The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ben671176
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Capitalism is Superior to Communism

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...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 913 times Debate No: 59725
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Resolution

As Pro, I will argue that free market capitalism is a superior economic policy to demand market communism. Con must prove communism is a superior system?


Rules and Structure

Round 1: Introduction/Acceptance

Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Defense of Arguments, more rebuttals
Round 5: Final defenses and rebuttals, conclusion

If one debater is to break the rules, they lose the debate. Forfeits are not tolerated and the one who does so will lose. If one debater cannot continue, he or she must tell the other debate and it must be confimed in the debate for voters, resulting in a tie. All arguments and sources must be presented in the debate, not in comments.

I hope for a good debate.
ben671176

Con

I accept. Though I won't be debating for corrupt communism. I will be arguing why it was made.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

My Case

Supply and Demand

One of the most important factors of economics is supply and demand. Businesses seek to find equilibrium between supply and demand. When supply increases, prices fall because it is not as valuable with more products. With more demand prices rise because prodcuts aqre worth more. Since businesses want to maximize profit, they will always seek equilibrium.

"The law of supply and demand defines the effect that the availability of a particular product and the desire (or demand) for that product has on price." [2]

Private Property Rights

If you look at free market nations, they have are the primary nations of advancing property rights. Private propety means things are owned by individuals, not the state. This helps with supply and demand. Shortages are usually more seen in socialist and communist countries where the state controls industries. Private businesses are simply more efficient with economics.

"In enriching most those who are most productive, capitalism allows the survival of billions of people who would not otherwise have survived. In fact, capitalism gives everyone, particularly the weakest, whom it is accused of harming â€" the best chance not just to survive but to thrive. One of many ways this is revealed is the vast increases in leisure that markets have made possible, while real incomes dramatically increased at the same time." [3]

Competition, Innovation, Free Trade

Private businesses compete with each other to get the business of consumers. They want the most profit, so they need to appeal to consumers through lower prices and other incentives. At the same time, they need to make sure to please workers with adequate pay or else they may lose them to other business. Because of this, competition works for everyone.

"The notion of “avoiding” competition is futile at best, because as we all know, in a free-market economy, competition is good for consumers – keeping prices affordable and increasing the level of customer service. That being said, innovation is key, however there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Often times it is in the best interest of business to “borrow” successful ideas, launching innovation from there." [4]

Innovation is indeed key to the success of businesses. Innovation, after all, has lead to advancements in technology in our world. It was never communism.

"Capitalism has made advances possible, not solely in providing life's necessities, but in science, technology, and knowledge of all types upon which human society depends. Freedom attracts innovators and explorers and gives life to their ideas. Freedom for people to act in their own self-interest is the mainspring for a diversity of ideas, innovations, and experiments that lead to the discovery of new products, services, and other means of production." [5]

This especially helps small businesses with new ideas vs. big businesses who eventually reach their peak and have to stay where they are with less innovation.

Such companies have become highly rigid and specialized, and in static terms, greatly productve. Many of them are now experiencing a new lease on life in the international realm. But from the point of view of overall economic growth and technological innovation, these leviathans are of little importance to the economy. [6]

Free trade is also crucial to an economy. With protectionism, there is a regulation on international trade that only benefits businesses in the country establishing tariffs. However, this hurts consumers who will buy less if prices are simply too high. We have seen tariffs before and they have failed. The infamous Tariff of Abominations nearly caused a civil war, the McKinely Tariff led to the fall of Benjamin Harrison's presidency, and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff made the Great Depression worse.

"According to the Cato Institute’s 2004 report on Economic Freedom of the World, which measures economic freedom in 123 countries, the per capita gross domestic product in the quintile of countries with the most restricted trading was only $1,883 in 2002. That year’s per capita GDP in the quintile of countries with the freest trading regimes was $23,938." [7]

Free trade is far superior to restriction in international trade.

History

What about evidence that free markets really do work? We have plenty of evidence that proves nations that adopt free markets last longer than those who do not. Also, free markets have greatly improved the quality of life and economic growth of many nations:

Real GDP

Here is growth:

Economic growth

Here are some historical examples.

