Debate Rounds (4)
Humans have been born with the instinct to survive. Pre historic beings, hunter-gatherer types would do what they could to survive. They normally found safety in groups yes, but the socialist argument that the idea of egalitarian hunter-gatherers does not take into account that these people are using these methods to benefit their own community. This is because the groups' survival relies on the success of its community, which has subsequently adopted the human trait of greed in a collective sense. Just like we see today, nations have naturally adopted the human traits of greed and survival, because in a world where nothing is free, you have to earn it through means of power. By pursuing this model, a nation is effectively pursuing capitalism, and by pursuing an idealist socialist model, a nation state essentially undermines its security in an anarchic system, where capitalist countries thrive, and those socialist countries see themselves resort to capitalist economies.
Definition of "capitalism":
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Definition of "survival":
the state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances.
It seems to me that Pro is trying to argue that capitalism is necessary for survival. Which it is not. The three things that are necessary for survival are:
Thus, capitalism is NOT essential for survival, as it clearly does not fall, by itself, under any of those categories listed above.
Sources: Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English, http://www.brighthub.com...
So with this in mind, take the British Empire as an example, where Imperialism - a subject of the capitalist system, has destroyed the existence of many actors through exploitation. This capitalist driven nation, saw the end of various tribes and kingdoms in Africa, and replaced them with the modern day states we now know.
The point being is that survival is reliant on those 5 necessities that you listed, however those necessities are not granted to everyone. With the anarchic system in place, there is no stopping an actor from taking those neccesities for their own gain, and because they want to secure their own security. This is because humans are innately selfish. This selfishness creates a capitalist society.
I am fully aware that the end result of communism, a system of socialism, according to Karl Marx, is supposed to be a complete "withering away" of the socialist worker's state- anarchy, in other words. I assume that you are arguing for capitalism with the existence of a state, as you don't seem to think that anarchy can work. Very well. But you also need to be aware of anarcho-capitalism:
"A term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government."
As you can see, capitalism is compatible with lack of government, whereas your contentions are such that capitalism requires a state. Which it does not. In an anarcho-capitalist society, services such as food, water, and protection would be provided by private companies.
Imperialism is different from capitalism. In imperialism, the state is still able to control industry.
Looking at historical examples, the USSR reverted to capitalist measures because its socialist planned economy was stagnating. Lenin allowed the Kulak's to earn a profit, and later Gorbachev implemented capitalist measures through Perestroika. The PRC, following the Cultural Revolution, had to implement reform to its socialist planned economy, because it was facing imminent economic crisis. So it integrated itself into the world economy. They both resort to capitalism.
It is possible to be non-capitalist and at the same time non-socialist. Pro has still not refuted this fact, which I have made apparent previously (regarding imperialism) Socialism is, by definition:
"A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"
It is possible for private business to be outlawed and socialism STILL non-existent in a government by this definition. A dictator/monarch could easily outlaw private business without the input of the "community as a whole".
The definition of "anarchy" is thus:
"Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal"
In the world there still exist governments, ergo anarchy does not exist in the real world.
Sources: Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English.
1. Capitalism cannot exist within socialism, and vice versa, so capitalism cannot have "seen the survival of all socialist nations," as indicated by the respective definitions of both;
2. "No government of the world" still does not mean the world is without GOVERNMENTS;
3. The existence of capitalism within imperialism, according to the definitions supplied in my above arguments, need not apply universally to all imperialist states.
1. Capitalism can exist with anarchy
2. Non-capitalist nations need not be socialist
3. We are meant to be arguing the merits of capitalism
4. Capitalism is not good.
Why am I against capitalism? Capitalism requires the exploitation of workers by business owners, and the business owners earn more than the workers do. This leads to wealth inequality, which is not necessary. Inequality leads to conflicts, and conflicts are not good.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Comrade_Silly_Otter 1 year 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the only one to use sources. Pro did wander into Socialism, though the debate is about Capitalism. I can see why they would do so, but the debate is about Capitalism.
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.