The Instigator
FreeThinker35
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Winning
5 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 2 votes the winner is...
petersaysstuff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,848 times Debate No: 16135
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

FreeThinker35

Pro

I will begin with a mere statement of the subject at hand:

History has proven that Capitalism is more beneficial than Socialism.
petersaysstuff

Con

Thank you for challenging me and I would like to say sorry for not writing this sooner :P

First off I will state some definitions that should be aboded by.
Socialism: "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"[1]
"Socialist government is not state government. It would not rule over people and places, but would empower the people to rule over things. Socialism means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy. And when we say "collectively own," we are not talking about homes, or cars, or other personal belongings. We are talking about the things needed to produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and want."[7]
Industry: "Economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories"[2]
Capitalism: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"[3]

My interpretations: Socialism is where the government owns big businesses ie. raw materials ect, whereas the people own small businesses and even though the government owns big business, the people work for the good of all. Capitalism is where the government owns nothing and doesn't medal in the affairs of the industries and businesses of the country. Do you accept these definitions?

My case: . Is socialism inherently bad? Not in the least. Considering we (a country with enormous influence over other countries) are in an economic recession, we would assume other countries' economies are going down the pooper as well. In some regards that is true but there are quite a few that are minimally affected by this economic downturn. Those are either countries that produce massive amounts of goods [China and India] or are socialist/social democracies. Australia, a country that uses a social partnership economy, is the country that is surviving the economic recession the best. Odd isn't it, a country that is based around socialism is surviving the economic crisis the best.[4]

We will now look at the satisfaction with the health care system in America (capitalist) and Canada (a social democracy). In Canada, 57% of people are very satisfied with the affordability and availability of the health care system compared to the 26% of Americans who are either "somewhat satisfied or satisfied". Inversely, 76% of Americans are dissatisfied with the health care system in America says Rick Blizzard D.B.A.
(Figures may vary)[5]

So as we can see, socialism isn't a bad system at all considering a) The country least affected by the economic recession is Australia (a social partnership) and b) People in countries that use some form of social health care are noticeably more satisfied with their system than those without it.

Moving on; The main problem with capitalism is that it doesn't work for the people as a whole, rather the elite few as the definition implies. In small doses this is not full on bad but when we have the elite owning everything (which is what happens in a capitalist state) it eventually becomes indistinguishable from a futile totalitarian system.[6] Nextly, in a capitalist system, one where people own industries ie. Oil, coal ect, there is much less regulation and the probability of a disaster is higher. This is due to the fact that since the business owners will only strive to make tons of money they will either a) shove the worker down or b) not abide by any sort of regulations (although there wouldn't be any) and that opens the door to more economic disasters.
Socialism also promotes harder work and the betterment of life due to the fact that if the industries are owned by the collective rather than the few, the people will work harder because they know that the fruits of their labor directly goes to them and not some business owner miles away.[6]
With socialist systems, most if not all of the profits from the sale of businesses goes to the workers themselves. "Under capitalism workers receive only a small fraction of the wealth that they alone produce, while the lion's share goes to the capitalist owners and to the bankers, landlords, insurance companies, lawyers, politicians, and all the other parasites who live off the back of labor and perform no useful work. By ending this robbery of the working class, socialism will enable workers to enjoy the full fruit of their labor."[7]

I could go on but I feel that this is sufficient for now but I reserve the right to add another argument or two in round 2, NOT 3. In round three evidence may be added but no new arguments (the style of policy debate).

In conclusion, socialism promotes harder work, it benefits the people better in health institutions and socialist countries are proven the best to survive the recession.

I await my opponent's rebuttle.

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] http://www.google.com...
[3] http://www.google.com...
[4] http://www.labnol.org...
[5] http://petersaysstuff.blogspot.com...
[6] http://politicsreport.com...
[7] http://slp.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FreeThinker35

Pro

First off, Thank you for accepting this challenge. I'd rather have a late response than no response at all :)
Hope I can have some fun and Good Luck !


I agree with your definition on the matter we are discussing. And I would like to add to it.

Capitalism is based upon private ownership of property and every person has right to live his life in any manner he chooses to , as long as he does not violate the rights of others.


1. Your first argument is basically this: Socialism is not bad, look at these nations that are based around socialism, they are doing pretty well in these tough economic times. Look at Australia, China and India they are surviving the economic crisis the best.

You claim that their survival of these nation is due to the fact that they are socialist
but this is not true. The truth is that the reason for their survival is capitalism itself.

