflation, and the way you illustrate it, in terms of shoes, is bizarre. I know about it, sure, but imagine that, in this new society, the government creates new money at a reasonable pace, but stores are not allowed to raise their prices any. Even if the streets are over flowing with money, the people must keep their prices low. Inflation may be a natural process, but it can be prevented by law, just like rich people can be forced to give up their money to poor people. Laws can do anything.

3. As I said, the hamburgers and the TVs only served as an example for some products that might be sold in my new utopia, and the way you talk about them shows that you, as a person, have a strikingly low intellect. Either of us can make either product. The point is that they're just given out for free, and you must accept that. To compensate for products being given out a bit more rapidly, we simply have to look for new ways to make TVs and raise more cows to make hamburgers. We might even come up with a reasonable meat alternative. In times of scarcity, such as a communist society, people must look for new ways to create stuff. as the old adage goes, "Necessity is the mother of invention".

There are no disadvantages to a society where everything is free. People will not turn over to laziness, they will provide for themselves and others, simply because they can no longer be dependent on the government. People who used to be rich will no longer be able to look towards the government for help, they will now have to do things for themselves and become hardworking people. Communism does not encourage laziness, it discourages it.

While the laws in the new utopia will be harsh, and punish those who indulge in greed, the legal system will still be fair. There will be a court, and if the accused took what he needed, then he will be let off the hook. Also, these jail sentences will not be unnecessarily long. If a person takes five hamburgers or something like that, he only needs to sit in prison for about three weeks. Not so long that he goes insane, but long enough for him to think about his actions. In today's legal system, some people get a whole year for stealing a pack of gum, which I think is a little harsh. the punishments for greed will be consistent, though, so people who take too many things too much of the time will be sent to jail for a little longer. It just makes sense.

4. You refer again in this section to the cost of production, but remember, in this society, production is not an issue. You also assume that high quality goods can be sold for a low price, which, I'm afraid, is not possible in this society. Companies will never sell high quality things for a low price, because they can jack up the price as much as they want to. Look at Apple. They sell a flat hunk of wires for half a thousand dollars. For a poor person, that could be a quarter of a year's food. Do you really think they would be willing to pay for that?

The quality of a product is in the eyes of the beholder. If a kid can have fun with a yo yo instead of a video game, then everything is fine.

And, as for your little question at the end, people who want to feed people in jail can feed the people in jail. Someone will.

And now, for your three questions.

Assumption 1: Do we live in a perfect world?
No, we actually live in a disguised dystopia. But communism will help us move away from that dystopia.

Assumption 2: will people work hard and disgusting jobs volunterrily for nothing in return?
Yes, because they actually do get something in return. Because they give things away free to other people, they can get things for free.

Assumption 3: will this actually result in less poverty?
Yes, when rich people lose money, poor people gain money. This is very simple math.

Assumption 4: Do we have an unlimited number of hamburgers so that everyone gets food?
Yes, if we focus on getting enough hamburgers. And, as I said, hamburgers are only an example. We can eat whatever the hell we want to.

I choose the system on the top. They won't necessarily threaten you with guns, just do something to prevent greed. The system on the bottom is a false view of capitalism, because nobody will ever spend less money, it's against human nature. If somebody doesn't have money, they have to sign a contract to push buttons for a month or so, which shouldn't have to be done to eat. I suggest that the government doles out some money to people who need any, just twenty or so dollars at a time.

Your round 4 argument is childish and inane, so I don't think I'll talk about that.

In the last round, I would like to discuss the Cold war a bit, then we'll wrap this whole thing up, once and for all. Thank you, sir. I await your next argument, about the cold war. You can rebut my arguments here if you want to, but only minimally. Until then, I'm here, ready and waiting.
Debate Round No. 4


1. your premise lacks an understaning of scarcity. The problem in economics and is trying to allocate scarce reasources properly. I say that society and resoureces are to scarce to be rulled by a rulling class. They don't understand it enough.

I can agree with the idea of the punishment being in proportion to ones abilities for violations like parking. I think it would be difficult to administer practically. I agree that is an injustice but just like in a city there are scarce resources, they literally have a limited number of parking spaces and with that premise we must decide who should get preferrential treatement? Well the person who is willing to pay the most should get the best spots seems to be fair, the other alternative could be whoever gets there first but that is not monitizing the value. If you monitize the value then that creates jobs which creates income which provides for the poor.
Parking does have value, If you have a reason to be in a place like a city where there is parking then your reason to be there is as valuable to you, as you are willing and able to pay for it. I never pay 20 dollars to park because I do not value parking that much I would always find a cheaper option and I think in capitalist system thats part of the governments responsiblity but I think they should allow corporations to run the alternative options because again that creates jobs which creates income which reduces poverty much more than a free parking spot. If they let people in companies run the trains then they are incentivized to run the trains on time, as nice as people are willing to sit through, and to try and get as many people as possible. If the train runs on time, is kinda clean, and affordable, more people would be willing to sit through the ride at that price rather than pay 20 to park. This way it gives people the options of how they want to spend the money they earn.

For people that don't work and are paid a subsidy it can be stressful for them to have to start working, yes. Not all stress is bad stress. Some stress is good. Like when we stress steel to make it stronger. Small Business owners make up a significant amount of the wealth of the U.S. and running a business is stressful. If it is not stressful then it is not rewarding.

Meaningfulness in work is an important idea although danegerously tangent from this topic. Shortly I will say capitalism has monetized a wide range of jobs of verying signifcance. in Capitalism people choose to work those jobs. no one forces them.
I suppose the issue I have with our debate is you don't like force or oppression but you advocate a system that requires force and opression. domminance hiegarcies have existed at every level for a long time. Even lobsters have domminance hiegarcies and capitalism is more dominent than socialism because more people choose to ingage with it on a daily basis. Socialsim, or communism has to force people to engage with it. So much so that these countries will filter the internet so that people are not exposed to it.

So to the karl max real communism. It cannot exist without power. you are debating an illogical stance on power that is self evident. You cannot say that an object moving at 100 mph has no power and if something tries to stop it then it gets punished. We would witness the power of the object moving at 100 mph when it punishes whatever is trying to stop it. This is the fallacy of the logical arguement for communism. This is why we have never seen true karl marx communism. It doesn't exist. Just like saying it would be great if everyone rode unicorns and they expelled gas that smelled like kittens only your arguement is much more subtle. Power and dommince does exist and to say it would not exist in a communism society is becasue we would remove desire doesn't work because people want things anyone and then saying well in a communist society they would be punished. Who would punish them if there is no authority? the GOV't? how can you say the government would punish them if the government doesn't have power and doesn't do much.

take money out of the equation and it is just people bartering and trading tangible goods and services. This does localize services but it creates poverty because people that lived on goven't subsitence now have nothing to trade and are truely stressful because they cannot barter and trade nothing for something.

2. there are laws against speeding yet people still speed. laws only have power if people choose to live by them.

if governemnt has control of punishment, money, and is allowed to steal from people then why would they give that money away? if i was a rich person in your system I would just join the government and say I don't have any money and spend my time stealing punishing and controling society. There is nothing in your system to prevent this.

if you force a person to work making cookies that cost that person money then they will stop making cookies because it is bad for them. like touching a hot stove if you turn the stove on and tell people they have to keep touching the hot stove they will eventually stop listening to you.

Yes either of us could make the tv or hamburgers but my arguement is both of us want to make hamburgers or both of us want to make tvs how does communism decided who gets to do what because both have to be done. it doesn't deal with scarcity. there are no reasons for people to figure that out because it does not benefit 1 person to look for an alternate food source for the entire population. I would rather a world that the person with the best quality hamburger at the best price be elevated over the person with the bad hamburgers at low prices.

except before there was a government in the U.S. John Smith had to implement rules of you dont work then you don't eat because even back then people would choose to let other people do the hard work for them. I think you should spend some time getting to know how people behave in the real world then apply that to your theoretical utupian principles.

netflix, high quality good can be purchased as low at 8 dollars a month. apple has a lot of technical parts and require number of engineers to organize the componets and resources. To just call it a hunk of parts is not realistic. If you think so try taking it apart and putting it back together. Most people wouldn't be able to.

that is not always the case. and if you have a signifcant number of the population in jail even if they want to feed them they wont becasue they will not have access to the resources especially if they are bartering for goods and services.
they may not be able to create enouugh value to also feed the people in prison.

if we live in an imperfect world then every economic system will be soem form of distopia.
if things are given away for free then they don't have to work. If the cost of geting some is you have to give something then by definition it is not free.


1. Your premise lacks an understanding of the lack of money in this world. There is NO money, remember, so scarcity is not a problem. Communism, as stated by Karl Marx, is not a system, it's a kind of anti system. While it affects economics, it demands an end to the use of currency and other economically related things. You misspelled "ruling". You see, in a communist society, there is LESS of a "Ruling class". We live, today, in a society with a ruling class. Communism tries to take power away from those who misuse it.

In my new utopia, parking does not cost anything. Think, does it really have that much of a value? No. It doesn't feed you, you can't hold it. It's a place to put your car while you go someplace. It could easily be free. People can park their cars on certain residential streets for free. The use of parking meters and other devices is a sneaky tactic used by the government to squelch money from people, then use that money for debt and other things. Parking should not cost. I think that the government should build more parking garages, deep underground, a whole subterranean network. You must understand that there will be some slight alterations in value with this new society. Things that were once worth something might be worth nothing. I think that, as you pointed out, with the scarcity of oil, cars will be considered too hard to use, and either a fuel alternative will be devised, or people will ride around on bikes. They've already made some cars that run on water. It probably is possible to make something like that.

