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

Capitalism is better than Socialism.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 86778
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Capitalism is better than Socialism.
Four Independent Reasons:
1. The Theory of Supply and Demand
2. Private Property
3. Economic Incentives help Society

1. Supply and Demand
The people are in control of what is produced and sold to the people. This means that if more people have a higher demand for one thing, then more of that item/skill/quality will be produced; this also results in no excess product.
Example A: " A Dynamic Capitalist System"
Lets say people hear of the internet and demand computers. The demand for the finest computers will rise. A company named Microhard creates the finest computers, while a company named Pear creates decent computers, and a company called Samsing creates poor computers. This begins values individuality in the sense that Microhard is honored for its great computers (and rewarded with pay).

2. Private Property
The right to own property ensures an individual survival and independence. However, the individual must gain the land property through his/her own labor, otherwise leeching off other's labor would be wrong. Likewise, privatization of property allows for many benefits - the best example I have seen is owning a wasteland. By privatizing the property you can farm the land and gain wealth, so long as it does not interfere with others' property.

3. Incentive
The strongest force felt by humans is a reward for their work. Therefore those who work the hardest in society must be rewarded the most in the form of wealth (like Private Property). The problem with Socialism in this area is if one who works hard is rewarded the same as someone who does not work at all, there will be no reason to work and productivity in the society declines.

I proudly declare Capitalism to be better than Socialism.
I accept this challenge, do you?


I'll argue that socialism, not in the shape of form of earlier prototypes, but in essence as a modern
development, will obsolete obsolete capitalistic thoughts.

1. Supply and Demand

When thinking about control mechanisms there don"t have to be a pure aristocratic control system like there was for
example in the DDR. What will be produced and why could be discussed in the open, thus in one collective
engagement. - In which, like in this discussion, the decision may be based upon reason and not upon artificially created sensations like modern advertising. If not corrupted, the products would certainly diminish in range of choice, but there satisfy more people equally. Also, in modern capitalism overproduction is no exception. One prominent example is food. Here in Germany, we are trashing 690 pounds of food - per second.
In the US, 40 percent of food is lost in the food-supply-chain.

2. Private Property

Private property ultimately is a detachment to the greater community. In capitalism the means to all ends is making money, and property is thus an enslaving mental philosophy. If you have no money and are badly positioned in the market, you are effectively in a situation of ultimate guilt and detached from any means of happiness available in a modern capitalistic society. Also, it is an illusion thinking everybody can win. The Wheel spins and anyone could win, but not everybody.
Also, money is a symbolic value. Many people confuse money with direct wealth, dedication their actions to accumulating as much as possible.- If this is a side effect of capitalism, it is therefore a significant one. The wealth accumulated will always end in the hands of few, since you need money to make money, and lots of money to gain lots of money. This money has to be earned by the everyday people. And their sole purpose of going on is the belief that someday the wheel may spin in their favor, but most of the time, it won't. Capitalism is a good enough system since it builds of an easy to manipulate human property, greed and self direction, and is thus easier to manage since corruption or complete absence of ethics is in it's very core, but a good system it is not.

3. Work and Play

The argument that a simple worker carrying sticks and stones is less of worth than a manager is true if viewed in terms of demand and supply. However, most people in modern nations have access to higher education, and in many nation it is completely free. The cost is easily regained in the long run since a higher educated society is obviously more effective in solving problems. Capitalism's eyes are fixed on the short term and not on sustained development. Effective health care makes money in the long run and loses in the short term. There is no need in denying people higher education but to balance master and servant. Truly exceptional people should work for the common good, and not to create mind-boggling complex derivatives for private banks.- Since people in the US have high debts after college, the private sector like banks are able to cherry pick those candidates away from the market. I highly doubt they are happy, as I highly doubt anyone is happy in this position.
It is the overproduction of goods and services as well as the reluctance to automate processes in the industry because of the irrational fear of job loss preventing absurdly lower work hours for everybody. There are "bullsh#t jobs" on the rise just for pretending. People want security, yes, but security may also be delivered in alternative ways. Most products are only profitable because of aggressive advertisement creating a need where there wasn't. What people need besides security is mostly a social property. Right in the front, the feeling of being of use for society beyond simple symbolic representations, collaborating in the mission of making life free and more open for muse and creativity.

