Capitalism destroys our world, communism is better
Debate Rounds (3)
That is the main problem with capitalism. All people care about is weatlth. If a company can make more money by moving their factories to China they will. And if the work circumstances there are dreadful and it costs the company less, even better. As long as there is enough money they don't care.
I would like to put my arguments next to a pro-capitalist.
As implied by the name, communism emphasises community ownership (primarily of property) and the distribution of wealth (or whatever is to be considered currency) in accordance to ones ability and needs. Communism, in this sense, emphases a strong role of government in controlling distribution of resources. Increases in government power, historically, especially in a socialist or communist environment, has rarely done any good for the people. A core function of capitalism is to protect against excessive government intervention in the private lives of citizens, and the (albeit rare) threat of tyranny.
Capitalist, free-market economies create everything we take for granted in the modern day. Capitalism provides that the economy ought to be fuelled by private entities, and not entirely by the state. This privatisation provides for competition, which in turn drives free-market forces to determine what is to be considered valuable; if something is in high demand, more of it will become available and competition will drive costs down and in turn drive the economy forward. Capitalism creates success; business people's success, celebrities success, etc. Free market economies determine what we the people value and drives competition and success, communism places the economy in the hands of the state and distributes wealth according only to what people need, and not what they earn. This is problematic in the sense that it devalues institutions such as education, time spent in education and working towards a specific profession becomes less fulfilling as the economy will only ever provide you with what you need and not what a free-market would determine you should earn.
Ultimately my position is that the economy should not be wholly in the hands of the state, and what is valuable should be determined by the peoples will and their engagement in the economy, rather then their bare necessities as decided by the state. The capitalist position, in its simplest form, is the minimisation of government influence in favour of the people's will, and how they engage in the free-market. This is not to say the system is free of flaw and 'perfect,' but that it is the best we have created thus far. Capitalism is progressive and democratic, privatising the economy and allowing the market to be driven by the people, whereas a communist economy is authoritarian in nature, and provides the state with far too much control over peoples lives.
First of all, why do you think communism stands for increased power for the government? In a communist state there is no government, so how can they achieve more power?
Yes, free market creates competition, that is true. But free market also rewards the greedy and selfish. Our economic system is based on rewarding the ones who exploit others the best. We reward greed, exploit, tax evasion, ... If this is the basis of our economic system why don't we base our judicial on this as well? Reward the murderers and thieves.
What is true is that in a capitalist system people are driven by money and money allone. And yes, because of the possible reward they may work harder, but is that worth the cost? Is it worth to abolish values like equality and solidarity just for money?
Economy should not be in hands of the state. Well, right now economy is in hands of the private companies who dont compete with each other as my opponent suggests. They simply buy their competetor. (f.e. Coca-Cola)
It is true that capitalism works in America, but at what cost? The American people can do with capitalism but they only can by buying their wares from companies who exploit people. In a communist state there would be no more exploit, for the simple reason that there would be no more money.
My opponent also talks about the protection for excessive government influence. Why would that be so bad I ask you? If there is a defense mechanism for the people to purge the corrupt, why is state influence so bad? In a capitalist society the state orders the people around. In a communist society the state is the people, therefore more state influence is more autonomy.
Lastly I want to discuss the statement: Capitalism creates succes. I couldn't disagree more. Capitalism gives the ruthless and the most unethical persons who exploit everyone around them succes. It's the most unfair system on earth. Who are the wealthy in our society? People like Donald Trump, businessmen who evade taxes. Do these people really have to be an example? Is Donald Trump really what we ought to look up to?
Or should we rather look up to the intelligent? Not the ones holding the most money but the ones doing the most valuable things for our human development?
One last thing to end this argument with. The destruction of private property and the liquidation of money. This is very hard to understand in a capitalist society.
You don't pay for your food, your food is given to you by the farmers. In return you give the farmers your work. You write letters for them or make chairs or whatever it is that you do. When you are in need of something, the person able to give you that gives it you, and in return you offer your services to anyone who's in need of them.
Can't you see the beauty of this system? No more bad treatment of workers, they work for the society because the society works for them.
And yes, for some of us wellfare is going to decrease. But for billions of others, wellfare is going to multiply. Everyone has acces to healthcare, everyone has enough food, ...
Therefore I am for communism. It promotes equality and common ownership. In communism the state should be destroyed, and communities work autonomous.
Yes, capitalism is bound to emphasise human greed and selfishness, but this is when the role of government becomes apparent; the legislature ought to protect against corruption and exploitation, which is often not done successfully. But the consumers are not rewarding greed, they are simply controlling market forces and what the people consider valuable, it is the private corporations which commit the greed, and it can't be expected of all people to have a vested interest in corporations activities, law, and politics.
I would argue that capitalism does not do away with equality and solidarity; these are core values of the modern enlightened world which was created by innovation and creativity; provided by capitalism. Communism provides no will to work or innovate, the modern world is fuelled by innovation; through technology, philosophy, science etc. Why should we revert and reverse this progress by simply giving people what they need for themselves, and not rewarding innovators who stimulate the will of the people? The smartest person in the world with the potential to create world changing technology would receive the same resources as their neighbour, and never have the opportunity to create their own success and fulfill their dreams, and create and innovate to the benefit of society. There is more to capitalism than greedy corporations and exploitation - it creates everything we love and enjoy, and allows great minds to accomplish great things for the good of human-kind.
Yes, the economy is in the hands of the private sector, this is the basis of capitalism. But it is not true that there is no competition and companies are simply bought out, of course there is competition. If the free-market dictates that out of two competing entities creating similar products, one of these entities provides a better product, or is cheaper, and the people choose to value this product more, it is likely that the losing corporation will fail; with their best financial option to be bought out - this is the very basis of competition. It is the same for democratic governments; the people choose their representatives, and if the people decide that they prefer another representative, they vote them out, and the new representative is put in their place.
Excessive government influence is bad since if the government is in control of said defence mechanisms due to their power over the people, then it becomes irrelevant. The state ought to protect life and liberty, without interfering in private life. The state does not order people around in a capitalist system, the very basis of capitalism is to take the economy out of the states hands, and in to the private realm where the people are in control.
Capitalism does create success, as I explained above. Where would Steve Jobs be if he were living in a communist state? It is simply impossible to cater for innovation and creativity in a society in which you are supplied with what you need on the basis of your ability rather than being supplied with the resources which the people dictate you deserve. There are bad apples in the mix, sure, but it is important to remember that it is the will of the people and their spending that creates successful people and businesses. Slightly off topic, but Donald Trump pays more tax than most people would ever dream of paying, and avoids it where the law allows it, the same as every smart business, why expend money you don't need to? This is where the state ought to step in to ensure corporations pay their fair share.
Communism ultimately places the collective above individual freedom, whereas capitalism favours individual freedom. The individual is in control of production and pricing, and can cater this to suit market forces, as opposed to communism, in which the society determines the means of production and distribution of resources. Communism takes away individual liberty. Capitalism places responsibility on the individual - the individual is in control of their works, and if they wish to create success for themselves they must work for it, thus creating competition. Ultimately, private ownership and a living breathing economy controlled by the people ought to be favoured over a static communal system which provides no incentive for innovation or progression.
Yes, private companies control the market. And yes, in capitalism governments should protect the people from these companies. But that is not what's happening right now. Countries are no longer controlled by states or governments but by companies. The companies who exploit workers for their own good, and then go around influencing the government which is supposed to protect these workers from them.
Yes capitalism allows for people to create more things good for humanity. But if a company has a choice between creating something good for mankind or good for their financial situation what is it gonna pick? You do reward innovaters, simply not with money. What is a better feeling? Getting paid 2000 dollars for your idea, or have the people know it's your idea and feel thanked and honoured by an entire society? I'd pick the latter.
Public opinion and fame can be as much a goal as money, and the difference is that you can't exploit people for fame.
The great problem is the voice of the people. You say they will vote someone out if they want to, but they won't. They will vote for a demagogue. Someone who makes a lot of empty promises.
Do you really agree the people are in control of the market? If you try to start a fair corporation you will not be able to compete with the giant corporations all housing in the Cayman Islands. You won't. And yes they will sell their products cheaper, for the simple reason that they're produced at a lower cost. They exploit their workers in Asian countries and you as an honest American businessman can not compete. The economic power in hands of the people is an illusion.