China



China once had a socialist planned economy where the government (one party) controlled and owned all the means and methods of production. I think we all know what this was like to its people, it was a nightmare. It is now near all market economy after privatisation of most of the state owned enterprises and opening up to western countries ( in other words china's transition into Capitalism ) china has become the fastest growing economy and trade powerhouse, THIS is the reason for China's immunity to the economic ressesion, Capitalism.



India
In India we see the same events happening, Following strong economic reforms from the post-independence socialist economy, the country's economic growth progressed at a rapid pace, as free market principles( Capitalism) were initiated in 1991 for international competition and foreign investment.

Australia
And finally my favorite, Australia. Your statement " Australia, a country that uses a social partnership economy"

That statement is clearly and unequivocally incorrect. The free market is the main characteristics of the economic system of Australia. Australia's economy is phenomenal and this country is among the first five developed countries of the world. Industrialization, private enterprises, large scale productions, high technology and natural resources are part of the Australian economic success. Small businesses also plays an important role in the economy of this country. Australian Free Markets are a perfect example of a capitalist economy. The booming economy of the country is well depicted in the markets of this country. While speaking of the Australian markets one significant thing which should be mentioned is their labour market. The government involvement in the labour market was considerably reduced (anti-socialism ) over the years. Earlier the government used to spend much of its revenue in employment programs which has changed now( example of socialist activity which failed and thus forced economic reform).

2. Due to my Character limit I'll discus this in the next round.

3. Your last argument is replete with so many inconsistencies and fallacies I'm going to have to dissect it and take this colossal amount of erroneous, false notions and disprove them one at a time.

A= Your argument
B=My rebuttal

A
. "Socialism also promotes harder work and the betterment of life due to the fact that if the industries are owned by the collective rather than the few, the people will work harder because they know that the fruits of their labor directly goes to them ..."

B. The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest motivating factor a human being can feel in their work. When work is uncoupled from reward, or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who don’t work hard, society suffers. The fact that individuals are driven to succeed is in all our interests.

A. "The main problem with capitalism is that it doesn't work for the people as a whole, rather the elite few as the definition implies. In small doses this is not full on bad but when we have the elite owning everything"

B. Capitalism in a free society, it does more than any other system, it offers more opportunity for someone in the lower class to elevate their economic situation with determination and persistence. The U.S. is probably the best example of any country in history for this. How many times have we heard a story about immigrants who come to this country with nothing and then they become prominent and productive member of society because of the system.


A. "Next, in a capitalist system, one where people own industries is. Oil, coal act, there is much less regulation and the probability of a disaster is higher."


B. Because of what I read I assume you are unaware of the "Invisible Hand".The invisible hands states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all the individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole. The reason for this is that self-interest drives actors to beneficial behavior. Efficient methods of production are adopted to maximize profits. Low prices are charged to maximize revenue through gain in market share by undercutting competitors. Investors invest in those industries most urgently needed to maximize returns, and withdraw capital from those less efficient in creating value. Students prepare for the most needed (and therefore most remunerative) careers. All these effects take place dynamically and automatically.

For example the Oil companies you speak of research new technologies and more efficient product to maximize their profit influx and thus, they "unconsciously" benefit society by creating better products, and safer drilling. And if they don't they sink, Capitalism gets rid of the weak and counterproductive ( BP ). British Petroleum didn't provide a safe and beneficial drilling method so they suffered MAJOR economic losses and customer loyalty.

Adam Smith in his 1776 book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". In his book he states:

"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

Thus, the invisible hand is essentially a natural phenomenon that guides free markets and capitalism through competition for scarce resources.


A. "...business owners will only strive to make tons of money they will either a) shove the worker down or b) not abide by any sort of regulations (although there wouldn't be any) and that opens the door to more economic disasters."

Once again this is incorrect, you are right on the "owners will only strive to make tons of money" but this does not create economic disasters. On the contrary it gives rise to an economy where the consumers regulate the market. Many consider this as one of the greatest strengths of a capitalist economy. A competitive market provided by capitalism facilitates the manufacture of a wide variety of products and the formation of a wide range of services.

Conclusion: In conclusion I have proved all you arguments to be wrong :) Capitalism rules !