I. Ancient Rome

Rome had one of the greatest empires of all time and with it had one of the most free markets. This allowed for huge growth in the economy. They respected private property and the great majority saw a good quality of life. As with all nations, there was some small regulation, but nothing too huge. It was overall a free market nation.

"No Roman institution was more important or celebrated, than its legal system, particularly its recognition of property rights. The rule of law, rather than the rule of men, no doubt encouraged Solovian investment (for example, purchasing capital equipment). The Romans also had vibrant markets for urban trade, markets unique in Europe. Heavy trading led to the development of a peculiar institution known as the collegium, which gave legal status to a private group, the direct ancestor in law of the modern corporation, trade union, and even nonprofit organization." [8]

Rome lasted for a long time with this free market system, but what happened to it as it fall? The answer is increased economic intervention by the Roman government eventually leading to a command economy by Emperor Diocletian at the end which led to the empire's fall.

II. Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany was a superpower, yes, and it had huge economic growth under the national socialist command economy system it had set up. Is this not an example of a triumph in the command economy? No it is not. The economic boom was brief and was likely not to last.

"It can never be known if Nazi Germany or fascist Italy could have thrived in pace, though it seems unlikely. Rather, the growth of those economic in the brief run-up to 1939 fit what is now a familiar model - the statis takeover. When a government transitions to a more interventionist role, transforming a free economy to a command economy, it thrives onn a one-time extraction of wealth and from formerly independent, private companies. But like a sudden wealth tax, aggrandizement by a dicator diinishes the incentives of the private sector to create wealth going forward." [8]

Nazi Germany was destined to fall.

III. United Kingdom

From 1945 to 1979, the UK built up a welfare state that slowly led a decline in the British economy. This was because both Labour and Conservative governments decided to take over private industries and redistribute wealth. By the late 1970s the economy was in trouble.

"The transport of goods pactically dried up. Employees were laid off as businesses were crippled by the lack of deliveries, enforced by intimidatory and often violent picketing of docks and factories. Piles of rubbish lay uncollected in the streets. Roads were not gritted (in very cold weather), schools were closed and hospitals admitted only emergency cases, while shop stewards took it on themselves to determine what was an emergency. Most famously, in Liverpool, the dead went unburied. On 22 January 1.5 million workers joined in a national Day, the biggest stoppage since the General Strike in 1926." [9]

Then in 1979, a new Conservative Party led by Margaret Thatcher decided to change the British economy after winning the general election. They privatized state industries and reduced the welfare state, leading to an advanced free market economy.

"Recall Sir Nicholas Henderson, the British ambassador to Paris, who sent a telegram to the foreign office in 1979 remarking 'today we are not only no longer a word power, but we are not in the first rank even as a European one.' He included his missive table: It showed that Britain's per capita income was 46 percent below West Germany's and 41 percent below France's.

As of today, British per capita income is 6 percent higher than united Germany's and 8 percent higher than France's. Britain is Europe's fastest growing economy now and fifth largest." [10]

Sources

1. https://www.khanacademy.org...
2. http://www.investopedia.com...
3. Galles, Gary. "Not Just Survival; Not Just of the Fittest." Mises.org. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 4 Apr. 2008. Web. 30 July 2014.
4. Johnson, Melody. "The Value of Competition." Temperchamber.org. Tempe Chamber of Commerce, 9 Apr. 2013. Web. 30 July 2014.
5. Younkins, Edward Wayne. "The Triumph of Technology over Government Planning." Mises.org. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 11 May 2011. Web. 30 July 2014.
6. Gilder, George F. Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition for the Twenty-first Century. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub., 2012. Print.
7. Tupy, Marian L. "Free Trade Benefits All." Cato.org. Cato Insitute, 3 Jan. 2006. Web. 30 July 2014.
8. Hubbard, R. Glenn., and Tim Kane. Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013. Print.
9. Campbell, John. The Iron Lady: Margaret Thatcher, from Grocer's Daughter to Prime Minister. New York: Penguin, 2011. Print.
10. Berlinski, Claire. "There Is No Alternative": Why Margaret Thatcher Matters. New York: Basic, 2008. Print.
ben671176

Con

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.sahistory.org.za...

http://www.debate.org...

The main reason why Communism fails is that it tries to make a classless society. That will never be possible.

1. Rome never failed because of the economic structure. It failed because its military was not the strong legions back in the day. It had too many enemies and too much land to protect. It bought mercenaries to protect its lands. It didn't have a modern communication system to get information acrossed its vast landscspe. It didn't have trains or cars to move troops acrossed its land either. Just feet and horses.

2. Nazi Germany, Germany of WW1 was both destined to fall. Germany in WW1 was destined to fall because of it having too much enemies. No allies that wasn't being supported by it. It was consuming all of its resources and soldiers because of fighting on too many fronts and it was fighting almost every country. Nazi Germany fell because it also picked to many fights; if you led a country into a war with two allies and fought the U.K., France, U.S., Russia, China, et cetera. Would you win to? When you have 2 other allies that are somewhat strong and a bunch of client states that have growing economies?

3. The date about the U.K. financial bankrupcy tells all: 1945 into the late 70s. Wars aren't cheap man. Germany is still paying off debt of World War 1. Even the victors of World War 1 had faced depressions and lost a lot of their male populations.

Economic and Political growth is fine. But even though the Indians never grew stronger, they still never ripped continents of their resources and left dumps so large they can be seen in space. And made thousands of species either endangered or extinct. Or made Global Warming a problem at large.

Anyways, have you looked at the economic structures of Bees, Ants, and Termites? They have communist structures. Like how everyone works together to keep the 'hive' alive and healthy. Certain termite species can even build cities (mounds) that have air conditioning and produce fungi that can only grow in their cities. Milimeter by milimeter, they can build skyscrapers a mile high if they were at our height.

Is the economy that bad over in Russia? No, they're picking fights with America and invading Ukraine. We can't do anything aout it because they have hundreds of missiles, too. They even are the ones that are allowing us to use their Space programs.

Now North Korea has communism as their econoic system but we can all agree that they are just failures even at telling the U.S. that they can win.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

"The main reason why Communism fails is that it tries to make a classless society. That will never be possible."

You might as well say I win.

Rome

"Rome never failed because of the economic structure. It failed because its military was not the strong legions back in the day. It had too many enemies and too much land to protect. It bought mercenaries to protect its lands."

This point has been rebutted. Yes countries may get destroyed in the end by military forces and this was true with Rome, but they occured a century after the start of economic stagnation. The Roman military fell and the barbarians prevailed when the Romans couldn't keep a sound economic policy.

"It didn't have a modern communication system to get information acrossed its vast landscspe. It didn't have trains or cars to move troops acrossed its land either. Just feet and horses."


This is a very weak argument. Yeah, Rome did not have cars and modern communications, but neither did everyone else during its period. Also, if no modern technology caused Rome to fail then why did it succeed to a huge empire in the first place?

Nazi Germany

The German economy was a statist economy similar to that of the USSR. We saw that the USSR inevitably declined and this was the case with Nazi Germany. Wars only made the decline faster, but it was inevitably going to because of poor economic policy that only breifly brought wealth to Germany.

United Kingdom

"The date about the U.K. financial bankrupcy tells all: 1945 into the late 70s. Wars aren't cheap man. Germany is still paying off debt of World War 1. Even the victors of World War 1 had faced depressions and lost a lot of their male populations."

German war debt has already been paid off. [1]

You are looking at WW1, but it is silly to think such a war caused great financial implications into the 1970s for Britain. Britain still remained a top empire after that. Wars aren't cheap is a major cop-out. WW1 has little to do with the Great Depression, but even less to do with British economic policy after even WW2. You forgot about the baby boomers completely which led to large workforce in the British socialist economy but the nationalized industries failed and Thatcher prevailed.

"Economic and Political growth is fine. But even though the Indians never grew stronger, they still never ripped continents of their resources and left dumps so large they can be seen in space. And made thousands of species either endangered or extinct. Or made Global Warming a problem at large."

The whole point of an economic system is to create wealth and growth and communism has not been proven to do that. Also many capitalists countries are thriving without empires. Climate change is not man-made. [2]

You then talk about the economic structures of bees and termites, however we are talking clearly about an economic system for humans. Also the economy in Russia has little to do with Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. If anything they invaded it for better economic benefits to rescue themselves.

Yes North Korea is communist and failed.

Overall, these are some easy arguments to beat.

