The Instigator
Cat47
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Capitalism

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 1 vote the winner is...
Cat47
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 98389
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

Cat47

Pro

I will be challenging the user "Capitalistslave" to a debate on the subject of capitalism and socialism.

First round is for acceptance only.
Second round is for arguments.
Third round is for more arguments.
Fourth round is for round 2 rebuttals.
Fifth round is for round 3 rebuttals.
Lastely, no trolling (Disrespectful remarks, unrelated topics, etc)
Capitalistslave

Con

I accept this debate on the grounds of that we agree on the definition of socialism and capitalism, in terms of how they differ.


Generally, I go off of the wikipedia definition of the two:

Socialism: "a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production." [1]
Capitalism: "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." [2]



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
Cat47

Pro

GDP:

US Nominal GDP: 18,561,930
Now, Laos, for example: 13,761

US GDP per capita: 56,084
Now, China, for example: 8,141

The US has the largest economy in the world, even during massive debt.

So the graph above shows redistribution only creates poverty. This is why job creating businesses flee to capitalist countries.

Also, heavily impoverished communist countries such as China have become dependent on foreign investment.

Venezuela, for example, has an abundance of natural resource such as oil. And look at the poverty there.

Hong Kong was under an embargo from it's nearest super power. After capitalism, Hong Kong has retained it's spot as the worlds freest economy, and is not the big shanty town it was.

While South Korea has produced wealth and many products, North Korea has produced starvation, and a political religion brainwashing.

While I am not saying there isn't poverty in capitalist countries, there is significantly less.

Sweden is used as a common argument for socialism, but that is not true at all. It prospered after dumping socialism.

Now, it is time to list my sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org...
http://www.borgenmagazine.com...
http://www.worldatlas.com...
http://www.scmp.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.thenewamerican.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

As outlined, I won't provide any direct responses to my opponent's first round arguments, and will just present findings here.

First, I hope you don't mind that I will copy and paste previous arguments for this round. I will type up new things in the later rounds, just this round I will take what I have in other debates and paste it here. First, I'm doing this because I have talked about this a lot of times before, and it doesn't really change for what I have as examples and argument. Secondly, I fear I may not be able to respond in time if I were to type up an entirely new argument since I don't have much time right now, and I may not be able to do it tomorrow. I've been very busy with the holiday and all.

At any rate, here are my arguments:

Similar to how most people agree that monarchy or oligarchy is an illegitimate form of government, as they do not provide consent from the governed, so too is capitalism and other systems of economy. Socialism provides a means through which people can consent to being governed in an economic sense. Under socialism, workers control their own businesses. They have a say over the rules and regulations the business would have over them. Whereas, under capitalism or other systems this system of consent is not present. We don't get to choose who the business owners are, and they are positions of power and authority, so one wonders why economics is different when determining legitimate power.

In addition to having a say over a business you work for, you are also compensated more under socialism. With socialism, a CEO or business owner would not be there to take majority of the money the company earns. Instead, this capital would be spread across the workers. Therefore, socialism benefits the majority in society, rather than an elite few.

Next, I will be talking about democratic businesses and how successful they are. Democratic businesses, which is one way in which socialism is achieved and is the type of socialism I will be mainly arguing for, are known as cooperatives. Cooperatives are actually, in many ways, more successful than traditional business models. For example, 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model. [1] Now, while a cooperative is difficult to start, mainly because banks almost never lend to cooperatives and it's hard to find like-minded people in the same business as you to come to together and start a cooperative, when they are started, they do well enough to survive usually, as mentioned before. Since cooperatives are difficult to start up, and banks seem to hate them, this is, I believe, the primary reason why there are so few of them. That, and we all live primarily in capitalist economies that favor the traditional business model that is an oligarchy. [2]

In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burd"n and Andr"s Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that Workers cooperatives employment index rose, while their capitalist counterparts fell in employment. [3, pg. 520] In addition to this, average wage remained higher in worker cooperatives than in capitalist businesses. [3, pg. 523]

Next, I will point out that it is possible for worker cooperatives to be extremely successful and that they can turn over profit at a rate as good, or even often better than traditional businesses. Mondragon Corporation is the largest cooperative in the world and "is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country." [4] Therefore, it is not the case that traditional businesses have a monopoly on profit turnover.