What can be archived in those means is good represented with the open software foundation and technologies like the Internet. When people get the tools to be free and creative, they wont go back to proprietary tools, but enjoy their work in a fast landscape of freedom and choice.
Debate Round No. 1


I have two purposes in this round:
1. Extend and Explain my original points.
Considering CON adressed points one and two, I will therefore only extend and explain argument three as it is the most important and goes neglected by the PRO
2. Reply to CON's points.

1. Extend and Explain
Incentives - This is devastating that the CON did not directly answer this point. Although, this makes sense because it is the biggest flaw of socialism. It is in human nature to achieve self-survival (this includes survival of one's children as they are an extension of one's self. If someone wants to achieve survival of their children - they will achieve as much as possible and work as hard as possible to receive as much as possible. In a capitalist world, this will happen and will continue to have incentives for their hard work. However, in a Socialist world, one who seeks 72 hours of straight work will reward him the same as 24 hours of work will obviously work less.

2. Reply
Supply and Demand - I begin by discrediting the sources - for these are taken in examples of a non purely capitalist world. I don't see how this could apply when many restrictions on exports like food actually will interfere with the natural supply/demand of things. Having discredited the overproduction argument, I will also use logic to disprove this: People demand chairs. Current supply of chairs falls. People produce more chairs. People buy said chairs. Supply of chairs is high. People lower demand of chairs. Production of chairs lowers. More People have chairs less chairs in supply as result. --> This is the cycle of supply and demand. There is no overproduction in a purely capitalist society. Even when there is no demand of chairs, no one will make them. This shows that overproduction makes no sense. Also, modern advertising is not an interruption but a way of literally showing product. If people see an ad - this does not make them want it, and if it does then it is probably a useful product which results in an increase of demand and continues the cycle -- thereby being beneficial to the society as a whole.

Private Property - The concept of 'making money' is not an 'enslaving mental philosophy' but is rooted in the desire for wealth and reward for living. Even without money and 'detached from the community', you do not want to remain in that position (obviously) and therefor you work, gain money, gain knowledge, gain social class, gain well-being, gain property, pass this down the family tree. Everyone can win, the only ones who don't believe they can leech off of others work, which is a socialist trait. If money is confused with 'direct wealth', then what is direct wealth? I would consider it private property, which is a capitalist trait. A socialist state would have no way of expressing direct wealth, especially considering everything is not even owned by you, but by the state itself. The CON brings up, 'you need money to make money' doesn't make sense - sure you need money to make MORE money, but an easy place to start is physical labor. Here you make money and then can use that money to make MORE money. This would be un-achievable in a socialist world too. Which means that even if you agree with CON, capitalism is the only attempt so you must vote PRO.

Work and Play - This didn't really contest my third point therefore I extended and explained it above, however, I will respond to the arguments made in this point. Capitalism's eyes are neither fixed on short term or long term, instead they are fluid as the people's eyes. If the people are worried about global warming, capitalism will cause incentives to create Green Technology, to cite one example. The private banks help these students. Without a loan, they could not go to college and could not receive a better job to make more reward. Obviously they are not happy, but a capitalist mentality means they will work to relieve this debt and obtain direct wealth (in the form of public property).

Socialism would at best restrict and decentivize creativity. People would be rewarded the same if they invented something or not, therefore why would anyone go through the work of doing so. Socialism at best would be a land of restriction and forced choice - the government owns what you think you should own and no freedom is allowed in the context CON thinks. Capitalism would be the only true way to keep the government little-to-not at all interfered with economics and therefore the people would truly have creativity, freedom and choice.


I answered Point 3 implicitly. (Although it is obvious that Pro really likes the excessive explicit style
of arguing in the passive voice, which is also a very rude one, explaining ironically the implicit
intentions of his contender instead of an neutral response, effectively claiming a priori knowledge.)