"
In conclusion, socialism promotes harder work[proved wrong] it benefits the people better in health institutions[proved wrong] and socialist countries are proved the best to survive the recession[proved wrong] "

petersaysstuff

Con

I accept you definition yet let me add that the part where you say "every person has right to live his life in any manner he chooses to , as long as he does not violate the rights of others." is not categorical of capitalism, it can be said about all types of systems (except communism of course xD)

About China and India. I never said that they were socialist and I was not arguing that they were good, I merely was saying all the data and the fact that they are best suited because, as I said in my last speech, " Those are either countries that produce massive amounts of goods [China and India] or...". I am not arguing about them due to the fact that they are not socialist. But I will respond to you anyhow.
//China once had a socialist planned economy where the government (one party) controlled and owned all the means and methods of production. I think we all know what this was like to its people, it was a nightmare.//
This is a massive fallacy. You are asserting that since they had a somewhat socialist economy and the leader was cruel to his people socialism is bad. The reason the people suffered was not because of socialism, but because they had a dictator. Socialism is not synonymous with a dictatorship. You can have a democratically elected government whislt still having a socialist system. But what about China now? You say that China is becoming more capitalist but is that helping the people not suffer? No. They still have a tyrant and massive human rights violations occur so by the logic you expressed in the first sentence, we can say capitalism is to blame. So here you can recant your statement that socialism is to blame or you can stick with it and I can assert that capitalism is also to blame. It's your choice. Also, //china has become the fastest growing economy and trade powerhouse, THIS is the reason for China's immunity to the economic ressesion, Capitalism.//
It is true that they survived the best because they produced massive amounts of goods but that is not due to capitalism. They produced massive goods under communist regimes as well. They produce massive amounts of goods because of the control the leader has. It is not due to capitalism OR socialism and that is why I am not arguing China.

Crossapply to India, also, free market doesn't necessarily mean capitalism (see below)

Australia: First off let me say that your argument about Australia is simply copied and pasted from this source [1] with no credit given. I urge voters to take that into consideration seeing as my opponent plagiarized and expected no one to notice. But moving on to the stolen arguments, this false. "It has a mixed economy which is very close to a capitalistic economy - very much like the US." [2] They are a regulated free market economy which is, in fact, a socialist construct. This is so because, first off, it is not capitalist because the government medals in the affairs hence the term "regulated free market" and, as my interpretation states (and you agreed to) "Capitalism is where the government owns nothing and doesn't medal in the affairs of the industries and businesses of the country." yet the government does regulate and thus it is not a capitalist system. Another problem with your stolen argument is that it says it is a free market system but that does not necessarily mean capitalist. "Market economies can range from hypothetically pure laissez-faire variants to an assortment of real-world mixed economies, where the price system is under some state control or at least heavily regulated. In mixed economies, state-directed economic planning is not extensive enough to constitute a planned economy." [3]
Free market economies can be socialist ones as well, the free market merely means that the people own some things thus communism is excluded. A controlled market is where the state regulates everything (communism) This is what Australia is, a mixed free market economy. A capitalist system is a laissez-faire system where there is no state involvement as the definitions suggest yet Australia is not this. (It must be said that there are no complete capitalist states yet we are debating whether or not capitalism is more beneficial than socialism. I also should add that my opponent should have not included the line "History has proven that Capitalism is more beneficial than Socialism." because there never has been a complete capitalist state.)
"Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of feudalism, but most feel that the term "mixed economies" more precisely describes most contemporary economies, due to their containing both private-owned and state-owned enterprises, combining elements of capitalism and socialism, or mixing the characteristics of market economies and planned economies. In capitalism, there is no central planning authority but the prices are decided by the demand-supply scale. For example, higher demand for certain goods and services lead to higher prices and lower demand for certain goods lead to lower prices."[4]

//The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest motivating factor a human being can feel in their work. When work is uncoupled from reward, or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who don't work hard, society suffers. The fact that individuals are driven to succeed is in all our interests.//
This is false. My opponent has not disproven my original argument which was backed by sources, he just says this claim.

//Capitalism in a free society, it does more than any other system, it offers more opportunity for someone in the lower class to elevate their economic situation with determination and persistence. The U.S. is probably the best example of any country in history for this. How many times have we heard a story about immigrants who come to this country with nothing and then they become prominent and productive member of society because of the system. //
But the US has a mixed economy.... we have many elements of socialism already in place but regardless you ignore the definition of capitalism which is that the owners of business do what ever for profit thus meaning they can pay the workers little to nothing in a capitalist system. This is what happened in Europe at the start of the industrial revolution. You have proven nothing.

Invisible hand: You are correct. This point falls.

Last argument: This is simply not true. Again, if we look toward Europe at the dawn of the industrial revolution, the closest that we came to a full capitalist society, we had people being shoved down, low wages and terrible conditions all because the owners wanted money. This is an example from history and thus your point falls.

Conclusion: "In conclusion I have proved all you arguments to be wrong :) Capitalism rules !" Teehee. False. You have proven nothing as well as dropping my argument regarding satisfaction and quality of life.

