The Instigator
TigerThePredator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Flannery
Con (against)

Capitalism is much better than socialism/communism

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
TigerThePredator has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 275 times Debate No: 114080
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

TigerThePredator

Pro

Socialism and communism, in my view, is evil, and we as a society should be moving away from people with this viewpoint, such as Bernie Sanders, because their goal is to implement restrictions over our capitalist economy so that they can exert governmental control and tyranny over the people. There are a few points to be made here:

1.) Communism/socialism discourages innovations and creativity. For example, because major tech companies such as Apple or Google have a financial interest in creating new technologies, they will constantly strive to have financial investments in these new technologies. As a result, these companies are constantly creating these new technologies, which help us grow our economy and grow as a nation. It is obvious that capitalist countries are almost always richer than communist countries because capitalist countries allow such innovations and creativity to flourish.

2.) Because businessmen have a financial interest to keep costs low and give nice products, they will always find the most efficient ways to complete a task. This allows us to keep the prices low, while at the same time making sure that the products are still high quality.

3.) Capitalism allows what is arguably the most important human right: the pursuit of happiness. With capitalism, the individual is able to be in control of their own destiny, and is therefore free to pursue happiness however they wish. If you want to make bad economic decisions, then you can go ahead and make bad economic decisions, and if you want to make good economic decisions, you can go ahead and make good economic decisions. The government is not going to go and stop you from making good or bad decisions. You yourself have to be able to make your own decisions in life, and capitalism allows the individual to do just that without having the individual to be forced into doing anything. The individual has complete control over their own life.

4.) Capitalism allows the individual to choose what products they would like to buy. For example, because the shoe industry is completely privatized, if someone wants to buy a Nike, they can buy a Nike, and if someone likes the Adidas better, they can buy Adidas. The individual has completely control over what products they would like to have. In return, all the companies involved in that industry will have to compete with one another over customers, meaning that the quality of the product will be much greater and the prices will be lowered.

5.) Competition is essential to have the best performance out of anyone. If a person goes out on a walk by himself, he is likely to not run nearly as fast than if he decides to train for a race where he must compete with other people to see who can run the fastest. This happens because when you are in a competition, you have a psychological desire to be better than other people, forcing you to do your best performance. Likewise, in a capitalist economy, competition is essential to make sure that businesses have the best performance. Having too many government restrictions, which is what a communist/socialist government implies, can degrade the competitiveness of the businesses in an economy. The role of the government is to insure that there is fair competition between people in an economy, and when socialists/communists start to influence that competition, the quality of products starts to decrease.

6.) Communism and socialism will inevitably lead to tyranny over the people. China is a great example of this. People in the Republic of China are constantly having to deal with numerous human rights violations (Chinese Muslims, for example, must be sent to drink alcohol and eat pork against their will in Chinese re-education camps). Because a communist government has such power over the economy, they can do whatever they want to the people.

7.) Pure communism can never really exist. Even in communist governments, people still have an innate desire to be in control of their own lives, and will create illegal economies, such as the black market. With capitalism, on the other hand, the people's innate desire to be in control of their own lives is honored, and people are less inclined to buy goods illegally.
Flannery

Con

You make some decent points, and I have to say I am overall impressed, but your presentation has some glaring holes.

Is socialism/communism inherently evil? In an ideal system, socialism would only be used so that the people are in control... while communism, in an ideal system, advocates for a system where there is no difference between the classes and people are paid/rewarded according to their need while working as is according to their ability. Of course, these are ideals and not the effects of the practical application. In the same vein, however, an ideal capitalist society would allow the private industry to act unchecked which equally is catastrophic when taken from ideal and put into practice. None of these systems is inherently good or bad... they are systems, tools. It is how they are used that determines their quality. It is worth noting, however, socialism and communism are not one and the same, so your grouping of them can be misleading as your statements sometimes only really apply to one and not the other. In the future, I ask that you take more care for the sake of keeping the debate fair.

1.) If we are talking communism, then you are most certainly correct; however, there are methods of implementing socialism without detracting from innovation or creativity. Communism requires the country to dictate what is done. Unless the country says that something needs made, it won't be made. In order for the country to know something needs made, a politician has to have an original idea for once... but it's hard to do that when you're stuffing your mouth with the fruits of other peoples' hard work when you get to lounge in luxury like an aristocrat, which should no longer exist, yet still does. But with socialism, all you need to do is give the people access to the resources and tell them to create. Just because everybody has the same resources, means of production, distribution, and markets, that doesn't mean everyone is going to come up with the same products. This can be easily accomplished by putting "public facilities" in place where people can make use of resources under the assumption of putting back in. You can even make this form of socialism quite capitalist by treating it as a contracted loan between the individual and the government: they take out resources and use the machines, but they have to pay back a set value within a set amount of time for doing so. This can equally be accomplished by widening the accessibility of grants to the public as well. Socialism, at its ideals, is about giving the people the power to make their future possible. While it rarely works out like that, that is the hope.

2.) Yes, they have an interest in keeping costs low and quality high, but that also makes it harder for new people to break into an industry. In a purely capitalist society, monopolies would be a rampant problem with the system barring new competition from arising creating a simple system whose effects are easily predicted. Even today, the US takes advantage of a "communist" measure to protect against that. While companies aren't outright owned by the government, the US government does control certain aspects of companies to a strong enough degree to act as an equal influencer to these companies.

3.) Capitalism does not allow the pursuit of happiness more than socialism and communism. Under capitalism, those who get an early lead can compound their advantages continually, leaving the least advantaged to fall away in the dust. The children of those who fell grow in poverty and may never know full bellies or education, but with proper degrees of socialism or communism, we get public education. Under socialism, everyone can still pursue happiness, but there won't be as much of an advantage for the successful over those who fail because it will be about who produces the better item with the resources and tools as opposed to who can afford to produce better. Again, this operating under an ideal. Further more, your assertion that the pursuit of happiness may be the most valuable right is bogus. Life is far more valuable and Liberty is just as much so if not more. The pursuit of happiness comes only once you've secured both of these rights for yourself. Freedom isn't given; it's taken. With capitalism it risks taking away life and liberty just as much as socialism and communism. That is why you can't work with the raw ideals.

4.) Yes, and this is quite competitive. In socialism, at least, this doesn't have to change. If people control companies instead of executives, we can still have these brand differences. After all, people work harder when their work matters more to them. When you own a shoe company, even if just as partial owner, and the sales depend on quality of work, you're going to do everything you can to crank out the quality to an 11.

5.) Government restriction are sometimes necessary, though. In some cases, yeah, they can be overbearing, but it's a necessary thing. Without it, nobody but the already rich win in a pure capitalist society.

6.) And China in the past few years has been transitioning from a mostly pure communist country to a gradually more and more capitalist country. While still communist, their progress and advancement has been coming in strides and has so far had great results with a booming economy that is rivaling our own.

7.) Pure communism can't exist, nor can pure socialism, but neither can pure capitalism. A pure economic strategy is a terribly economic theory to build a country upon and is how we wind up with great disasters. Look at capitalism's history; left unchecked, capitalism causes children to starve (just like pure communism/socialism), the rich to become fat and lazy (just like pure communism/socialism), and for those who have not to struggle to have anything (just like communism/socialism). All three of these economic theories in their purest forms are terrible, so you can't rightfully claim that one is better than the others because they are ALL flawed. That's why you can only look at the ideals when saying good things about any of them... None of them actually work in practice.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Flannery 1 month ago
Flannery
While I am glad to have technically "won", I am not happy that I won via default. TigerThePredator, I can't understand why you didn't respond in Round 2, but I wish you the best in future debates.
Posted by Tracer11 1 month ago
Tracer11
You both make intriguing arguments but TigerThePredator does have some screw up's in his first argument but it still makes some sense but i will support Communism/socialism over capitalism because capitalism is mostly run by some rich people and Communism/socialism is when all people rich or poor, all take part in the government.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.