The Instigator
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
The Contender
SampleDebater
Con (against)

Capitalism is superior to Communism/Socialism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
SampleDebater has forfeited round #5.
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: 10/21/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 437 times Debate No: 96310
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

RonPaulConservative

Pro

I will be arguing that capitalism is superior to communism, this debate concerns the quality of living, opportunities, and overall productivity in a given nation, as well as morality.
If you want to accept this debate please post your version of Communism/Socialism in round 1 that you will be defending.
SampleDebater

Con

My opponent firstly fails to define communism and socalism as two different systems.
Socalism in a nutshell is defined as :"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Where else communism is " a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."

I have defined my topic as above.
Now I end round one, as my opponents rules state.
Debate Round No. 1
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Actually, I said that you should argue that Communism OR Socialism is superior to Capitalism, which means that I acknowledged Socialism and Communism as 2 slightly different systems. My opponent seems to have defined both Communism AND Socialism but has failed to state which one he will be defending. Please define what exactly you are arguing, then provide your case.
SampleDebater

Con

I am defending Socialism, and my opponent claims that he stated to choose whether to defend Communism or Socialism but never stated it clearly in his first argument. He uses a meer "/" symbol as a differentiator. "/" can mean numerous things.
Now that we have resolved the confusion in this debate. I shall state one of my arguments.

Firstly,
Socialism offers more to persons with less wealth.Capitalism puts a premium on unbridled freedom rather than egalitarian equality. Wherelse Socialist get the same wage's nevertheless of position.

I now conclude.
Debate Round No. 2
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Alright, then my opponent will be defending Socialism which he defines as:
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Which creates a whole variety of issues with this system, both moral, economic, practical, and logical. Let's go over a few:

IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUCESSFULY ATTEMPTED
There have been a number of supposed "Socialist" economies which claim to be Socialist but are in reality just controlled by a totalitarian regime, both in the present and in the pastt, examples of tis can be found here:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
The Peoples Republic of China
North Korea
Cambodia
Now as we all know none of these places are somewhere that you'd like to live in, in fact they're all just about the worst places in the world. So Socialists claim that this isn't really Socialism, but are rather "State Capitalism." The problem with this objection is- what does a Socalist state look like?

Thus far any attempt at creating such a "Utopia," (Dystopia) has always resulted in a totalitarian regime, a few examples of this:
The Populist Revolution in Spain (1936)- Workers united and overthrew the goveronment, hoping to establish a communist nation without a state where the production would be controlled by the workers, it didn't wok out so well, and they ended up being controlled by Francisco Franco, and going through something called the "White Terror."
The Unon of Soviet Socialist Republics- The wrkers united to overthrow Tsar Nicholas and establish a stateless communism, but it didn't turn out how they'd intended, instead Vladimir Lenin became dictatr and Joseph Stalin took charge afterward.
The Peoples Republic of China- The people revolted against the Brittish and established a Socialist Republic where they could be equal and free and without oppression. Instead Chairman Mao camwe along and killed 50-70 million of his own citizens.

The point is-- every time this system has been attempted it hasn't even gotten to the starting line, it always turns into a dictatorship before they even get established! So even though these nations are not "Socialist," per se, this actualy helps my case since they all failed before they even got to the starting line, which doesn't make me think that they are very good systems.

HOW WOULD SUCH A SYSTEM BE GOVERNED?
My opponent states that he is a Socialist and will be defending Socialism, which he defines as the means of production being controlled by the community. But he fails to define how- via a centraised Federal Goveronment, a state goveronment, a local goveronment, or direct democracy? Maybe he means by the workers, but until he can define how the community will be represented, I have no way of knowing what he is arguing.
He also needs to provide an argument as to why Socalism is superior to capitalism, likewise, I will be arguing now why Capitalism is the best economic system acheivable. I will be basing my arguments upon Right-Libertarianism

CAPITALISM IS SUPERIOR TO SOCIALISM
In the begining of this debate, I established that this debate concerns:
"this debate concerns the quality of living, opportunities, and overall productivity in a given nation, as well as morality."
Thus, superior will be defined as whichever system creates a better quality of living, more oppurtunities for its citizens, higher overall productivity, and is a more moral system.