"In conclusion, socialism promotes harder work[proved wrong] [[false]] it benefits the people better in health institutions[proved wrong][[false, you did nothing on this!]] and socialist countries are proved the best to survive the recession[proved wrong] [[false]]"

Super conclusion: Socialism dominates! Vote CON!

[1] http://www.australiaonnet.com...
[2] http://wiki.answers.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FreeThinker35

Pro

FreeThinker35 forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Con

Forfeit and extend. I want to say that I'm sorry for saying "stolen" argument but you could have, at the very least, put it in quotes. But regardless I urge a Con ballot.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Corneliuss 3 years ago
Corneliuss
peter and the two people who voted him up are dishonest. They deliberately denied what they knew to be true. That's why you must not feel crushed. It had nothing to do with reality. They're a band of manipulators.

- "every person has right to live his life in any manner he chooses to , as long as he does not violate the rights of others." is not categorical of capitalism, it can be said about all types of systems (except communism of course xD) -

That was such an intelligence-insulting statement it made me laugh.

You're the free thinker, FreeThinker35.
Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
FreeThinker35
I need to quit typing now... All of my frustracion is gone.
Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
FreeThinker35
I just cannot stop looking back on this and feeling like crap... I instigated and lost. It is ironic that today during the exam one passage was about responcibility and planning.I just learned that if I had come home earlier I could of had a chance at responding 1 or 2 points . I think their is need for floccinaucinihilipilification of myself. I need virtually die... from ...... pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

Sorry I failed DDO.

Have a good day :b
Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
FreeThinker35
I feel like a bum... I deserve no respect, I must end my life.
Lost HC argument:
I love how you blame america's failed health care system on Capitalism.One of the major reasons that causes our Health Care system to be incredibly ineffective is socialism itself. Socialism incites goverment to interfere and ruin thing for all parties. Goverment should adhere to the confines of the constuticion and the principles that this nation was founded upon.But sadly this is not the case here in america right now, govermnent needs to shrink and halt all activity regarding the infringement of freedom maybe that way healthcare won't stink... Got a little carried away. My point is, our HC system is inefficient because we are not capitalistic enough when it comes to healthcare. We should let private companies take care of it and stop govermnet from interfiering with everyone's bussiness. In the next argument i will discuss why private companies can do the feds job more efficiently.

( And by the way, NOWHERE in the constitucions is there a section which mandates healthcare, it not a government's obligation to provide healthcare in the first place)

Capitalism is the main reason why the standard of living in the US is higher than in most nations of the world. The biggest pro to capitalism is in it's ability to give anyone a chance to financial succeed, no matter where they come from in their heritage.
Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
FreeThinker35
Lost sources:

Adam Smith, 1776 book "The Wealth of Nations".
http://www.australiaonnet.com...
http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk...
http://www.wsu.edu...
http://bx.businessweek.com...

Sincerely, FreeThinker35 :D
Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
FreeThinker35
IMPORTANT

First off I would like to apologize for what looks to be a case of plagiarism. I want to clarify what you think is stolen work.
You see my arguments were are well over 8000 (-2700, something of that sort) characters when I wrote it, this forced me to reduce the length of some points and to liquidate what I thought was the least important point ( Health Care). After the shaving off characters I had something like 270 character to write so I used all I could to balance it to zero, but what I did not realize is that I deleted, part of my conclusion , some statements concerning round 3 and most importantly my sources in numerical order to each respective argument ( I know this sound fishy, I would not believe it if I read my explanation but please understand the circumstances ( Late night, State Exam looming in the horizon, Moving to another neighborhood). Thank you.

One last thing, I want to make one thing clear to any voter who has uncertainty or doubt on regards to the missing
sources. It would be illogical, hypocritical and senseless if I even attempted to post a response of such caliber without any sources listed( I even list sources when debating about video games ! Why wouldn't I do so for a debate on economic systems, a topic which is clearly more complex). Would I have the audacity to post something I know will be read and examined by my opponent and dozens of fellow debaters and expect to get away with it ?

Frankly, I do feel offended to a very slight and minute degree with the contender due to his assumption that I intended to "steal" the information( albeit he is entitled to his opinions).

Once again I want to sincerely apologize for the confusion and my carelessness but I ask the voters to understand my circumstances. Take this clarification as a "consequence" for my carelessness, -2000 characters from my debate.
Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
FreeThinker35
Ohhh my god no way this happened to me again! -____-
This is the second time my time limite expires! I'll post what I was working on, which is nothing basically. I apologized... This week has been hell, and my planning skills aren't helping...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
FreeThinker35petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
FreeThinker35petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit