The Instigator
GorillaAcademia
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
2-D
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
2-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,171 times Debate No: 37624
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

GorillaAcademia

Pro

I would like to argue that global society with the expansion of capitalism in to almost all markets and economies, is thus creating a bourgeoisie and proletariat based class system.

I would initially like to point to the limited distribution (on the global scale) of wealth to support my claim. I do accept Karl Marx was misplaced in his belief in the failure of capitalism but argue this isn't due to its flaws as explained by him but his lack of appreciation for the adaptability of the mode of production. This lack of understanding or even knowledge of said quality undoubtedly affects the validity of any predictions made by Marx, the theory though does provide in my opinion a very relevant and applicable characterization of modern class systems.

This is due to capitalism forcibly creating winners and losers in any economic interaction, thus over time reducing the amount of participants in any competition.
2-D

Con


Hello, and welcome to debate.org!


I have several problems with your set up and I am not really sure what position I will take. I don’t see that capitalism is expanding at all at least not in the west. Wealth is more equally distributed than it was before capitalism and the modern era. I’ve only read the communist manifesto but it read like a religious document making assertions without any evidence. I don’t see why you are leaning so heavily on Marx to support Communism.


That there are many classes or two simply depends on your definition. Why are you so convinced we are moving toward only two? How is it that capitalism creates winners and losers? Cooperative trade tends to benefit both parties and all transactions are voluntary. Why is it that you associate force with capitalism when communism forcibly redistributes property?


I lean toward the middle politically: socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think private solutions are best when possible since they are by far more efficient and do not apply force as government solutions do.


Looking forward to your argument.


Debate Round No. 1
GorillaAcademia

Pro

I would like to clarify, I make no communist assertions, at no point do i even use any variable of the word communism in my opening statement and thus find ;"I don"t see why you are leaning so heavily on Marx to support Communism." confusing to say the very least.

I would like to also stress I at no point suggest that capitalism is a worse mode of production than previous ones; it is undoubtedly better. The common misconception is that Marx himself wasn't a fan capitalism, he actually saw it as a great stride in human evolution, he suggested it provided mankind with a great platform to better its self. He argued like I am in this debate that it has its natural progression and unfortunately eventually causes conflict. I find your suggestion that capitalism doesn't create winners and losers bemusing, look at the sweat shops of china where workers are paid so little and working conditions are so poor due to a ever increasing lust for profit, meaning corners are cut at every point. The idea of profit by its very nature is that someone benefits from the sale of a product, one may also benefit from the product but the seller will always seek to receive the most monetary value even at the buyers expense.

My argument is that, if capitalism is going to progress in the way it has, countries such as India and China will continue to having growing numbers of poor to feed the wests consumerist desires, meaning nations will become almost classes within themselves, the exploited and the beneficiaries, such as America Vs India. E,g the bourgeoisie and proletariat.
2-D

Con

I make no communist assertions, at no point do i even use any variable of the word communism in my opening statement.

So you’re not a commie, great me neither. Marx is the author of communism and since your debate stressed Marx as a powerful thinker I rightly assumed you were defending communism.

I would like to also stress I at no point suggest that capitalism is a worse mode of production than previous ones; it is undoubtedly better.

Great, we agree again.

The common misconception is that Marx himself wasn't a fan capitalism, he actually saw it as a great stride in human evolution,

That is interesting. I haven’t confirmed and would appreciate a link but I would have assumed that Marx thought capitalism was a step backwards. Capitalism is close to a natural state and I agree that there is conflict inherent in the human condition.

look at the sweat shops of china where workers are paid so little and working conditions are so poor due to a ever increasing lust for profit

China is communist. I may agree that they have increasingly adopted economic policies not consistent with communism but why did you choose a communist country to provide proof that capitalism is harmful?

Profit is bad

Ok. You are still sounding like a communist/socialist but you see capitalism as a step forward. When I trade with someone else it’s because I feel like the deal benefits me. I hope the person I have traded with agrees since I am empathetic to their condition.


My argument is that, if capitalism is going to progress in the way it has, countries such as India and China will continue to having growing numbers of poor to feed the wests consumerist desires.

Sure. It upsets me that the US may exploit other countries. Both India, China and arguably the US are not capitalist. Where is this argument going?

-

You have presented no arguments that support your resolution. Why do you think we are moving toward only two classes? How do you define them and why do you think capitalism is the cause?

Debate Round No. 2
GorillaAcademia

Pro

Your lack of understand of my points is due to your lack of understanding of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels work. you clearly have a lack of understanding of the communist manifesto which you said you've read, that is the text which Marx gives a explanation of how each mode of production was a evolution upon the last; Primitive communism, asiatic, ancient and feudalism which is followed on by capitalism. i would suggest you to read said text again with others (many can be found at www.marxists.org)

Karl Marx, famously said " if many whom consider themselves Marx are then I myself am not" his words have been twisted and used for many political purposes which aren't ones he would have supported. in my opening statement i stated;

"This lack of understanding or even knowledge of said quality undoubtedly affects the validity of any predictions made by Marx, the theory though does provide in my opinion a very relevant and applicable characterization of modern class systems."