Now, transitioning to socialism in general: there is one example of a socialist nation that, by all means, was a socialist success. This nation was Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito. They had the highest standard of living of any Eastern European nation, and a GDP growth of greater than 5% for most of the years it was socialist[5]. While it is true Yugoslavia fell eventually anyways, this was in large due to NATO and Reagan inciting a silent revolution in Yugoslavia to introduce and pressure them into taking a market economy. [6] In fact:

"There is evidence that the US administration in liason with its allies took the decision in the early 1980s to destabilise and dismantle Yugoslavia.

The decision to destroy Yugoslavia as a country and carve it up into a number of small proxy states was taken by the Reagan adminstration in the early 1980s.

A "Secret Sensitive" National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 133) entitled "US Policy towards Yugoslavia." (Declassified) set the foreign policy framework for the destabilization of Yugoslavia"s model of market socialism and the establishment of a US sphere of influence in Southeastern Europe.

Yugoslavia was in many regards "an economic success story". In the two decades before 1980, annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaged 6.1 percent, medical care was free, the rate of literacy was 91 percent, and life expectancy was 72 years.

While NSDD 133 was in itself a somewhat innocous document, it provided legitimacy to the free market reforms. A series of covert intelligence operations were implemented, which consisted in creating and supporting secessionist paramilitary armies, first in Bosnia then in Kosovo.

These covert operations were combined with the destabilization of the Yugoslav economy. The application of strong economic medicine under the helm of the IMF and the World Bank ultimately led to the destruction of Yugoslavia"s industrial base, the demise of the workers" cooperative and the dramatic impoverishment of its population." [4]

So, Yugoslavia's downfall can't be blamed upon having been socialist, but because many countries ganged up on them.


Secondly, there is Bolivia. Since having voted in a socialist party in 2006 and which has become more socialist since, Bolivia has had it's GDP soar from $8 billion to $33 billion[7] and has the fastest growing economy in Latin America. In addition, the extreme poverty levels went down from 38.2%, just before the socialists were elected, to 18.8%[8] and the general poverty rate went from 68.4% to 38.6%[7]. While Bolivia is still a poor nation, it is improving widely under socialism. Bolivia did not see this kind of growth under capitalism.

Sources:
[1] http://www.uk.coop...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...;
[3] http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca...;
[4] www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
[5] https://www.youtube.com...;
[6] http://www.globalresearch.ca...;
[7] http://data.worldbank.org...
[8] https://www.youtube.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Cat47

Pro

My Round 3 argument is going to be longer than my round 2 argument. I'm mainly going to point out why socialism is a bad system (again).

As Winston Churchill said, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.".

The Issue With Distribution:

In a socialist society, a man or woman is forced into a system in which they are simply given money way below any sort of living wage and don't earn by working and have their money taken if they make without government "assistance". This is contradictory to many socialist advocates calling for raising the minimum wage. This basically gives hard workers the same amount of money as some random person sitting on their couch all day watching Netflix movies. While free market economies demand equal opportunity, socialism demands equal faulty results.

Mass Immigration Away From Socialist Countries:

Thousands of immigrants flee socialist countries each year, for example, Cuba. More details in the sources at the bottom of this argument.

False Utopian Promises:

A socialist system promises "free" everything. There is no such thing as say "free college", the government pays for you to go to college. Sounds good, but it causes debt.

Lastly, debunking 10 anti-capitalist arguments:

These are not rebuttals for Capitalistslave's arguments. I look forward to responding to his arguments during the 4th and 5th rounds however.

"Capitalist corporations suffer from a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and are rewarded by shareholders for acting that way. If corporations could be sent to a criminal psychologist"s office they"d be diagnosed as psychopaths and locked away forever." Ya mean crony "capitalists" and corporatists?