Survival of oneself as well as one another can also be achieved via cooperation not only via social-Darwinism. The survival of the fittest is a scheme of lesser intelligence and nature presents various systems of cooperation in it's very core. The very first occurrence is the symbiosis of the single-cell with mitochondria as a win-win situation. You are obviously referring to the old scheme of capalism like the UDssR, DDR or Cuba since your premise seems to be that there can not be
anything substantial archived outside of capitalism. I am not arguing about bringing back old socialistic systems, since they were in essence totalitarian states and claiming those to be truly marxistic and representiv would make Marx turning in his grave. Your idea about work is also full of unspoken presumptions. In a society were technology is used to full effect, reduced work hours are a consequence. Also, there does not have to be a monetary system like today, for obvious reasons private banks and capitalistic theory are not a good ground of proof of alternative systematic approaches.

Money is not sent from the heavens nor found under a stone, it is merely a human invention undergoing change. Assuming workload and payment to be identical to your very resident right now is outright limitating at best.
Of course "they will achieve as much as possible and work as hard as possible to receive as much as possible", since this is the price of capitalistic thinking. I will therefore delight you of alternatives. It is not about going With one another but against it. In this society, your are competing for survival.- This is not a socialistic pragma. In Marxism, we are working with another to archive as much as possible for each other.

This is not pure theory. There are, also in the US, firms who completely share their revenue across every employee equally and every decision is voted for by everybody. Guess what? The employees suddenly like working. They discuss their workload, take interest in their product outside of pure financial growth but also because of community, work more and are more productive. Why? Because suddenly this is not an anonymous Warehouse anymore where people drag themselves to for "Survival" but because of conviction. The man at the machines earns the same as the man running the office since pay is structured after workload. And suddenly people like working in those "lower" sectors. No grief. Of course not everything is gold, but that is always the case when people cooperate. Conflict is necessary and healthy when shared.- Not endured.

In the course of history, over 2000 fiat currencies where born and dried out, therefore the probability of our modern currency undergoing a rapid change is likely and very much observable for many years. Your idea of the modern monetary system as constant is illusory. The point is: It does not have to be the way it is now. The basic question is therefore: "Can socialism be implemented with the use of other tools and technologies? " Instead of relying on the obviously lost ground of past experiences.
I also pointed your attention (in point 3) to the very real example of free software or technologies like the Internet.- Since they are in the very essence, socialistic. Hundreds of thousands of people write software day in and out to purse a sense of community that is not restricted. And most of them don't even remotely get paid but working immensly to archive products for free firms may need to invest million of dollars. The idea that people only work for wealth aka homo economicus is extremely oversimplified. Without the lots of people working voluntary in every aspect of modern culture the Capitalistic society would ve been long collapsed.

Moreover, you are living on an island, in two ways. The US, and your social class in modern Capitalism. Don't think your life standards would be possible without the army of third-world workers employed oversees under inhuman conditions to ship you your ipad. You seem to live in the idea of 19th century nationalism. In the globalized word, there is either master or server. And Europe's as Americas servants are effectively half the other world, fighting for survival in pointless conditions.

Also, just stating that a is not b because a is not b is neither worth the discussion nor the effort
Debate Round No. 2


Before I begin, I just want to say how such a great this debate is! I really enjoy this and good luck!

Direct Response to CON:

Point 1:
"Survival of oneself as well as another ... a good ground of proof of alternative systemic approaches."
Here, CON clearly is misinterpreting my arguments. I don't necessarily believe that the 'survival of the fittest' mentality is one that applies to the theory of supply and demand (on capitalism at all). This would imply unfair advantages that are insurmountable at all - which is not what I will advocate for. Now that this is clear, it seems as though we both agree that cooperation in society helps to a certain degree. Yes this is true, but the only way to achieve this in its purest and most effective form, Capitalism must prevail. In the theory of Capitalism, the society as a whole decides the needs and wants of the people. However, in the theory of Socialism, the government will decide what is needed for the people, how much of it to make, where to distribute, etc. This only proves you should vote PRO to solve the problems that CON presents. I think the technology argument is irrelevant, a legitimate would use/sell technology to maximize profits.