Taking all of these factors into account let's examine the 3 countries that have the highes of all of these collective aspects:
Singapore- Has the longest life exectancy in the world, unemployment at 2%, low taxes, 3rd highest GDP per capitain the world.
Switzerland- Among the highest wages in the world, 9th longest life expectancy, unemployment of ~4%.
Japan- Second longest life expectancy in the world, third largest economy in the world, unemployment of 3.5%, high average wages of 2,900$ monthly.

Guess what- switzerland and Japan are among the most capitalist nations in the world, Singapore is questionable, though has many aspects of a capitalist nation. so experimentally and demonstrably, capitalism s far superior to Socialism.
SampleDebater

Con

Rebuttal:
My opponent resorts to his own opinion as evidence within his first argument. He claims that all states that follow Socialism are states that we would not like to live in, he also claims that " they're all just about the worst places in the world", with no factual evidence. It is rather apparent that most of the evidence in my opponent's first argument is derived from opinion, not fact. Russia, one of the most powerful nations on the planet, follow socialism. It has a reasonably powerful economy, a powerful military, and its citizens enjoy the freedom that is equivalent to the U.S. My opponent also claims that "The Peoples Republic Of China" China as most of us now, is one of the "worst" places to live in. But China has boasted the 2'nd most powerful economy on the planet, with effective economic policies. I would like to reinforce the fact, that every single thing in his first argument is opinionative.

In his second paragraph, he proclaims that the "The Populist Revolution In Spain" is a communist movement. My opponent seems to have forgotten our debate topic, which is "Capitalism is superior to Socialism". That is not the only fault in his argument, but "The Populist Revolution In Spain" was an Anarchist movement which resulted in Libertarian Socialism. Its political foundations were not related to Socialism or Communism at all.

He also claims that the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" wanted to overthrow the Tsar and establish an autonomous state which followed communism. The entire constitution which they established was founded of "Marxism-Leninism" which resulted in the entire soviet union being a single party state. My opponent claims that Lenin became a Dictator, which is false. The entire revolution's goal was to establish a single party state. Which my opponent fails to address, but instead of saying that the people willingly "chose" Lenin, he calls him a dictator. Joseph Stalin was rightfully elected to the position, following Lenin's death.

Chairman Mao, was much like Lenin. He was rightfully chosen/placed into his position by the people. Chairman Mao, never ordered the killing of 50 million. At the time China was struggling economically. But Chairman Mao also doubled the life span of an average Chinese citizen by 40 years.

My opponent Also then goes on to say that every time a Socialist state is established it is turned into a dictatorship. Which is completely false. Let us take "The Democratic Socialist Republic Of Sri Lanka", which is a state that has been Socialist for over 50 years. This state is a prime example of a nation that has not been turned into a dictatorship. I would like my opponent to address this if possible.

My opponent further rambles on about, my faults in my previous argument which will be addressed in my arguments.

My opponent concludes his arguments by questioning Singapore's political ideology which makes one wonder, what political ideology does Singapore hold? Singapore is attcully a Socialist state, which proves my opponent to be very misleading. Singapore is rather an amazing example of a Socialist state. It has amazing public services while modeling free-market capitalism.

In conclusion of this rebuttal, my opponent has poorly researched his arguments. Most of them being false, he has instead resorted to his own opinion in most scenarios in his argument.
Sources for rebuttal:
http://hdr.undp.org...
http://libcom.org...
http://www.independent.co.uk...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.writing.upenn.edu...
https://www.marxists.org...
https://www.quora.com...
http://www.atimes.com...

First Argument,
Socialism, would result in a more equal justice system. The capitalist legal system has carried out numerous in-justices. It's injustice is countless, from racial profiling to deaths in custody, to corporations hiding profits to evade tax. The police act as guards for the purpose of this rather than the protectors of people. The leaks of the Panama papers, mostly contain capitalist businessmen and western politicians. But there are very little Socialist business people in the leaks. This is a prime example of Socialism being more equal, in terms of tax justice than capitalist nations.

