Capitalism is the best system to produce the best results
Debate Rounds (3)
From the start of recorded human history, most people lived in what we would consider pretty terrible standards. However, something happened in the 1700s. We had an industrial revolution and living standards increased, and since then living conditions have increased dramaticlly. So, why was that? One common myth is exploitation, but exploitation has always been around, so it isn't that. Another one is investment, however, there has always been investment, but it did contribute in one way, and I will get back to that. What did happen was economic liberty. Adam Smith convinced the public that mercantilism and protectionism was bad, and the governments stopped the control of trade and market forces. That caused capital to be moved to its proper destination, causing innovation.
Take a look at the scandanavian countries. There tight controls has meant that innovation has effectivly stopped, in comparison to more free market economies. Now, that's not saying they don't innovate, they do, but not at the rate it could be at. It is the potential to make money that motivates people. Now, people may say, its passion, not money, that drives people to innovate but I would argue that money gives a "back-of-the-mind" thought people to motivate them to pursue their passion. Not only that, but a free market allows capital to be directed towards these projects, whereas say if a central government authority controlled banking, and thus loans, they don't have the interest to invest and lend to what could be profitable and useful products.
Capitalism, in its purest form, is the exchange of capital, goods, services, etc. It is peaceful exchange that is benificial to both parties. I exchange my labor, and in returnn I get money.
We are all individuals, not a monolithic machine that needs to be tamed inorder to serve what others deem our goals.
Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist and staunch advocate of capitalism, proved in 1992 that dictatorships often have a more positive effect on the economy than capitalist societies. Since history is fairly clear that dictatorships are not usually a good idea, and since capitalism is an economic system, we can conclude that the most fundamental requirements of a healthy society are not found in its economy, otherwise everybody would be living in a dictatorship with high economic growth. This point becomes even more pertinent if we extend the argument further, and claim that all capitalist democracies are in reality capitalist dictatorships, proven by the fact that there is not, never has been, nor ever will be a democratic vote about the continuation of capitalism.
Social psychologist Erich Fromm wrote a book called The Sane Society over fifty years ago, in which he successfully proved that the psychological effects of indoctrination into capitalism were the same as that of a religion. If the values and practices of a particular ideology oppose the conditions of man"s natural state of being, then from an objective standpoint they institutionalise neuroticism. Adherence to them can therefore, as a matter of consequence, only conventionalise neuroticism within the individual. Since psychologists themselves would then be operating under an erroneous characterisation of normalcy (based on capitalist ideology rather than reality) their cornucopian encyclopaedia of known social dysfunction would predominantly then document the manifestation of normal (or at least reactionary) behaviour within an abnormal culture. To simplify the point with an analogy: at Sunday school, the problem child isn't the one who believes in the flying spaghetti monster and who makes his/her decisions based on that belief, because that's the dominant ideology of the group. The problem kid is the one who questions the logic of the group, and the more he/she does it, the more the others will find ways to revalidate their ideology to themselves (i.e. "He's just stupid"; "He's lost his faith"; He's a bad apple; He was sent here to test the rest of us" etc...).
You talk about innovation, but again this is another religious (and false) argument. Yes, better products can be produced over the short-term by introducing the concept of market competition, but over the long-term the same concept erodes the same competition it claims to promote, since capitalism has no reset button. McDonalds keeps getting richer, not poorer, and clearly it is ludicrous to suggest one can ever now enter into "competition" with McDonalds, since it has at its command the accumulative capital of half a century's worth of profit within a system in which capital is liquid power. The only logical result of capitalism is oligopoly and then finally monopoly, since the only effect of competition is to fraction down the competitors -- eventually to the point where there is only one left. The final result of capitalism therefore, is economic dictatorship.
You also mention exchanging labour for money, which is an interesting point to examine. Here in the UK, welfare claimants are now being forced to work for free for large companies or lose their benefit, and many of these were people who lost their jobs when the same large companies downsized during the recession. It's just another deception of capitalism that work is promoted and advertised as an incentive. Work is mandatory for the able in all capitalist societies, with the exception of the rich and powerful. Therefore, the basis of capitalism is economic slavery which has been called an "incentive" only to make the ideology more palatable to people. You are put to work in capitalist societies, and its as simple as that.
