Capitalism is a better economic system than communism
Debate Rounds (5)
I will define the key terms:
Capitalism- an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. Income in a Capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other.
Communism- Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate
The five rounds will consist of
2- Opening Argument
5- Closing Argument
America is famously known as the land of immigrants. More people immigrate to America then any other country. They do this for the one thing freedom. These people want to experience the Capitalist aka American Dream. The right to come to his country while having nothing and be able to start a business and become better off then they ever were in their life before and be able to hand that down for generation. This is part of the basis of a capitalist society. The countries that get the most immigrants are all capitalist societies like America, Canada, New Zealand. This economic system thrives off of work ethic. People who are willing to put in their time and make the money they deserve. These are the people who suceed contibute to growth of a corporation and then receive their individual benefits. You see the blatant contrast all the time when you drive past road construction and wonder on a workday at 2pm where are the government workers and you realize there is no benefit to their job so they will slack off as much as they can. This is one of the examples of the classless society idea. No matter how hard they work or don't work they get paid the same. There is no motivation, no room for growth. In the capitalist society all the society does is look for a way to better itself it's not selfish it's individual freedom that contains a network of other businesses and jobs that all look to be the best. Which now allows them to moivates.
For the arguments which are not based around a nation, I'll address those first, then move on to my arguments.
"You see the blatant contrast all the time when you drive past road construction and wonder on a workday at 2pm where are the government workers and you realize there is no benefit to their job so they will slack off as much as they can."
This is a non sequitur. First, there obviously is a benefit to their jobs, in that they get paid to do it (your pay is part of your job). Second, it is the assumption that this is done (if at all) because it is a "classless" system (which it isn't). If the work was never getting done, we wouldn't have any roads. In fact, most road work is done at night, when traffic is minimal.
"No matter how hard they work or don't work they get paid the same. There is no motivation, no room for growth."
This is one of the most pervasive myths about communism. Not everyone gets paid the exact same under communism. there is no form of communism that even suggests this. Nor, is it implied in the definitions given by my opponent at the start of the debate.
I will now move on to my own arguments.
1) Communism is better for businesses.
In communism, companies are owned by the laborers, i.e. the workers. In capitalism, they are owned by private owners (investors). In both cases, whether a company is owned by the workers or the investors, they have 1 of 2 options with the company. They are either choose to run it themselves, or choose to appoint someone to run it for them (a company president). Let's look at each of these two options and who would be better at deciding for the good of the company for them.
If it was chosen that the owners (either the workers in communism or the investors in capitalism) should run it, would people who actually work at the company be better at running it? Or people who picked it's stock from someone their banker suggested as a good investment? If it was a car company, I'd believe that the people that actually build cars would know more about it than my dad (who owns stock in Ford, no offense to my dad). Whatever industry the company is in, its workers know more about the product and the market and industry and everything else, than some investor who likely has a little bit of everything in his portfolio.
If it was chosen that someone should be appointed to run the company, who would be better at finding the best candidate? This comes down to the same reasons as the other option. The workers know more about their industry than any investors do, and so would be better at choosing a leader for their company.
Since communism is better for the company in either option, the company would do better under communism, and so, the economy would as well.
2) Communism would have less poverty and less unemployment.
In capitalism, since investors control the companies, they funnel off as much money as they can back to the investors. Doesn't matter how much a company grows, if it doesn't pay back dividends to its investors, they are going to be upset. If this money is not wasted in going back to investors, it allows more money to be spent upon company growth and on employee pay. This will lower unemployment, since more resources are available for company growth, the company can hire more people. This will lower poverty, since the employees will be paid more, thus raising many out of poverty.
3) Communism would have lower taxes.
By having less unemployed, and less poverty, the government has a lower burden of assistance programs (less unemployed benefits, less food stamps benefits), and so it needs less tax revenue to meet those lower burdens. This creates a fun cycle where the businesses have more money again and so can continue to hire more people and pay higher wages, thus lifting even more out of those holes.
I will end with this, as this is going to be a long debate. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
I appreciate my opponents arguments and I will now move on to the rebuttal round.
My opponent states that I "bring up the US and other nations in his argument. Nearly every nation in the world has a mixed economy to some degree (some private ownership, some public). " And I would like to respond by saying of course that is true but using America as an example of a capitalist economy is completely just. In America the number of privately owned business largely out numbers the amount of government owned business.
The con is completely right that nearly every country is a mixed government which means some private ownership and some public ownership. I also will continue to describe the blatant differences between the two economic systems. The main in the privately owned business is working hard to provide the best life possible for his family. He goes to work in search of his next promotion and next pay raise. The amount of hard work you put in equates to the amount of money you will get out. Under a communist system the two guys sitting next to each other at the factory are getting paid the same. No matter what either one of them produces they will make the same wages. Of course the CEO of a company will make more than the factory worker but all employees at the same level will earn the same wages.