Second Argument,
Socialism allows more market signals and personal freedom can be more supreme to a capitalist. Jude Wanniski stated "Capitalism did not fail in the Great Depression because profit was burdened with social concerns. It failed because the capitalist ruling class saw an opportunity to increase its profits by an increase in the protective tariff" using its political muscle to push Smoot-Hawley through the Republican Congress and persuade President Hoover to sign the legislation. This was a blatant intervention in the market, not for the usual purpose of increasing government revenues, but to engineer a social outcome desired by Big Business" This could be said for Wall ST. banks last decade - those who have had the greater benefit during the hardest of times. If a socalist state where in order, everyone could have had greater potentail for it would be near imposible to cheat out the system.

My first argument explained the equivalency that Socialism can bring to all of us, it can bring justice for all. My second argument explained how people can cheat the capitalist system, and how that would be rather hard if it where a socialist state.

Now I conclude my debate, thanks for reading!
Sources for arguments:
http://www.tandfonline.com...
https://socialistworker.co.uk...
https://www.marxists.org...
http://theliberaltony.tumblr.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
RonPaulConservative

Pro

FACT CHECK
My opponent seems to have been asleep for the past 28 years or so, because he said in his response:
"Russia, one of the most powerful nations on the planet, follow socialism. It has a reasonably powerful economy, a powerful military, and its citizens enjoy the freedom that is equivalent to the U.S."

Actually, Russia is capitalist, the Soviet Union fell apart in 1989, and afterward it became a Capitalist nation. So even though the government still owns a large chunk of the infrastructure, Vladimir Putin is working in privatising all that.{1} Also, China's growth has also been due to adopting Capitalist policies{2}
What my opponent says next further demonstrates how ill-informed he is, he truly doesn't know his history and should open a history book some time in his life:
"Chairman Mao, was much like Lenin. He was rightfully chosen/placed into his position by the people. Chairman Mao, never ordered the killing of 50 million. At the time China was struggling economically. But Chairman Mao also doubled the life span of an average Chinese citizen by 40 years."
I don't even know where to start, maybe with how Mao DID in fact kill more people than any other dictator in world history.{3} Second of all, it isn't much of an election if only 1 person is running, so that Mao and Lenin and Stalin won the popular vote doesn't really mean anything since there was only 1 person on the ballot!

Here are some more fact checks, I got bored going into specifics and providing quotations:
1. Sri Lanka is only partially communist.
2. Singapore is a Capitalist nation, not socialist state {4}

RESPONSE ONE
Really? Because looking back at the 20th Century, I find that the vast majority of injustice was actually committed by the state. During the 20th Century, the state has killed over 262 million people,{5} whilst the number of killed by individuals during the 20th century has amounted to only 8.5 million.{6}

RESPONSE TWO
The more I read your argument the more I see erroneous errors that demonstrate your ill-information, let me first state that the Great Depression was NOT a failure of Capitalism, it was a failure of Government, Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning and world renounced economist said:{7}
"There is hardly any view that is more widespread than the view that somehow or another the great depression was caused by a failure in private business...
"Nothing could be farther from the truth, the Great Depression was produced by a failure of government, by a failure in monetary policy; it was produced by a failure of the Federal Reserve System, to act in accordance with the intentions of those who established it."
Secondly, if the government is controlled by Wall Street, then this is Corporatism, not Capitalism. And ultimately Corporatism is just about the same as Socialism; it's when the industrial and business powers and the political powers are one and the same. This is simply another side to the same coin which we call Socialism.

{2}. https://www.reference.com...

{3}. http://www.independent.co.uk...

{4}. https://www.reference.com...

{5}. http://reason.com...

{6}. http://necrometrics.com...

{7}. https://www.youtube.com...

