The Instigator
IronCurx
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Con (against)
Losing
7 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 4 votes the winner is...
IronCurx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 62027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

IronCurx

Pro

Round One is acceptance.
Round Two is opening arguments (NO REBUTTALS)
Round Three is for rebutting (NO NEW ARGUMENTS)

BOP is on the side of Pro, pro needs to provide good arguments that capitalism is better than socialism, if Pro manages to provide an argument that Con is unable to refute, Pro provided better arguments.

By accepting this debate you will acknowledge socialism and capitalism as: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." and "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." respectively, both stated by dictionary.com.

Any violation of this rules will result in immediate loss.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
AlternativeDavid

Con

This is ridiculously short, but I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
IronCurx

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate, since BOP is on the since of Pro, Con should be able to refute arguments on round two.

Argument 1: Incentive and Competitiveness
Capitalism works next to perfectly with human nature. Throughout history, most individuals work hard to furnish their own needs. This is extremely important since it leads to innovation, encourages entrepreneurship and instigates competition which is crucial for advancing the human race. Take America for example, it"s vast technological improvement and influence was not created by public sacrifices to the "common good" but it was through the productivity of the free men who were intent on making their own private fortunes. Adam Smith said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." People will work much harder for the good of themselves than for the state, which will also waste most of it before redistributing it to others; while capitalism encourages entrepreneurs to setup new business and amass their personal wealth and at the same time improving the overall economy, socialism discourages people to work hard and drag down the economy. With the introduction of Globalization in the 21 Century, competitiveness has risen to sky-high levels, capitalism is a good system to encourage others to work hard and encourage others to be competitive, while socialism discourages. There can thus be no doubt that capitalism triumphs over socialism when it encourages people to make a better life and overall create a better economy.

Argument 2: History
In the past there have been examples of socialism and capitalism, West Germany and East Germany etc., inevitably history shows that capitalism triumphs over socialism. Korea is the prime example; currently there is a significant gap between capitalist South and socialist North, after World War II they were of the same nation but now South Korea if significantly economically able than North Korea. According to Professor Niall Ferguson who wrote Civilization, even the most powerful socialist country the Soviet Union, did not reach to half the economic output of US at its peak. History has proven may a time at capitalism triumphs over socialism.

http://townhall.com...
http://www.marxists.org...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.thecommentator.com...
AlternativeDavid

Con

History: During the Industrial Revolution governments practiced Laissez Faire economic policies. Laissez Faire can be defined as [1]. During this period there were people starving in the streets because there were too many people working and not enough jobs. As a result of this supply on demand of workers, wages were incredibly low. Also, the people who had jobs often faced extremely dangerous conditions because there was no government interference. Child Labor was also a huge problem, and at one time in Britain 1/5th of workers in the textile industry were under 15 [2]. Many people resorted to stealing in order to survive. People were starving in the streets and there were tens of thousands of homeless children [3].

Problems: Due to things like child labor and poor pay with bad working conditions, capitalism cannot survive on its own. We need socialist programs like welfare, minimum wages, and working regulations to stop these from occurring. Capitalism is self destructive. Without government intervention a few people become hyper-rich while a majority of the population is living in poverty. While the Industrial Revolution increased the standard of living for many people, that number is dwarfed by the amount of people that ended up in poverty as a result of it.

Socialism: There would be huge problems in the world without socialism because taxes are are a socialist construct. Without socialism there would be ... [4]

-No police force
-No fire department
-No taxpayer funded ambulances or public hospitals
-No subsidized education
-No military
-No social security
-No Welfare for those in need
-No food stamps for those in need
-No foreign aid for countries suffering from natural disasters
-Nobody to protect you from your employers making you work 100 hours a week every week with no weekends or holidays
-No postal service
-No infrastructure
-No garbage collection
-Nobody to protect the environment
-No court system
-No NPR
-No PBS
-No FDA

I can only imagine the capitalist paradise where these don't exist. One may say "well a community could all chip in for these things, there doesn't need to be taxes" but a society working together to achieve a goal is in fact socialism.