Stress does not make people feel good, it is a deeply damaging psychological condition. True, a small business owner might feel satisfaction from building up his own empire, but what about a family of five sitting on the sidewalk bundled up in newspaper? They feel a lot of stress too. Are they satisfied? Capitalism does not FORCE people to work boring jobs, but the appeal of those boring jobs are implanted into the mind from a very young age. It's like Orwell. Communism does not enforce a class structure, it means the end of a class structure. You, of course, say that class structures have always been here. I agree, but we change anything at any given time. We choose not to, because rich people have all the power, and they don't want to lose it. Capitalism is a vicious, never ending loop. Communism will not filter the internet if it doesn't want to. It can simply tell the American people that America is communist, and then life goes on relatively as usual.

His name is MARX, not MAX.

I should have pointed this out earlier. The RICH PEOPLE are slightly different from the GOVERNMENT. The RICH PEOPLE are only people, and don't deserve any power. The GOVERNMENT is required for the health and well being of a country, and prevent the country from falling into complete anarchy. The GOVERNMENT will, perhaps, be some poor people, and they will enforce laws as they see fit, but not interfere with the lives of the citizens as much as they do now. The GOVERNMENT can enforce all punishments, and the GOVERNMENT makes sure that the RICH PEOPLE lose their wealth until they are the same as everyone else. Once rich and poor have met a state of equality, then the abolition of money can begin. Justice will still be an integral part of everyday life. And we will still be a democracy. We have the right POLITICAL system, but the WRONG ECONOMIC system. Communism would mostly affect the economy, democracy would go on as usual.

2. laws only have power if people choose to live by them. I suppose, but, by that logic, I could get a parking ticket, right now, in our current system, and refuse to pay it. I would go to jail, though, and nobody wants that, huh?

The key to my government is not that the government has power, but they're more of an oligarchy who think about the current situation of the country and try to fix it. Just like Plato's philosopher kings. They are not authorized to use brute force in achieving their desires. The oligarchy has votes, and anybody can be a part of the government if they want to.

Dystopia. you don't know what the word means. This is the dystopia, and you should be able to recognize it. You refuse progress just because you're scared of it. You won't switch over to a new system if it saved countless lives just because you see the world from a different perspective than poor people. If we remove money, nothing will be different, but the world will be a much better place.

Voters, don't just vote for who you agree with. Consider our words very thoughtfully. Give credit where credit is due. Don't call me out for my lack of conduct, I see that all the time. Vote carefully, and choose thoughtfully. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snowtigerspeaks 9 months ago
Yes, use other sources to deepen your argument by supporting your point. No, two people are rarely going to have the exact same opinion on every subject but if they make a good point then use it.
Yes, you need to treat them with some decency, I think your taking the stalin part out of context in the context it is very clear that I was using that anecdote to arc your perspective on Stalin and how anyone on his side would love him (or at least say they do so they won't be killed) anyone on the other side is murdered that is how stalin ruled.

It does matter that you are correct but it is a debate we should care just as much about how the debate played out as we do the result. If someone else reads your past debates you should want them to think I would like to debate with this person.

I have always been horrible with grammar that should be an easy win for anyone that debates me.
Lastly Just because you say it so doesn't make it a good argument and doesn't make you look good. If you do then I will try to get you to repeat it over and over because it doesn't make you look good. Scarcity is like gravity neither of which cares if you say it doesn't exist and money does not create scarcity. Money is a measure for which we value things based on variables such as supply and demand (supply here means scarcity) I do not say that or this as an insult because you probably have never had an economics class ever. I recommend Milton freedom on youtube it is a little dated but he did win a nobel prize for economics and advised presidents preceding a very long period of economic prosperity in the United States.

on poverty and equality

the price system that precisely measures the value of labor most efficiently
Posted by frankfurter50 9 months ago
Oh, ok. So you only care about if I include the opinions of other people whose views may slightly differ from mine, and you think that an argument's length doesn't matter at all, and I have to treat my opponent like a perfect angel or everything goes down the pipes. It doesn't matter if I'm correct, or how much of an impact my argument makes, or how eloquent I am. I said his argument was childish and inane because it was. So was mine, right before it. I had to post a quick, short argument, so he posted a short one too. My argument in round 4 well makes up for that.
Posted by KostasT.1526 9 months ago
Not to mention your lack of sources. Two more points to Pro, that makes it six with the arguments and conduct.
Posted by KostasT.1526 9 months ago
I don't care how long it is. Even if you made a great argument in five lines, it would be fine by me. We are awarding argument points here, and Pro has the high ground. As for the conduct, your behaviour was quite offensive in the fourth round.
Posted by frankfurter50 9 months ago
But that thing is 8,000 words long and I go over EVERYTHING he said! I definitely deserve grammar. He slipped up lots of times on that. HE ASKED if Stalin should KILL ME! Isn't that a little extreme?
Posted by KostasT.1526 9 months ago
No, I'm still voting for Pro. Not to mention that you probably lost the conduct points too with your R4 arguments. You have one more chance to change my mind, I suggest you make good use of it.
Posted by frankfurter50 9 months ago
I just did! Go ahead and put a nice big vote in my basket!
Posted by frankfurter50 9 months ago
I just did! Go ahead and put a nice big vote in my basket!
Posted by KostasT.1526 9 months ago
Unless Con makes an incredibly successful argument in their next rounds, I'll be voting for Pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.