I'm not stating anything to do with communism but i'm suggesting it is a relevant critique of today's socio-economic system nothing more or less.

Since the question specifically mentions Marx, it would require even the most basic understanding of his works to critique, which you haven't shown so far. i feel by answering your many questions i would simply be repeating myself, again in my opening statement i addressed your concern for america not being a capitalist state, it is, but capitalism evolves and changes for survival again a understanding of this would be needed to understand my argument, i suggest reading "http://www.amazon.co.uk...; once this has been done, i feel you would be able to understand my argument and adequately answer the question.
2-D

Con


You still have not presented any arguments that support your resolution. You made a positive claim and without proof your debate fails.


I will definitely peruse Marx works if they become relevant to this debate. As it stands I have no reason to. Marx presented religious arguments for an unjustified worldview which I rejected several years ago.


Debate Round No. 3
GorillaAcademia

Pro

The argument is a theoretical one, i have provided proof of a theory presented by its theorist, you only only don't see the value because you have little understanding of the theory.

i have provided three real world examples of this, china, india, america... i presented a text which rebutted your statement that america isn't a capitalist state and that china is communist society.

would it not be of value to understand Karl Marx writing for a debate around his theory?

as for your dismissal of the theory and its lack of value to contemporary; sociology, philosophy and politics...

http://plato.stanford.edu...

http://www.theguardian.com...

http://www.independent.co.uk...

http://harvardpolitics.com...

here are just four arguments that disagree with you, i could provide many more. don't mistake communism's failings with that of Karl Marx, and your statement regarding religion, the communist manifesto was written as propaganda and should be read as so. he was a gifted writer whom understood the value of langue, in his other texts you may find more substance but he is a philosopher and should be read as one would read Aristotle.
2-D

Con

The argument is a theoretical one

Ok, I’m not a Marx fan, great. You have not presented any arguments that support that capitalism is forcing a two-class society. Your resolution fails.


would it not be of value to understand Karl Marx writing for a debate around his theory?

Not really. As you set up the debate it was more focust around capitalism, which I am more familiar with. Your resolution was that capitalism [1] is creating a two-class society. That Marx [2] predicted this is incidental.
the communist manifesto was written as propaganda and should be read as so… and should be read as one would read Aristotle.

Yeah, I agree it reads like propaganda. Comparing him with Aristotle is a real stretch. I won’t spend time arguing about that tho because it has nothing to do with the debate!

-

No offense but you have been pretty condescending about my knowledge of Marx’s writings. I don’t understand why but this has been the major thrust of your arguments and is entirely unrelated to your resolution. I’m not a fan of Marx and I don’t see how this was a requirement to accept this debate.

I successfully distracted you from your resolution in round 1. I felt kind of bad and tried to steer you back on track at the end of round 2. Round 3 all I did was try to encourage you to develop some argument to support your resolution... but you haven’t.

You have provided no evidence that capitalism is creating a two class society. To win a debate you have to present an argument.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
GorillaAcademia

Pro

GorillaAcademia forfeited this round.
2-D

Con

Marx is a great topic. If you can build a case that two classes are being created I'd be interested but you can essentially define a two class system into existence in any society. Say the 1% wealthiest and the other 99%. 'Us' and 'them' usually end's up as a divisive position that causes conflict, which is why I accepted the debate.

The more nuanced you want to get the more classes you will have. Class structure is simply a way to describe a society. The only real arguments you reference are links that describe the validity of Marx writings and arguments that Marx is a great thinker and distinct from communism.

Again, welcome to debate.org!



Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 2-D 4 years ago
2-D
For some reason this debate is trapped in limbo. It looks like Gorilla forfeited round 5 Sunday but I still can't post for round 5.
Posted by 2-D 4 years ago
2-D
I think there is a descent argument that communism leads to a two class society: Government workers and the have nots.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
I have never in my life heard someone say that capitalism will reduce competition. I think it promotes it. It gets people thirsty for products, and leads them to invest.

i would think taxing capital gains would decrease competition more than anything
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
I have never in my life heard someone say that capitalism will reduce competition. I think it promotes it. It gets people thirsty for products, and leads them to invest.

i would think taxing capital gains would decrease competition more than anything
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
We don't have Capitalism, we have Corporatism.
Posted by Gaurdian_Rock 4 years ago
Gaurdian_Rock
I'd accept, but i'm a communist. lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
GorillaAcademia2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO will improve by using simpler language, and a clearer focus on less complex arguments. He might have made a convincing argument here, but was often far too verbose.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
GorillaAcademia2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro has the burden of proof and he had to prove that (a) a two class society exists in capitalist countries and (b) that capitalism was the cause of the creation. A class according to Marx is "A group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production." -- i.e., owners and workers. Pro didn't attempt to provide evidence of that distinction, and it's not obvious since entrepreneurs typically work, and workers commonly own stock. Pro relied upon Marxist jargon, while he had an obligation to write a clear resolution and support it. Con didn't say much in direct opposition since Pro's jargon couldn't reasonably be parsed, but Con accurately observed that Pro was only making assertions and not offering evidence or a logical framework. Pro made personal insults "you clearly have a lack of understanding ..." and forfeited a round, both losing conduct.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
GorillaAcademia2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: ff