Point 2:
"Money is not sent from the heavens ... as much as possible for each other."
I admit money is human-made. We work for the best of the individual, which in turns does in fact benefit society. The only true direct wealth is private property, which means at least, you continue to vote PRO. There is no problem with the function of the theory in this sense. Also, the socialist mentality would not be able to function in that the government manages your life. In Marxism, no one has reason to work if the government works for them.

Points 3:
The scenario you describe is an example of an effective capitalist (who owns the business). Obviously managers treat their companies with respect to gain sales and keep workers. Also this would again only be available with Capitalism in mid. Lets consider the same example in a functioning Socialist society: The company is designated to create a certain computer system by the government, the company can vote within. They vote to moving facilities. This surely excites many people due to a newer and bigger facility, however, they no longer have incentive to continue working. In capitalism, if they enjoy their decision and their product, they believe they can improve their product and will work to be promoted so that they can satisfy their desire to help all. However, in the same socialist world, the hard work would in turn not benefit you at all. No additional pay, no stronger power, no changing force, no reason to continue. I feel that the best way is then to remain in the Capitalist ideology.

Points 4:
Of course currencies change, this is why we pin it down to private property. In the Socialist world, there will be no direct sign of wealth, ONLY currency. Therefore Capitalism should be preferred. Also, I guarantee the majority of 'free software or technologies' that you mention are surely free to the buyer, but the seller still does this for money in most cases. These developers normally promote advertisements, or use them later on to show their quality and experience for later jobs/actions.

Point 5:
Well, I don't quite understand this point. Sure people are extorted for production. I realize this and am in pity for these people. However, if you say you advocate for a more modern form of Socialism, I would argue for a more modern form of Capitalism. Obviously there are concepts to prevent over-extortion, like minimum wage or child labor laws, etc. I do realize people are still treated horribly, but this is still the better mentality of a Socialist society.

I also want to emphasize some points that are weakly contested by CON; Private Property is the direct wealth that CON believes should exist - vote PRO; and there are still incentives to improve work conditions/products/etc. for the purpose of humanity while no incentives remain in Socialism.


Stating the obvious

Clearly you misinterpret socialism with communism. It is common practice in the US not to distinguish between the various forms of liberal markets and philosophies, but to flatting the forms of socialism like democratic socialism, scientific socialism or the classic Marxist socialism into plain old communism. Making things easy is not enough here. As I stated above, I am not debating old communism, but like the topic depicts, socialism. And to this day there have not been a single instance worthy to be called democratic socialism, scientific socialism or sole socialism. All there is are trends, and I also depicted various of those in the last posts.

Misinterpreting capitalism and ignoring globalization

It is a nice fairytale to think of the very simplest ideas from Adam smith as a sole solution to the modern age. In it's very core, the human agent, modern supply and demand theory et cetera have prooven to be ineffective. And those times when they flourished most, causation can not be ignored. The economic power of the western world after world war two was build upon the fact that those supreme technologies developed during those years plus the relative lively infrastructure of the US was in a way better shape than anywhere in the world. Also, capitalism in the united states in the 19th century is quite a different beast than neoliberalism. Flattening history makes one more time all things seem easy where things are utterly complex. Back to the point, there was no market able to compete with the western economy, leading to an easy world market domination by the western world. This domination was built upon the exploits of the time, as well as on the exploits of earlier colonialism. The slave trade in earlier times has been one of the most important factors and some scientist argue, the cornerstone of the initial cometetive advantage by the US. Later followed by the also not negletable bonus points of a won war. There are hundreds of books and thousand of papers available to study these topics, and I encourage you to do so. So I wont go further in this excurse.