Capitalism cannot exist without socialism too. Whether or not socialism can exist without capitalism is debatable, but if they cannot exist independently, then capitalism is not better.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.history.com...
[3] http://www.hiddenlives.org.uk...
[4] http://www.dailykos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
IronCurx

Pro

The fallacy of Con"s argument is based on the assumption that capitalism has NO governmental interference. On the contrary there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, according to Investopedia.com [1]. Additionally Chron.com states that: "Capitalistic or free market economies rely heavily on minimal government involvement in the economy," [2] minimal government involvement does not imply NO governmental interference. Even according to Con"s sources the Merriam-Webster dictionary states that laissez-faire means a policy that allows businesses to operate with very little interference from the government, not zero interference from the government. There will always be government intervention in the form of taxes. And according to money.howstuffworks [3] "When Gingrich and Romney call Obama's policies "socialist," they're not equating them with the socialism of Soviet Russia or China under Chairman Mao. That brand of socialism is an economic system in which the state owns and controls "the means of production" (i.e. all industry) and there's no such thing as private property [source: Heilbroner]" the services that Obama provide, e.g. Police, Welfare DO NOT fit under the description in which I have described socialism in round 1.

Con described the Industrial Revolution when the government practiced Laissez Faire economic policies. She/he implied that the goings in that day was very rough due to capitalism, however would socialism fare any better? Socialism is the redistribution of wealth amongst everyone through mean such as taxes, however if everyone, is faring very poorly the government does not have any money in its pocket to provide services such as fire department, police force, etc. because the people that are preforming those services don"t get paid. Even if there was a super-rich businessman, that businessman would not exist because without capitalism, she/he would not have the incentive to create that business because his wealth would be confiscated by the government. What"s worse, a country with no businesses or a country with few.

Con stated that Capitalism cannot survive on its own because it lacks welfare and government intervention, as stated before, by sources [1] and [2] capitalism DOES have government intervention abet few. In addition Con did not read round 1 of the debate when I defined socialism as: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." And capitalism as and "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." Con believed that capitalism had no taxes and therefore had no welfare. BUT in the definitions provided in round one, it was not touch that capitalism lacks taxes and welfare, but only that means of production are owned by private cooperates.

Capitalism does NOT mean the lack of taxes and services.

Vote Pro.
AlternativeDavid

Con

Pro said that round three is for rebuttals, but did not specify which round I am rebutting. Therefore I will rebut both. Pro also made some citations at the bottom of the round, but did not connect them with anything. Therefore I will treat this round as if Pro had no sources.

"Capitalism works next to perfectly with human nature."

Proof? Also, why is this a good thing? Humans go to war and laugh at other people's misery. We're not a benchmark for perfection.

"crucial for advancing the human race"

I'm remembering a little thing called slavery. Slavery was used by capitalists to get what they wanted for a cheaper price. Slavery was definitely a step back, and it took thousands of years to overcome that step backwards. Slavery also really reached its end around the time that Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto [1][2], which as Pro should know, was a major part of the socialist/communism movement.

"Take America for example, it"s vast technological improvement and influence was not created by public sacrifices to the "common good" but it was through the productivity of the free men who were intent on making their own private fortunes"

Well some of our technological advancements can be attributed to us shipping people from overseas to help us [3]. I doubt that the Nazis we used to enhance our space program were too concerned about getting rich.

"Adam Smith said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

For all I know, Pro's name is Adam Smith. There's no source or anything for this quote. Who is Adam Smith? What did he do? Was he an economist, or a tavern owner. This information matters.

"amass their personal wealth and at the same time improving the overall economy."

I believe that my opening arguments effectively countered this by showing what wealth inequality did to countries during the industrial revolution. John Rockefeller became amazingly rich. He was worth more than 300 billion dollars in today's money [4]. If having people this rich benefitted the economy, we would not have had homeless children and men and women dying in the street due to starvation.

"There can thus be no doubt that capitalism triumphs over socialism when it encourages people to make a better life and overall create a better economy."

Pro has not shown that capitalism actually improves the economy. Pro has merely stated that it does.

"According to Professor Niall Ferguson who wrote Civilization, even the most powerful socialist country the Soviet Union, did not reach to half the economic output of US at its peak."

Not only is this information uncited, but it's also incredibly misleading. The most powerful socialist country never even reached half of the economic output of the most powerful capitalist country the world had ever seen. Keep in mind that capitalism had existed as an economic system for thousands of years longer. The Mauryan Empire's economy wasn't as strong as the Gupta Empire's economy because the Gupta had more time to figure out capitalism and trade routes.

---
Moving on to round 3 rebuttals.

Pro made numerous citations, without actually leaving any sources. I can't know if anything they said is actually true.

"There will always be government intervention in the form of taxes."

In an anarcho-capitalist paradise, there would be no government intervention. Allow me to repeat Pro's definition of capitalism: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

Using this definition that Pro provided for us, we can determine that government and capitalism do not necessarily go hand in hand. Just because investopedia.com allegedly stated (not cited) that countries will always have taxes, doesn't make it true.

In fact, "always" is an absolute. This statement by Pro is that every single country in the history of ever has always had taxes, case closed, no matter what. Even alien countries are included in this.

"Additionally Chron.com states..."

There's no citation

"according to money.howstuffworks..."

Look above.

"[source: Heilbroner]"

Look above

"the services that Obama provide, e.g. Police, Welfare DO NOT fit under the description in which I have described socialism in round 1."

First off, Obama does not provide these things. Congress allocates tax dollars for these things. Obama doesn't go door to door and hand people their welfare checks. Secondly, yes they do fit under Pro's definition: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Maybe welfare and police don't explicitly fit the definition, but I made a long list that had things that fit in the definition.

For example: 1)infrastructure (this fits the definition because the government uses tax dollars to distribute the service of building highways and bridges to the community as a whole. In this action the community as a whole is benefitting from this, and as they vote people into office to represent them, they technically control where the tax revenue is going)

2) Court system (this fits the definition because judges are government workers and exist to benefit the community by giving them the right to a trial. They are paid for via community tax dollars. The goes under the production part fo the definition because thejudges are being paid by the community to produce a service.

3) Garbage Collection (this fits the definition because the service that "sanitation engineers" provided is paid for via community money and the benefits are evenly distributed.

I believe I have made my point that just because the two Pro chose don't explicitly abide by the definition, that does not nullify the entire list.

"Socialism is the redistribution of wealth amongst everyone through mean such as taxes, however if everyone, is faring very poorly the government does not have any money in its pocket to provide services such as fire department, police force, etc. because the people that are preforming those services don"t get paid."

Pro is taking a problem created by capitalism and stating that "oh well capitalism screwed up, but if socialism can't get us out of the problem then it's okay for capitalism to have done that." Socialism would have never allowed for this problem to have occured. Rockefeller was 300 billion times richer than someone starving in the streets that only had one dollar. He also accountedfor 1.5% of the entire US GDP at the time [4]. His wealth could have improved the lives of tens of millions of people. That's not even including Vanderbilt and Carnegie, two other extremely rich people at the time.

"Even if there was a super-rich businessman, that businessman would not exist ... without capitalism."

That's true, but one should not base every decision they make off of money. Money is just a thing, and we should not let objects control us.

"Con stated that Capitalism cannot survive .... as stated before, by sources [1] and [2] capitalism DOES have government intervention abet few."

There were no sources.

"In addition Con did not read round 1 of the debate"

I read it, but after seeing some of the arguments put forth by Pro, I doubt that he even read it.

"Con believed that capitalism had no taxes and therefore had no welfare."

Taxes are not in Pro's definition of capitalism, so they do not exist in capitalism.

[1]https://www.marxists.org...
[2]http://www.civilwar.org...
[3]http://www.globalresearch.ca...
[4]http://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
That's why debates are judged on multiple levels of criteria.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
Yeah notice it too.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Of the first 4 voters, all 4 gave convincing arguments to Pro. All of Con's points came from sources, spelling and grammar, and conduct. Just an observation.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Capitalism...He who takes the risk, keeps the profit from that risk.

Socialism... He who took no risk gets to feed off the one who profited from risk.Or a freeloader society.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
IronCurxAlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The amount of time and words that Con spent on showing that Capitalism lacks taxes shows how important the argument is to Con's side. However, it doesn't hold validity. Governments of all kinds have collected taxes throughout history regardless of their system of economics. Con brought up some problems that were blamed on capitalism, but failed to show socialism performing better. Pro showed that people work to get rich based on capitalist principles, and Con showed that giving away the riches of the rich would help people in need. Con failed to show that socialism gives people an incentive to earn riches to be redistributed. The example of Nazis being hired does nothing to aid this point, because they could very easily have taken the position out of self interest (capitalism) in earning wealth.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Ameliamk1
IronCurxAlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seems to lack an understanding of what Socialism and Capitalism are, which Pro points expertly, especially the levels government support. However, Pro fails to post sources, so I must give those points to Con.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
IronCurxAlternativeDavidTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I agree with pro in one round he didn't post sources so that part goes to con.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
IronCurxAlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument centers around inequality and the fact that socialism is in need to restore social order whereas pros arguments stems from competitiveness and comparison between socialist countries and capitalist countries. Con resorted to source questioning and source attacking while pro resorted to altering the definition that governmental interference is needed as a minimal in capitalist society. The problem is that pro should have included his in the first round. Cons flaws are the rapid questioning which is a mild rebuttal. Both debaters had their own set of flaws, which renders the debate tie without a clear winner. I'd grant that a slight edge is given to con since the original definitions suit his premise, but declaring the winner based on definitions is unconventional. I'd rather assess according to the argument merits of each. And since that path is taken, the debate is a tie