The Instigator
vardaanbhat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TeaPartyBijesse
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Capitalism is Superior to Socialism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/2/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 89115
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

vardaanbhat

Pro

Which system is superior: capitalism or socialism?I propose that capitalism is the only moral system, since it is the only system firmly grounded in the concept of individual rights. Socialism, on the other hand, is based on forced cooperation and the violation of individual freedoms.To understand what these rights entail, we must ask ourselves: what are rights? To answer this question, we must first ask, what is man? What is his nature?Man's Nature, Individualism, and Rights:Man is a rational animal. His primary faculties are his mind; his main tool his use of reason. Only an individual human being can use reason. There is no such thing as a collective, hive mind. Individuals do not blend together, leaving their physical bodies and somehow mixing themselves into some collective entity. Since the collective mind is impossible, there is only one possibility-that of the individual human mind.Man is defined by his nature. To survive, man must live by his nature. Therefore, the only system that supports the survival of man is that which allows him to live by his nature.It is now clear that any moral system must allow man to live by his nature; in other words, a moral system must allow man to reason and to use his mind.Such a system has to recognize and protect individual rights; that is, it has to recognize the uninhibited freedoms of individuals to use their minds and sustain their own lives by pursuing their values. The only means by which rights can be violated is by the use of force. Therefore, to protect rights, a rational system must protect individuals from the initiation of force. This extends to the government itself; it must protect citizens from both outlaws and itself.Summary: A moral system must respect the survival of individual human beings; it must protect their ability to use their minds and defend them from the initiation of force.Capitalism and Socialism:If we wish to prove the moral superiority of capitalism over socialism, we must first define both systems. What is capitalism, and what is socialism?"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."In other words, capitalism is based on the idea of individual freedoms and the right to disagree and not cooperate with others. Socialism is based on the idea that all property belongs not to the individuals that own it, but to the collective-to the hive mind.Clearly then, socialism is based not on the recognition of individual rights, but on the use of force; it devalues the very concept of individual freedoms in favor of collective benefit. As a result, it is fundamentally immoral.On the other hand, capitalism is based on the recognition of the individual freedom to pursue prosperity, happiness, and values; as such, it is fundamentally moral.Summary:Capitalism is moral because it respects individual rights, as opposed to socialism, which blatantly violates them.
TeaPartyBijesse

Con

Even though I don't agree with the side I will be debating for, I will be accepting the challenge for the fun.

Key Points:
Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality.
Stops economy from being dominated by the few, but by the people.
First off, capitalism is not a political system, but an economic system. The problem is "free-market" advocates think capitalism is a political system and through rationalizations and justifications for the single-variable profit pursuit.

There must be a system of either risk-pooling and income distribution. Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality. Although its prescriptions for the problem " things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and shared ownership of productive assets " are trickier to deliver than they assume, socialism is far superior to capitalism in telling us that a member of the electorate is being left behind and that a gap in the wealth distribution is widening.

Thought history, socialism hasn't been given it's chance. People like Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong Il have dominated it, but what if socialism had a more responsible leader? Somebody like that could really change the international view on the party.

Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
vardaanbhat

Pro

I will refute your points, one by one.

1.) "Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality."
This is, to start, a highly vague and unsupported statement. Wealth inequality is most certainly fair; those who produce more value receive more value. One most certainly deserves proportionate returns on the work that he does. Socialist "equality" laws steal from the successful and only make the mediocre more complacent and reliant on those above them.

2.)"Stops economy from being dominated by the few, but by the people."
Capitalism has neither. Capitalism is a system of voluntary, free trade. If anyone "dominates" the economy it is because they have provided more value to people than anyone else. This is anything but unfair.

3.) "Capitalism is not a political system, but an economic one."
False. Capitalism is a social system, derived from the basic concept of a political right (i.e., freedom).

4.) "There must be a system of either risk-pooling and income distribution. Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality. Although its prescriptions for the problem " things like raising the minimum wage, universal health care and shared ownership of productive assets " are trickier to deliver than they assume, socialism is far superior to capitalism in telling us that a member of the electorate is being left behind and that a gap in the wealth distribution is widening."

This is based on the idea that equal distribution of wealth is somehow fair. It is most certainly not. You simply state that there 'must' be such a system, yet you provide no background. A member of the electorate is "left behind" only if he does not provide value to people. If someone is paralyzed or truly in desperate need of help, this help (e.g., health care, housing) should be accomplished through private, voluntary charity. Need does not give one a license to steal.

5.) "Thought history, socialism hasn't been given it's chance. People like Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong Il have dominated it, but what if socialism had a more responsible leader? Somebody like that could really change the international view on the party."

Socialism is based on the use of force and on legalized slave labor. Here, the leader is irrelevant. Socialism is completely flawed in theory, and therefore completely flawed in practice.

Good luck!
TeaPartyBijesse

Con

The truth for #1 is that the socialist system is the more sensitive system to inequality because it puts limits on how much weal a single person can accumulate. Even though it is stealing, it can help reduce the amount of wealth inequality. And in a socialist society, people must depend on the higher-ups, and if they get a fair, livable share, everything works out fine in a financial point of view.

2) Your response here is a little odd, because if a capitalist mining business lets say, bought all the rich mining land and earned millions, the company's owner would dominate. leaving the rest in ruins as he buys all other companies that stand in their way, In socialism, all the miners would have their rations.

3) True, capitalism is a social system, but not a political system which is what I have said.

4) It is fair in the form that all people earn their "fair share" in which is their split of the community's work.

5) My point is how socialism's many leaders throughout history have turned corrupt, which has lead to more of a "slavery" feeling.

Great debate so far!
Debate Round No. 2
vardaanbhat

Pro

Many socialists oppose capitalism on the basis of it "not being practical." They say that perhaps freedom is "okay in theory, but not in practice." This is completely contradicted by all real-world evidence. First, note that capitalism's definition implies the complete separation of state and economy.

Now, recognize that capitalism led to the:

-greatest increase in the quality of life we have ever witnessed (simply look at the transition over the past several centuries)
-the longest period of total peace we have ever witnessed (approx. 1815-1914)

Some say that corporations are responsible for "all the evil" in the modern world. Simply note that under communism, 100 million people died, and there were no corporations. On the other hand, capitalism created the greatest living conditions ever.

Response to point 2: He would need money and consent to buy that land. If he also overpriced his product, then he would be appealing to a much smaller market. He would eventually be forced to cave in to public pressure and appeal to a much larger market.

Response to point 4: If everyone earns equal amounts, that does not mean they are earning what they truly deserve. That means that everyone gave away what they rightfully earned to a "common pot" of sorts, and ended up with less then or more than they actually deserved. Essentially, what they earn is disproportionate to the value they produce. Also, the very concept of a "common pot" is based on the idea that theft is moral. It is not.
TeaPartyBijesse

Con

The morality is, that capitalism can be,if utterly dominated, a heavily immoral economics system due to the fact that if one person was to basically own the system, the remainder of people would be so poor they would just basically die of starvation or some way or another. In that case, it is more moral.

Capitalism may have improved the overall economics, but it leaves the remaining people basically with nothing.

Going back to dictators, that is the reason for the deaths. Earlier in the debate, you said it had nothing to do with it. But, even so, if the leader was more responsible, more people would live, and much better.

I decline that statement. If someone were to continue building up wealth rapidly, They could continue to destroy all who stand in their way, until they dominate the sector, and then the market.

Even if they don't earn it, everyone gets their fair share and all are equal. Done.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by vardaanbhat 8 months ago
vardaanbhat
Socialism (taxation and other such measures) rip away property from rightful owners.
Posted by vardaanbhat 8 months ago
vardaanbhat
I oppose collectivism on principle. Individuals have a right to not be enslaved by the majority and to pursue their own happiness.

Actually, the boss made the company, its projects, all possible.

I live in America, so there's no "u" in labor for me.

Rent themselves? I think you mean mutual exchange for mutual benefit.
Posted by AnarchoBlonde 8 months ago
AnarchoBlonde
Instigator, you have a massive straw man:

"Socialism, on the other hand, is based on forced cooperation and the violation of individual freedoms"

You're thinking USSR here. The Soviet Union was State Capitalist because the government undertook all / most industry and produced capital, using the state to replace the bourgeoisie.

"Wealth inequality is most certainly fair; those who produce more value receive more value"

I don't think a boss sitting in an office all day produces much value, also google "anarcho-collectivism" or "left-wing market anarchism".

"Socialism is based on the use of force and on legalized slave labor"
*Labour

And people *rent themselves* to capitalists. No that's not slavery!
Posted by MangoInABottle 8 months ago
MangoInABottle
Con must bring Pro's point of the more moral system.

If untouched, that point is left standing and gives pro a massive advantage in a debate.

Explain why socialism is more moral (rebuttals make a debate!)

Con must also explain WHY his wealth equality is a good thing or WHY risk pooling/income distribution is a good thing.

Petty or not, in a real debate you shouldn't leave a judge to infer why your points are more relevant to the other side.

Pro, you're second round can't just be rebuttal. You need to add another point before your whip or you go in with only you're 1 point of morality. Of course now you have no choice but to add a point in your whip. If you don't bring a new point and con brings down your point on morality then you have nothing left. Give more points.
No votes have been placed for this debate.