In the history of the modern markets, it is clear that the idea of supply and demand and most importantly, the economic, selfish human agent, is to simplistic and does not solve any problems in modern society but serve as an accumulator. If you really think everyone can win at the same time, you are absurdly hypnotized. I have the impression that you haven't had any explicit experience regarding the monetary world outside of common political simplifications by the common people.
One of the corner stones in capitalism is competition for wealth. The idea is that if everyone tries hard enough and put in enough willpower, everyone may win. But where are winners there also those lost in the process. There are people in this world not interested in capital growth but heavily inspired by other convictions. Those are the ones loosing.- And they are the common people. Have you an idea how many are working in three jobs at once to support their lesser property? In the US, the most aggressive capitalism in the world, a lot. Way more than in Europe. Because of it's predatory nature, security is of no importance whatsoever, and any attempt to establish policies catching people falling through the net are causing the uproar of socialism, but what is meant, is communism. This trend is exploiting the fears of the common people and stabilizing the economic advantage of those who are rich. (
5 Percent in the US have more money than 95 percent of the rest. This is not fair, this is a monopoly. And moreover, it is a monopoly you are born in, or left out. It may happen that simple people climb up the ladder to get rich. But first, for everyone climbing up, the people falling down are a magnitude higher. For the stake on the table to be high, there have to be a lot of bets. The perverted consequences of the economy ignoring real goods and services but exploiting financial products, which are in itself nothing more than a roulette table for the upper class, are visible with ease and criticized by enomic experts for quite a long time. So, of course it is the survival of the fittest, everything else is nothing but wishful thinking. Also, when there are more people highly qualified, it does Not reduce the losers bracket, since the competition just gets more fierce, and those trapped in unfortunate life conditions and their future are completely on stake.

2. "...the government will decide what is needed for the people..."

Have you ever met that alien sitting in the giant office called government? Is he an alien? He has to be, since you are not counting him to "the people". Have you ever met the person you pay taxes for? Just turn around and look in the mirrow.
Oversimplification. In the republic, the one you and I are living in, we vote our Representatives on the philosophical belief that a voted expert is more flexible and possible aqainted then oneself.- Fair enough. This is something that can go along any form of economy or philosophy. The government is not the enemy but the purpose of the officials voted is to serve the people.- Although in capitalism a lot of politicians rely on money for their campaign by anonymous money lenders, effectively
corrupting the very core of this truly concise beautiful thought. Don't believe me? Again, read up on the millions spend on the candidates by the top 5 percent (and like my Prof liked to tell me, always check the source). There is no conflict in theory between the government in the people, quite the opposite, officials are voted to serve the people for their sole convenience. Regarding "in Marxism, no one has reason to work if the government works for them", I pointed you to a lot of real world examples and I am frankly tired defending an obvious existing and effective subculture that sits right in front of your eyes.

There are many forms of control structures outside of the ones your limited knowledge of political theory apprehends. Look at democratic socialism as example. Like Switzerland, it is entirely possible (and only convienet through modern technology you so eagerly dismiss) to let the people vote for whatever there is and merely manage or account the decisions made direct by the people. Another idea is the deep integration of scientists in discussions of important decision to make the process not political but scientific and reasonable. Systems theory is complex and a wide field and, again, there is a lot more reading involved to acquire something of more quality than plain common knowledge.
As a side note. Thinking technology is irrelevant is plain ignorant of modern history since social improvements are mostly developed in parallel or on improvements in technology, since it is easier and more feelable than the plain philosophic thought.

As for money. Like above there are many many alternative technologies in discussion right know eliminating the limitations of modern fiat concurrency. On which you should also read up. Possible alternatives discussed are: Time as money, energy as money, digital signatures as money. All those technologies are descendants of modern socialistic thinking.

Voting for modern capitalism? It is happening right know, in the form of transitioning away from it. This drift is not random, but relies on the people being fed up with the limitations of their time. Thinking minimum wage can fix this? Think the woman in India sewing your jeans 19 hours a day for 1.5 dollar will be employed with minimum wage? Wishful thinking as it's best. Why are we importing goods from those poor creatures, being exploited by our very cooperation's down there? Because we won't pay a fair price for these goods. Because the company makes a lot more money, and money is like I said the end to all means, and quite frankly doesn't care for those people. Like we do not since we are buying pro
Debate Round No. 3


roypolicypro forfeited this round.


SirSigil forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


roypolicypro forfeited this round.


SirSigil forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.