Sources

1. http://news.smh.com.au...
2.
Watts, Anthony. "A Study: The Temperature Rise Has Caused the CO2 Increase, Not the Other Way Around."Wattsupwiththat.com. Watts Up With That?, 9 June 2010. Web.

ben671176

Con

I will literally take the text out of my Roman army encyclopedia on why they fell. Not their economic structure. Since you can't take my word.
"The Uniforms of the Roman World."

The Crisis of The Third Century.

The 3rd century was a drak time for the Roman Empire. Emperors were assassinated in a string of attacks from within, and every emperor that assumed the throne must have felt how shaky the crown was on his head. During this time, encroachments along the border increased, and a state of anarchy became the norm in Rome.
(Skipping to another part because it was talking about same thing)

The Collapse of the Western Empire (402-76AD)
(moving around at +++, since you don't want to hear all of it.)

The western Roman Empire collapsed under the repeated blows from barbarian tribes and armies that were migrating from the east. Successive groups of Germanic peoples, searching both for land on which to live, and to escape nomadic tribes pushing them westwards, +++
At this point the Roman Army was no longer the strong, well-trained and disciplined infantry legions of the height of the empire. Legions were still in existence, but they were only about 1,000 strong, whereas the old legions had been of 5,000 well-armed and equipped infantry. Old habits were sometimes there, as well as titles and ranks, but the traditional Roman infantry army no longer existed. . .
(Shall I add more History King? I am the history buff here.) But really the Eastern Rome lasted another like 1,000 years?

You basically stating after WW1, Britain was on top and didn't suffer economically (that much) makes me so angry! Yes they were still on top of the empires but OMG! They went worse than bankrupt! But I' am only going to post the opening; if you want me to add more. Ask me. Like add facts. Not an opening.

"This was a war that bankrupted the victors and utterly destroyed the economies of the vanquished; pain augmented by a punitive peace. It was a conflict that disrupted the slowly evolving democratic systems and ushered in the age of the dictator, unleashing forces that could not be controlled by a politician."

Though I do agree that Germany suffered way more.

You state that a communist state has not proven to establish a good economy. But look at Russia. They have hundreds of Nukes, one of the top largest countries (other than land mass), invasion of Europe and picking a fight of one of the top Republics. I don't see on how invading Ukraine is saving Russia's economy when all of America is ready to go to war.

Sorry for misspell of 'economic'.

When I mentioned the social structures of bees and termites I was mentioning how Communism could work if everyone was selfless and helped eachother. Like how 'Communism=Community' and how it was made for the 'community' to help eachother to make ends meat. Though I know it will never happen because: sin and selfishness. That is my ideaology.

The main problem of communism is that 1% of the population or the government has all the money. But really, look at our economy: do we all have shacks? Or all have mansions? Really with any government, economy, people ideaology; they always create the same outcome: debt, no equal amount of spreaded wealth, and slow improvement; if any.
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

I. Rome

Your Roman army encyclopedia is too narrow to military affairs, I know because I own the same book. At least I think your talking about this (http://www.amazon.com...). There is a lot more information out there that looks at the wider scale of why Rome fell and it is silly to think that is was just military affairs. Many countries are able to hold on to their militaries while their economy is weak, but when the economy gets too weak then the army falls apart too because of lack of funding from taxes. When you don't having funding to pay for an army there is less training and less troops. Thus the army is weak. The Soviets had a powerful military, but their economy was terrible eventually leading to their fall. It is all the same.

Look at the statistics of the Severan debasement:

The Roman currency/

This decreases the value of Roman money.

"The trick of debasing the currency soon lost its effectiveness once the public figured out what was happening. Merchants responded by raising prices of their goods. Even if an emperor minted some small amount of thinner coins, their existence drove the purer money out of the market. People hoarded the stronger coins and speant the weak ones." [1]

The works I am citing on the other hand are conducted by expert academics well rounded in the economic and foreign studies of Rome.