"Capitalism encourages greed. But greed is only good for capitalists. For normal people it is anti-social and soul destroying, not to mention very bad for our communities, which rely on altruism, compassion and a generalized concern for others." No. Capitalism encourages people to work for benefits in a free market society, and, again, not sit on a couch all day.

"Capitalism gives a few rich people the power to buy and sell jobs, which means they can build or destroy entire communities that depend on those jobs." I think he is still confusing capitalism with crony "capitalism" and/or corporatism.

"Capitalists praise freedom and individualism, but they destroy freedom and individualism for everyone but themselves" Again, No. Capitalism encourages people to work for benefits in a free market society, and, again, not sit on a couch all day.

"Capitalists denigrate cooperation and collectivism, but create mass production processes that rely on both from workers. Their system requires us to be cogs in a giant profit-making machine, but because they fear the power this gives us we are told working together for our own interests is illegitimate and bad. Thus capitalists undermine unions and other organizations that encourage workers to cooperate with each other and act collectively." The socialist system sees people with other views as cogs in amoral government interests. Also, I'm starting to think he should have titled his little blog "10 Reasons To Hate Corporatism".

"Capitalism requires the largest propaganda system the world has ever known to convince us it is the only system possible" This guy thinks that business advertising is "government propaganda"... Also, North Korea, a socialist country, has killed people for not listening to government propoganda, requires people to listen to propaganda on radios, and all sort of music and television legalized in North Korea must glorify it's murderous regime.

"Rich people also use their money to dominate the elections that are supposed to give us all one, equal vote" This is a better argument against the campaign finance system and Super PACS.

"Capitalism proclaims the virtue of naked self-interest, but self-interest without regard for morality, ecology or common sense leads to environmental degradation, destruction of indigenous communities, colonialism, war and other forms of mass destruction." I wonder how events that happened hundreds of years ago make capitalism "evil" alongside a few industries.

"Capitalism is a cancer taking over our planet. Capitalists make profits from global warming, from destroying our oceans, from pumping ever more chemicals into the atmosphere and from patenting everything they can, including life itself. Only by getting rid of capitalism can we rescue our environment." Correction: Only buy switching to renewable energy and abolishing other industries can we save our environment.

"Capitalism is not a friend to democracy but ultimately its enemy. When pushed, capitalists choose capitalism over democracy. If people use democracy to weaken the power of capitalists the rich and powerful turn to various forms of fascism in order to keep their privileges." Capitalism is not a form of "ocracy" or "archy" and this is another example of people who know absolutely nothing about capitalism comparing it to facism.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://poorrichardsnews.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

Arguments against capitalism
For argument number 1, I won't provide any sources for most of what I say because most should be common knowledge. Everything I am going to state I learned from history classes, so I believe none of it needs be cited. I can provide sources later if my opponent challenges any of it. If there is something that is not common knowledge nor derived from through logic, I will cite a source.

1) I would like to point out that there is basically no purely capitalist country today. Free market capitalism is basically extinct, as most governments are taking active roles in the economy in some form. Whether it's by providing social programs, bailing companies out when they need to be, setting regulations on business, etc. Capitalism was tried in the 1800s, and it resulted in poorly paid workers, terrible working conditions, growing wealth inequality, a recession every generation or so, and eventually a great depression in 1929. Ever since the great depression, pure capitalism has been dead. It's basically an accepted fact by every government in the world that pure capitalism is a terrible idea, even the most marketly free country, Hong Kong, does not rank as a perfect "10" on the scale of economic freedom [9]

2) Capitalism is immoral because it has an unncessary position which takes money away from people who could be earning it instead. Under capitalism, it requires the private ownership of a company, which means there is/are a sole or just a few business owners. The bussines owner is an unnecessary position and they take a percentage of the profits based on what the workers do. That profit could be distributed amongst the workers if the business owner was not there and the employees owned the business. The fact that cooperatives do exist, show that a business owner is not necessary. While someone could argue that since there are so few cooperatives, this shows that a business owner is necessary in order to have success in a company, this is proven false with the facts I showed about cooperatives in the previous debate round.

While cooperatives are so few and far between, the primary reason is because the system is constructed in such a way the favors capitalist companies. For one, banks rarely loan out to cooperatives[10](despite the fact that the ones that do exist are generally more successful than their capitalist counterparts as established in the previous round), the government only ever bails out traditional businesses and never cooperatives, cooperatives are not generally set-up to out-compete other companies either[10], and finally cooperatives are at a disadvantage since the vast majority(89%) of people can't even define what a cooperative is[11], I personally didn't even know what a cooperative was until I was 20, but I could give you a basic idea of what a capitalist business was before I was 10. I think I can safely assume that a vast majority of people have heard of and can define what a traditional/capitalist business is like, so most people shop at those and people looking to create a business probably never thought about making it a cooperative since most don't even know what one is.

3) I could provide numerous examples of countries that did terribly under capitalism, in fact Bolivia did, and they did much better once they had socialism, as you can see if you look at my previous round. Pretty much all Latin-American, African, and Asian countries do terribly under capitalism. Just look at their GDP per capita in comparison to other nations. Capitalism clearly as produced results where a select few countries do very well, while others do terribly. Socialism has traditionally helped these nations when they turned to it. I'll point to several other examples of that in the next section of my argument.

Arguments for Socialism
Most of the socialist countries that we have had in the world today, unfortunately, were systems I do not agree with, but I will use them as examples for this debate. The only one that I provide below that I agree with is Revolutionary Catalonia, and they are the only country with a form of socialism I agree with that we have any sort of economic data on that I know of(I would also agree with the Free Territory of Ukraine in the Russian Civil war, but I found no evidence for how their economy was). Socialism can be implemented in many ways.
4) Socialism has helped the poorest countries.
A) As I pointed to before, Bolivia did much better under socialism than under capitalism.
B) In addition to them, Venezuela did better under socialism as well. Before Venezuela became more socialist in the early 2000s, their GDP per capita was declining rapidly. After doing so, it raised from under $10,000 to $13,000 where it stands today[12]. While Venezuela did have a recent economic crash, this wasn't so much due to socialism but due to three primary reasons: Venezuela was largely dependent on oil, and the declining price in oil turned to be bad for their economy; their huge dependence on hydro-electric power, which they've lately been having a drought thus being bad for providing electricity; and how recently one part of their government now has an opposing party in power that was not interested in solving the problems, and instead focused on partisan issues.[13] Each of these problems would have existed even if Venezuela was capitalist and this economic crisis would have still happened, and maybe have been even worse since when they were capitalist, the GDP/capita was going down and being socialist reversed this. Over all, their GDP/capita has improved since 2000, even with accounting for the economic crisis they are going through.
C) Vietnam has had tremendous GDP growth since the 1980s, where they used to have $400 dollars per person, to over $1600 dollars today.[15] That is a quadrupling over a 40 year period. While there GDP is still small in comparison to other nations, this is still tremendous improvement.
D) Laos has also had tremendous GDP Growth, quadrupling in the same amount of time as Vietnam[17]

5) Socialism also helps better-off countries.
A) In the Spanish Civil war, Revolutionary Catalonia had the standard of living of the average worker go up significantly after implementing socialist ideas [17]. I can't find anything else about other indicators of economic improvement for Catalonia unfortunately, such as GDP growth. This is likely because they existed for such a short period of time, as they were eventually taken over by the Fascists and Franco. The fact the standard of living went up though, we should be able to assume the GDP did as well.
B) I won't provide any sources for this since it should be common knowledge. Russia turned into a super-power only once they embraced a form of socialism. They were able to compete with the United States for many decades. While they did fall eventually, largely due to that they had the whole rest of the world against them basically, the fact remains that they did very well under socialism.

I would like to point out that Socialism is also more moral than capitalism, however I'm running out of characters to be able to post. I touched on this before when I pointed out how capitalism is immoral though, I suppose. So since socialism gets rid of those problems, it's more moral.


Sources:
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] https://www.youtube.com...
[11] http://www.geo.coop...;
[12] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...;
[13] http://borgenproject.org...;
[14] http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca...;
[15] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...;
[16] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...;
[17] http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...;
Debate Round No. 3
Cat47

Pro

"Similar to how most people agree that monarchy or oligarchy is an illegitimate form of government, as they do not provide consent from the governed, so too is capitalism and other systems of economy. Socialism provides a means through which people can consent to being governed in an economic sense. Under socialism, workers control their own businesses. They have a say over the rules and regulations the business would have over them. Whereas, under capitalism or other systems this system of consent is not present. We don't get to choose who the business owners are, and they are positions of power and authority, so one wonders why economics is different when determining legitimate power. In addition to having a say over a business you work for, you are also compensated more under socialism. With socialism, a CEO or business owner would not be there to take majority of the money the company earns. Instead, this capital would be spread across the workers. Therefore, socialism benefits the majority in society, rather than an elite few."

Con, it seems here you are confusing capitalism with plutocracy and corporatism. I see this commonly happening with pro-socialist arguments. Also, not every business is run by an elite few unless you're talking about big corporations. Businesses in capitalist countries benefit the owners, the employees, and other people through

"Cooperatives are actually, in many ways, more successful than traditional business models. For example, 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model." Cooperatives have been founded in capitalist countries.:

"Since cooperatives are difficult to start up, and banks seem to hate them, this is, I believe, the primary reason why there are so few of them. That, and we all live primarily in capitalist economies that favor the traditional business model that is an oligarchy." Huge wall street banks in America have shown themselves to be very socialist, as well as power hungry. This should be in common knowledge by now. The reason businesses fall, by the way, is often because of huge government regulations or poor business decisions..

"In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burd"n and Andr"s Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that Workers cooperatives employment index rose, while their capitalist counterparts fell in employment" As I mentioned in Round 2, the US has remained wealthy and businesses have remained succesful despite a $20 trillion debt.

"In addition to this, average wage remained higher in worker cooperatives than in capitalist businesses." Again, there are ocoperatives in capitalist countries.

"Now, transitioning to socialism in general: there is one example of a socialist nation that, by all means, was a socialist success. This nation was Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito". Yugoslavia was dependent on foreign aid. It was, in no way, succesful because of its own wealth.

"So, Yugoslavia's downfall can't be blamed upon having been socialist, but because many countries ganged up on them." This may be true, but there are many countries that are failing or have fallen because of socialism, whereas I have not seen the same in many capitalist nations.
"Secondly, there is Bolivia. Since having voted in a socialist party in 2006 and which has become more socialist since, Bolivia has had it's GDP soar from $8 billion to $33 billion and has the fastest growing economy in Latin America." Bolivia is still an extremely poor country and is improving very slowly. As mentioned in round 2, Cuba and Venezuela, 2 socialist latin American countries, are riddled with poverty and have seen very slow economic growth.

https://fee.org...
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...
http://community-wealth.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org...
http://www.borgenmagazine.com...
http://www.azomining.com...
http://www.worldatlas.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita
https://smallbiztrends.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

The comparisons of GDP per capita that my opponent points out is misleading since it doesn't take into account the growth. I consider the growth to be more important than a single amount at a given time. China's GDP per capita more than doubled within the last 10 years [18] whereas the US's GDP per capita has only gone up by 4% in the past 10 years [19]. While China is a poor nation in comparison to the population they have, they are growing at an extremely fast rate. As for Laos, as I pointed out before, their GDP/capita has grown tremendously too. It's not fair to compare the total GDP or GDP/capita when socialism started out in poor countries to begin with. Imagine what the growth would have been for the US if we were socialist. Nearly every socialist nation that I mentioned had a doubling of their GDP/capita in the last 20 years or less. Imagine what the growth for the socialist countries would be if they were capitalist. Actually, you don't have to imagine what it was for Bolivia, since it's there for you to see before they became socialist. They were much poorer and had terrible economic growth under it.

So the graph above shows redistribution only creates poverty. This is why job creating businesses flee to capitalist countries. -Cat47
There's no graph, so we don't know what you're talking about.


Also, heavily impoverished communist countries such as China have become dependent on foreign investment. -Cat47
Well, that's not due to socialism, but rather their own decisions for their economy. This is rather irrelevant to the fact that they have a socialist country.

Venezuela, for example, has an abundance of natural resource such as oil. And look at the poverty there.-Cat47
Actually, ever since electing socialist leaders, their poverty rate went down from 55% to about 30% in a 12 year period[20]. While their poverty rate is increasing right now, that is because of the economic crisis they have that had nothing to do with socialism, as I pointed out earlier. It will likely continue to go down in the long-run when this economic crisis they are having is over.



Hong Kong was under an embargo from it's nearest super power. After capitalism, Hong Kong has retained it's spot as the worlds freest economy, and is not the big shanty town it was. -cat47
Yet, it still isn't ranked at a perfect 10 on economic freedom for a reason, as I pointed out before. Pure capitalism would fail, as it did in the past. In addition, while you point to Hong Kong as a success, there were many capitalistic countries in Africa, South America, and Asia who did terribly. You haven't named a single socialist nation that had economic decline over the long-run, that's because every socialist nation has had an economic growth in the long-run, as I've been pointing out. Short-term declines in economy are bound to happen, but the long-term is what matters.

While I am not saying there isn't poverty in capitalist countries, there is significantly less. -Cat47
Actually, there are quite a few capitalist countries with a higher poverty rate than socialist nations. South Africa has a poverty rate of 53.8%, in comparison to Venezuela's 30% rate[20], China's 6.5%[21], Laos' 23.2%[22], Vietnam's 13.5%[23], and Bolilvia's 38.6%[24]. I pretty much named every socialist nation's poverty rate except for North Korea's and Cuba's because that data seems to be unavailable, and all of the ones I did mention are lower than most capitalist nations, which I shall name more of their poverty rates now: Kenya has a 45.9% poverty rate[25], Nigeria 46%[26], Zimbabwe 72.3%[27] Mali 43.6%[28], Togo, 55.1% [29], and Liberia 61.3% [30]. I can name more, but this should get my point across. Capitalism results in some nations prospering while others suffer. Socialism, generally, helps all nations, since every nation I listed has a declining poverty rate since they elected socialist leaders, and they have less poverty than the listed capitalist nations.


Sweden is used as a common argument for socialism, but that is not true at all. It prospered after dumping socialism. -Cat47
Well, Sweden doesn't even have a socialist party in power, and they never did I think. Nor did they ever identify as socialist. People use countries to represent socialism when they don't, but I didn't need to use Sweden since the countries I did use are all ones that claim to be socialist or have socialist parties in power, and all of them have a declining long-run poverty rate, and an increasing GDP/capita.




Sources:
[18] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
[19] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
[20] http://data.worldbank.org...;
[21] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
[22] http://data.worldbank.org...;
[23] http://data.worldbank.org...;
[24] http://data.worldbank.org...;
[25] http://data.worldbank.org...
[26] http://data.worldbank.org...;
[27] http://data.worldbank.org...;
[28] http://data.worldbank.org...
[29] http://data.worldbank.org...;
[30] http://data.worldbank.org...;


Debate Round No. 4
Cat47

Pro

Thank you for your Rebuttal. I will now refute your arguments made in the third round. My third round arguments were mostly debunking anti capitalist arguments. Anyways, time for the rebuttal:

"I would like to point out that there is basically no purely capitalist country today. Free market capitalism is basically extinct, as most governments are taking active roles in the economy in some form. Whether it's by providing social programs, bailing companies out when they need to be, setting regulations on business" The same exact argument has been used against capitalism over and over again. This would be more accurately described as crony "capitalism", a system in which close relations to the government is required for success. Everyone should know what crony capitalism is.