SampleDebater

Con

Rebuttal:
My opponent claims that Russia is a capitalist nation, when in fact it is Socialist with a Capitalist market. Is clearly stated in the constitution. Which you can openly read, below in the sources {2}. My opponent claims that China's growth is attributed to adoption of Capitalist policies. But, in reality the real economic growth is attributed to the mix of both capitalist and socialist policies. My opponent states that there is a fault in my argument when I said Chairman Mao did not order the death of 40 million people. But the source that he used stated that most people died due to famine. So I thank my opponent for helping me rebutted himself. My opponent then goes on saying that Mao and Lenin were "elected", which is false. I specifically said in my Debate that they were "chosen" not "elected". Because the way they got to power was via a revolution not a election.

He further claimed that Sri Lanka is "partially" communist. When in its entire constitution there is no mention of it. He further claims that Singapore is a Capitalist nation, not a socialist state when I formally proved that In its constitution it says that it is socialist.

In response one he claims that a various injustice were committed by "the state". Once I looked into the source it showed me the amount of people jailed in the United States. Not a socialist state. My opponent has used a false source yet again! He has helped me. In the source, it claims that 262 million people were jailed in the United states due to racial profiling.

In response two, he claims that he claims that Capitalism is not the cause of the Great Depression, which is entirely false. The entire great depression was caused by the Capitalist sytem. The capitalist way of "Distribution due to greed" caused it. Further reading of it can be found in {1} in the sources.
Sources for rebuttal:
{1}http://xroads.virginia.edu...
{2}http://www.constitution.ru...
http://www.atimes.com...
http://reason.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Argument one
Having a socialist based system would lead to or recessions or depressions. All Capitalist production leads every five or ten years to a recession. In other words, when the capitalist can't sell all the produce that they have created in order to maximize profits they get rid of thousands upon thousands of workers. The current economic crisis has seen 9 million familes loosing there homes after the biggest housing construction boom. So now capitalist consider money be more important than people? It now comes up to just plain ethics. Where else if this were a socialist system this senario would have played out in a different manner.

Conclusion
I push my former arguments, and thanks for reading!
Sources:
http://ireport.cnn.com...
https://www.boundless.com...
http://huameieng4u-01.wikispaces.com...
Debate Round No. 4
RonPaulConservative

Pro


THAT RUSSIA IS A SOCIALIST STATE


First of all, if Russia has a free market and private ownership of property then it’s capitalist, it cannot be a capitalist nation, fitting all of the definitions of capitalism, but not really be capitalist. It makes no rational sense, if my opponent wants top claim that Russia is a Socialist State, he must show how it is Socialist.


Secondly, my opponent states that Russia is socialist as per their constitution, and cites their constitution, but fails to show where, I read the whole document and nowhere does it say that Russia is Socialist. But regardless, as per Vladimir Putin’s decree, the Russian Federation is selling public property and means of production to the private sector.



MORE DEBUNKING


My opponent has decided to fabricate facts by claiming that my source only says 262 million people are incarcerated in the US, which is completely false for 2 reasons:


One, my source does not say that and can be found here for the readers to verify:


http://reason.com...


Two, the US has a population of only 320 million; to say that 260 million of them are in prison is just nonsense.


Three, I said that 262 million people were killed by the state during the 20th century, not a socialist state.


Finally, it just happens to be that the Great Depression was NOT caused by the private sector, but by the Federal Reserve System who inflated the money and created a bubble, followed by rapidly contracting the money supply. This popped the bubble and created a depression- that’s what historically happened, see Milton Friedman.



RESPONSE


My opponent states in a very ill-informed attempt to prove that Socialism is better than Capitalism:


“Having a socialist based system would lead to or recessions or depressions. All Capitalist production leads every five or ten years to a recession. In other words, when the capitalist can't sell all the produce that they have created in order to maximize profits they get rid of thousands upon thousands of workers. The current economic crisis has seen 9 million familes loosing there homes after the biggest housing construction boom. So now capitalist consider money be more important than people? It now comes up to just plain ethics. Where else if this were a socialist system this senario would have played out in a different manner.”


This isn’t even grammatically correct, but the way I interpret it he’s trying to say that Capitalism has recessions and depressions occasionally. Uh-yeah, it’s called the “business cycle,” basically stated prosperity cannot last forever but rather has to end at some point.