The last nail in the coffin for Rome was not military affairs. Roman emperors were getting assassinated over economic policies like soldiers' wages, taxes, spending, etc. The end came with Diocletian's command economy:

"At this point, the Emperor Dicoletian (284-305 AD) took action. He attempted to stop inflation with a far-reaching system of price controls on all services and commodities. These controls were justified by Diocletian belief that inflation was due widely to speculation and hoarding, rather than the debasement of the currency." [2]

"Diocletian also added the residents of Italy to the tax roll - they had been immune before - but expanded the dole to include pork and oil in addition to grain. To recruit and amange the supply of the army, which may have been 650,000 soldiers, the civil service had to e expanded as well, perhaps another 30,000." [1]

What we see here is the economic suffication of the Roman Empire that resulted in a weaker army and less wealth to pay for such a huge army. Therefore the economy took down the soldiers not the other way around. While the 5th century barbarian invasions did contribute to the fall of the Roman Empire, it wouldn't have been possible without the deterioration from within due to other causes. Barbarians had been invading the empire since its existence.

I was also never talking about the Byzantine Empire of the Western Empire, but it is important to undertand the Roman Empire as a whole and I think you know well the true empire layed in power in Rome.

"(Shall I add more History King? I am the history buff here.)"


I consider this rude and mocking. Yes I enjoy history, but there is no kind. I consider myself a history buff, yes, but we just have different opinions. Because of this, I request voters give me the conduct point in the debate. As well as arguments since my case is clearly strill stronger. Source too because I have presented far more.

II. Britain

"You basically stating after WW1, Britain was on top and didn't suffer economically (that much) makes me so angry! Yes they were still on top of the empires but OMG! They went worse than bankrupt! But I' am only going to post the opening; if you want me to add more. Ask me. Like add facts. Not an opening."

Keep in mind we are solely talking about the communist state formed in Britain during the Attlee years that was dismantled under Thatcher. The reason WW1 had little to do with it is because it ended in 1918 and Attlee's communist state began in 1945 as WW2 came to an end. We are talking about the effects of capitalism and how it is superior to communism. Thatcher brought the free market to Britain after the country had been in decline with state industries. This has nothing to do with WW1. [3]

Look and how inflation and employment got better:

Inflation under Thatcher.

Jobs under Thatcher.

III. Germany/Russia

My opponent gave up on Germany.

"But look at Russia. They have hundreds of Nukes, one of the top largest countries (other than land mass), invasion of Europe and picking a fight of one of the top Republics. I don't see on how invading Ukraine is saving Russia's economy when all of America is ready to go to war."

Military affairs does not equal economic growth. So what if they have nukes. Also, Russia is far from today the communist state it was as the USSR. You should know that. It is not communist and cannot be considered communist. [5]

IV. My Opponent's Utopia

"When I mentioned the social structures of bees and termites I was mentioning how Communism could work if everyone was selfless and helped eachother. Like how 'Communism=Community' and how it was made for the 'community' to help eachother to make ends meat. Though I know it will never happen because: sin and selfishness. That is my ideaology."

This is completely utopia. It is is impossible for everyone to help each other. In fact, it does not help every since it is wealth redistribution. Free market capitalist does better at this. During the Reagan years when he cut taxes and enacted supply-side economics the total number charity donations increased from $65 billion to $100 billion. [4]

The main problem of communism is that 1% of the population or the government has all the money. But really, look at our economy: do we all have shacks? Or all have mansions? Really with any government, economy, people ideaology; they always create the same outcome: debt, no equal amount of spreaded wealth, and slow improvement; if any.

I beg to differ, communism is the worst economic system ever while the free market is the greatest:





Sources

1. Hubbard, R. Glenn., and Tim Kane. Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013. Print.
2. Bartlett, Bruce. "How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome." Cato.org. Cato Insitute, Fall 1994. Web.
3. Campbell, John. The Iron Lady: Margaret Thatcher, from Grocer's Daughter to Prime Minister. New York: Penguin, 2011. Print.
4. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.
5. http://www.heritage.org...;
ben671176

Con

I don't see the point of arguing since my past arguments were pieces of crap made on a whim and that even whatever I do I still would lose since I barely added anything to actually back my arguments up.

http://www.studymode.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1Historygenius

Pro

Ok, but I must say this was a good debate and I was glad to have the opportunity to do this with you. I hope your arguments get stronger (or better you are convinced into becoming a capitalist).
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
After exams this week.
Posted by debate_power 1 year ago
debate_power
I'm willing to debate you on communism or socialism.
Posted by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
Is that some high school essay?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
1Historygeniusben671176Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.