Where would Steve Jobs be in a communist state? Well he would go with his ideas to the factories telling them he invented something. These factories would produce his ideas and the new technology would spread. The only difference would be that he would not become incredibely rich, but he'd become thanked and honoured.
The collective is placed above individual freedom? Yes it is. Why would you as an individual be in charge of your land? Why is it your land? Because some ancestor once said this is mine? Is that really what defines our property? The whole idea of it is absurd.
If someone proposed you to buy a plot of land on the moon, you'd declare him crazy. The moon is not his to sell. There are no owners.
Then why are there owners of land? Land is not divided by nature. There are no supernatural borders defining where one plot ends and the next begins. So why do we implement these boundaries? Because at some point in time someone said this land is mine. And we all accepted it was because at that time there was enough for everyone. But land shortage became a real problem, and both peaceful transition, through buying, as war became real. We are waging war with one another because we want to defend something that isnt even ours?
Therefore I say no more property. We don't need to claim a place for our own. Everything we need can and will be provided by our community.
What is succes? Personal wealth? Then yes, communism will no longer know people rise to succes.
Good for humanity? In that case, communism will succeed far better in letting people have succes than capitalism.
As my last argument, Communism is based upon equality, one of the most beautiful ideals. It rewards the good and helps everyone in your city by allowing free healthcare and free everything. In contrast, Capitalism charges the ones who have less even more than it charges the ones who have a lot. The distance between wealth and poverty increases beacause of it. In capitalism you are rewarded for greed, in communism you are punished for it.
In what society do you want to live? I made my choice.
The idea of reward through thanks and honour as opposed to monetary reward is a very strange one. Mankind has progressed from quid pro quo trade economies to monetary, capitalist economies through the inventions of currency, advancements in science, social progress, and the enlightenment. To regress to a communal communist society is to turn the clock back to the days of trade based economics. And whilst communism, in its Utopian sense (not the reality), espouses great equality and tolerance, this is through reverting humanity to a stage in which people ought to settle for the lowest standard in order for everyone to meet this standard. As rightly pointed out in the comments, why is equality viewed as equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Communism says that everyone ought to live the same way, you own nothing, you trade services for moral reward, and everyone must live to the low standard. Education creates inequality as it places graduates in a higher meritorious position, with greater skills and knowledge to perform higher end tasks which only those who put the time and effort in to education could perform - this is irrelevant, you still receive the same reward as someone who has done nothing in their life. Through communism, equality comes in the opposite form to the equality seen in capitalist societies - the deserving are brought down in order to benefit the lowest socio-economic groups because the standard of life ought to be the same for all. This is unequal.
Private ownership ought to be preferred to communal ownership. Communism says; 'this is OUR land and OUR production, YOU must contribute to OUR community, YOU do not own anything other than your craft or product, and this product is used as payment in return for someone Else's services or products.' This is equitable, but not equal, there is no opportunity for meritocracy or a supply and demand system of value. Capitalism says; 'this is YOUR land, you can make what you will of it, participate in a free market in which society determines the worth of your product and your success is determined by the people and the free-market, if the people like your product and invest, you then create wealth for yourself which is then partly invested back in to the economy. If the people do not want your product, the free-market will not allow you to create wealth for yourself, since your product is not deemed to be valuable to the people.' Capitalism is inherently democratic, communism is inherently authoritarian.
In conclusion, capitalism is the outcome of the evolution of societies from trade societies, to flourishing economies which allow the people an equality in opportunity rather than outcome. Private ownership creates motivation and self-interest in success, and the advent of currency and using currency in exchange for services rather than a simple trade allows for re-investment in to the economy. Free-markets allow the people to dictate what is beneficial and valuable, and what is not. This is not to be confused with corporatism, and inequality in a capitalist system is not to be confused with the role of government and failed public policy. One needs only Google search communist experiments and be faced by their failures; poverty, authoritarianism, war, mass execution, etc. etc. The most successful economies in the world all have one thing in common - capitalist free-market economies.
Best of luck to my opponent.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.