Either way this isn’t necessarily unethical, if you’re running a store and you’re making no money at all, what are you supposed to do with your employees? Have them keep working for no wages? Fire them? You can’t just pull money out of your rear end can you?


How would this be handled differently in a Socialist system? The government has been trying for fifty something odd years to help those same poor people that were poor way back in 1966 under the Johnson administration. But thus far these programs have gotten us nowhere, and the number of poor people in the US has increased rapidly.



A COMPARISON


In proving either system superior, we cannot rely on hypothetical scenarios and theoretical prosperity, we have to look at how these systems work in the real world because we benefit if there is prosperity in the real world, but we do not benefit from theoretical prosperity. And comparing a 1st world capitalist nation to a 3rd world or 2nd world socialist nation doesn’t prove anything.


Thus I will take a first world demonstration of both systems, and chose whichever real world example of capitalism and socialism which are the best. To represent Capitalism I have chosen Switzerland, since it is the best relative to every other capitalist nation today. To represent Socialism I have chosen the Netherlands, because it has the best quality of living relative to every other socialist nation. As I stated in the beginning of this debate:


“this debate concerns the quality of living, opportunities, and overall productivity in a given nation, as well as morality.”


So that’s what we will be analyzing.



WAGES


The average wages in the Netherlands, in USD, is 2,500$ a month,{1} whilst the average wages in Switzerland are 6,750$ a month.{2} In other words Switzerland’s wages are 170% higher than that of Netherlands, the even more interesting part is Switzerland has no minimum wage!


LIFE EXPECTANCY


The average life expectancy in Switzerland is 82.5 years, whilst in the Netherlands it is 81.23 years, making Switzerland #9 and the Netherlands #24. {3} so the Swiss live 1.27 years longer than the Netherlanders.


UNEMPLOYMENT


The unemployment rate in the Netherlands is 6.9% as opposed to 4.5% in Switzerland. {4} this means that the Swiss are 35% less likely to be unemployed as opposed to the Netherlanders.


INFLATION


The inflation rate in the Netherlands is 0.6%, whereas in Switzerland it is -1.1%. So the Netherlanders are still being taxed without representation, whereas the Swiss are being reverse taxed. Also the wages of the Netherlands are being eaten away by this inflation rate, whereas the wages of the Swiss are increasing gradually. {5}


GDP PER CAPITA


The GDP per capita in the Netherlands is 44,400$ per person, whereas in Switzerland it is 80,200$ per person. The Swiss have nearly double the GDP per capita as the Netherlanders!


CONCLUSION


Switzerland has beaten the Netherlands in every way shape and form, it’s just an overall better nation to live in, and that’s because of capitalism.



{1}. https://www.justlanded.com...


{2}. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...


{3}. http://www.infoplease.com...


{4}. http://data.worldbank.org...


{5}. http://data.worldbank.org...


{6}. http://data.worldbank.org...


This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by lucolivier 1 month ago
lucolivier
Communism is stateless.
it is a economic and political system where people make the decision.
communism has no class
communism has no state.
So we have a big problem, cause, if you say North Korea or Cuba are communists, your wrong, they are not. they have a state and the have a class system, we have some contradictions.
Ah yeah, and communism does not have money.
Posted by BrendanD19 1 month ago
BrendanD19
Make it four rounds and I may consider the debate
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 month ago
RonPaulConservative
@lucolivier
There are many different forms of communism.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 month ago
RonPaulConservative
@lannan13
communism is a system where the political powers and the economic powers are one thing, so it is actually both a political and economic system.
Posted by lucolivier 1 month ago
lucolivier
I will not debate you, because we'll never pass the process of conceptualisation.
And debating this, as I have already tried, never pass the concept of what is communism ?

now that is the big, what is communism ?

also, in social science, there is paradigm, so having the just definition of communism is just strange.
taking for exemple, can communism be religious ? can communism have a state ?
Posted by lannan13 1 month ago
lannan13
I completely agree, but you have to realize that Capitalism is an economic system while communism is a political system.
This debate has 0 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.