But who are you put to work for? Well, that one's easy, isn't it?
The capitalist banking system is another inevitable result of the logical fallacies which fuel the ideology. Since capital is the deity within this particular religion, the more capital one has, the more power one has over other people. But again, the people are told a different story; they are told that capitalism is a strict labour + manufacture = capital formula. But that is clearly false given that a bank's main source of income is capital investment (i.e. capital + risk = capital). Since banks bypass entirely the labour and manufacturing costs of business, and instead profit grotesquely from cheating the system, they devalue the cost of labour and the value of the currency. Despite this clear and irrefutable fact, capitalist society continues to be dominated by banks -- which are effectively parasitic organisms that charge society interest on every penny/cent in circulation -- for the simple reason that banks are already top of the capitalist food chain. Capitalist society can never pay the banks back for the physical currency, since with interest applied there will always be less money in circulation than the total due to the banks. Thus, the fundamental ideology of capitalism is that society works forever to pay back a debt it is mathematically impossible to repay, to a series of institutions which are forever devaluing its currency and undermining its labour.
Make no mistake: capitalism is a religion just like Christianity is a religion. It's a belief system with a mountain of evidence discrediting it, which people believe anyway simply because it is all they have ever known.
Let me start with what I found to be your main comparison and argument against, that capitalism is blindly followed like, as you put it, religion. From what I understand, you believe that socialism is feasible if our mindsets are switched from personal goal to societies goal. Now, I don't want to get hung up on this critique because I feel the real fault with socialism lies with distribution. We individually, each have different preferences, goals, desires, etc, and to say that in a socialist system, you would just have to work towards a collective goal. The fact of the matter is, the only collective goals society has that is constant is physical needs; water, food, etc. Promoting socialist democracy means that at the very most we will neglect %49 of the population.
Capitalism is not a form of government, so there can be capitalist dictatorships, and socialist democracies.
Now, I really want to address that McDonald's remark. McDonald's has held the highest market share of fast food, but its not a monopoly. Places like Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell, have always been competing with McDonald's. More recently restaurants like Subway, Jimmy Johns, and others have appeared on the scene. The fact that I can be 7 cheese burgers for one hours wage (I'd like to avoid minimum wage as much as possible, to time consuming.) shows that competition works.
Let's look at you innovation argument. Up until the 1800's, people made around $3, the modern equivalent of $3, even in the new United States and Britain. After 1800, income raised dramatically, and today the average American make $130 a day. What incentive do I have to spend hours of time on projects when I will only receive a fraction, a very tiny fraction, of the result of my labor.
Now, you have to understand the difference between Capitalism and crony capitalism, or as I call it crapitalism. What Britain is doing is exploitation.
You talk about the banking system. Most countries have a central bank, a government institution to control the interests rates, which I find appalling, In a free market, banks can't undergo risky investments, or engage in fraud, because they will go bankrupt. You say that the principal plus interest aggregated will always exceed the money supply. You are again referring to the crapitalism system we now have in place. If we where to increase the money supply along GNP, then you would be wrong. If we had a free banking system, where banks produce currency backed by commodities like gold and silver. In such a system, interest rates are set by supply and demand. The greater supply of money in reserve vs demand for loans, the lower interest rates. The lower the supply of money in banks vs demand, the higher the interest rate, discouraging borrowing.
Here is why socialism is impossible: prices are information surrogates. Prices deliver information to consumers and producers on needed information like supply and demand. Without, disruptions start to occur. I want to delve more into this, but I need to know your brand of socialism in order to better address my position.
Capitalism does have a reset button, its called a recession. Recessions are corrections in the market. However, if we pinpoint all recessions that have occurred without government interference, there are very few.
[To the person in the comments] Government spending in research does not always produce desired results. Take for example the U.S. We should already have affordable solar energy, but we don't because government can't engage in risky projects. By best results, I mean best results out of anything else. In socialist countries you aren't going to see nice cars.
Quantumhead forfeited this round.
Since my opponet has neglected this debate, I take that as forfiting.
Quantumhead forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.