I would now like to address the Construction workers or government employed workers if you will. The employees working for the privately owned business are motivate to sell the next car or furniture. Why? They will make more. The government employee couldn't give a damn whether or not the problem they just want their paycheck. The work of course gets done but if the incentives and motivation were there how much more advanced would we be in today's society.
I would now like to respond to my opponents comments on why "Communism is better for business". He writes " The workers know more about their industry than any investors do, and so would be better at choosing a leader for their company." This I find to be a little inappropiate as leaders of companys are usually educated in the field they work in and also if they are family heirs they align themselves with other top executives that can guide them along the way. I haven't seen Donald Trump manage the Yankees yet so I think business and investors are still sane. For the most part leaders of companies are people who have spent an immense amount of time in their field and know the business inside and out so they would have no problem leading a company. I also understand my opponent is concerned about the process in which a leader will be appointed so I respond with rest assured because I am sure the investors will choose the best leader possible so he can bring in the most money possible. I also would like to address the issue of " The investors appointed the wrong leader and he isn't qualified." Privately owned businesses leaders are educated in a certain field, and just because a CEO doesn't know how to build a car doesn't mean he doesn't hire the best factory managers that do. My opponent also states in a lengthy paragraph why communism decreases poverty and simply I reply with anyone who wants to live a luxurious and wants to put in hard work and effort to be better will live and vote Capitalism. Anyone who wants to make average money be not at all motivated and live an average uninspiring lifestyle with little or no upside may live and vote communism.
Thank you vote PRO
This is simply false on many levels. First, there are people that make 100x as much money as I do, however, they do not work 100x as hard. Many do not work hard at all, while some do. The amount of money you make in a capitalistic nation does not depend on how hard you work, but how much others want your skills. If you hav skills that require little actual "work," but has huge demand (and little supply), you'll likely make a lot of money without doing a lot of work.
We also see that many people put a lot of work into a new company, yet most new companies fail in a couple of years. The simple fact that effort was done does not guarentee that money will be made.
"Under a communist system the two guys sitting next to each other at the factory are getting paid the same."
This is true under capitalism as well, so it really isn't an argument for or against either. Everyone in the same company as me, doing the same job as me, gets paid the same as me. All our factory workers get the same hourly rate. This doesn't really mean anything.
"The employees working for the privately owned business are motivate to sell the next car or furniture. Why? They will make more."
That is only true if their pay is commissioned based. Most companies choose to not pay commission based and optionally choose to pay either hourly or salary. In a capitalist state, companies would likely continue that practice (of paying hourly or salary), and so individuals would not get paid more for that extra individual couch.
"The government employee couldn't give a damn whether or not the problem they just want their paycheck."
This is a non sequitor. In a capitalist economy, people work for the very purpose of making money. In a communist nation, that will not change, people will still work for the purpose of providing for their family.
"This I find to be a little inappropiate as leaders of companys are usually educated in the field they work in and also if they are family heirs they align themselves with other top executives that can guide them along the way."
In publically traded companies, the share holders pick the leaders. This does nothing to show that share holders are able to pick more skilled leaders than the workers.
"For the most part leaders of companies are people who have spent an immense amount of time in their field and know the business inside and out so they would have no problem leading a company."
They likely are, but this doesn't change the claim that the employees would be better at picking the leader.
"I also understand my opponent is concerned about the process in which a leader will be appointed so I respond with rest assured because I am sure the investors will choose the best leader possible so he can bring in the most money possible."
Apart from the fact that "most money possible" =/= best leader for a company. We saw that Ford, GM, and others, chose the short sighted option of continuing to focus on trucks and SUVs. It brought in a short term profit (which the shareholders enjoyed), but it set the companies up for failure down the road. Long term stability and growth is superior to short term profits. I also find that simply saying "trust me, capitalism is better" is not an argument.
"I reply with anyone who wants to live a luxurious and wants to put in hard work and effort to be better will live and vote Capitalism. Anyone who wants to make average money be not at all motivated and live an average uninspiring lifestyle with little or no upside may live and vote communism."
This is not an argument, but merely pandering rhetoric.
The arguments that company leaders appointed by the workers is more efficient than leaders appointed by shareholders hasn't actually been challanged and so stands.
There were no refutations against the "communism would have lower poverty" and none against the "communism would have lower taxes" and so they stand.
bulls26 forfeited this round.
bulls26 forfeited this round.
I will end it as is.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: "The amount of money you make in a capitalistic nation does not depend on how hard you work, but how much others want your skills." - lopsided debate, bulls could have stayed in there though.
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.