"Capitalism was tried in the 1800s, and it resulted in poorly paid workers, terrible working conditions, growing wealth inequality" This was a very early early form of capitalism, and even then, money was worth alot more back then. For example, a $18.32 was equal to $1 back in 1800, and $27.48 was equal to $1 by the end of the 1800's. The reason for poor working conditions could be easily atrributed to the limited technology of that time. I am not sure what my opponent is trying to say when he says "growing wealth inequality", but I think he is saying here that people being people not having the same exact amount as everyone else is a bad thing? In some cases it is (such as the little amount of poverty in capitalist countries), but, assuming he means that, he is saying that all cases of people being richer than others is bad.

"Capitalism is immoral because it has an unncessary position which takes money away from people who could be earning it instead. Under capitalism, it requires the private ownership of a company, which means there is/are a sole or just a few business owners. The bussines owner is an unnecessary position and they take a percentage of the profits based on what the workers do. That profit could be distributed amongst the workers if the business owner was not there and the employees owned the business." A business is basicly an organization in which the owner or owners sell a product or service and they pay people to do it for them. And they keep the rest of the money. Thats basicly how it works, and there have been many cases of single workers making more than CEO's and/or business owners, such as with Amazon.

"The fact that cooperatives do exist, show that a business owner is not necessary. While someone could argue that since there are so few cooperatives, this shows that a business owner is necessary in order to have success in a company, this is proven false with the facts I showed about cooperatives in the previous debate round." There are a ton of other factors than just not being a cooperative to why businesses fail. Whats intresting about this argument is you do not need socialism to found cooperatives.

"I could provide numerous examples of countries that did terribly under capitalism" Same for socialist countries.

My opponent has used GDP growth as an argument in socialist countries as an argument, but what also needs to be included is the rate of growth compared to the previous GDP of said country. For example, if someone has $1, and gets 10%, they'll have $1.10. If someone has $2, and they get 10%, they'll have $2.20.

http://www.businessdictionary.com...
http://www.in2013dollars.com...
http://www.in2013dollars.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org... (yet again)http://www1.salary.com...
http://www.payscale.com...
https://smallbiztrends.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalistslave

Con

This is of course my rebuttals to pro's round 3 arguments, in case people are lost.

I don't see why Winston Churchill's opinion on the matter matters. He was a very far right-wing politician, so of course he will say socialism is terrible, as he has an innate bias in favor or supporting capitalist businesses. You quoting Churchill would be like as if I quoted Friedrich Engels on the problems with capitalism. Both are biased, and instead, we should rely on factual information and not quotes from people.

In a socialist society, a man or woman is forced into a system in which they are simply given money way below any sort of living wage and don't earn by working and have their money taken if they make without government "assistance". -Cat47
This isn't true though, considering if it was, pvoerty rates would be sky-rocketing in socialist nations, but as I pointed out in previous rounds, poverty rates are decclining vastly in socialist nations. In other words, the facts don't support this claim and it is unsubstantiated.

Thousands of immigrants flee socialist countries each year, for example, Cuba. More details in the sources at the bottom of this argument. -cat47
Well, I would also personally flee Cuba if I lived there, and not because it is socialist, but because it is totalitarian. Being a libertarian socialist myself, I would rather live in a libertarian society, preferably a socialist libertarian society. I imagine the primary reasons people flee cuba more has to do with it being totalitarian than being socialist. Simply because people flee from that nation, doesn't mean it's because it is socialist, as there can be other reasons. Other socialist nations don't have nearly as much of an emigration problem as Cuba.

"A socialist system promises "free" everything. There is no such thing as say "free college", the government pays for you to go to college. Sounds good, but it causes debt." -cat47
A socialist system doesn't necessarily promise this, actually. It's not something inherent to socialism. The only thing inherent to socialism is Democratic ownership of the means of production, which can be achieved through: Public ownership of the means of production, or cooperative ownership of the means of production. Socialism can be achieved without any social programs, a welfare state, or government intervention in the economy. None of those things are inherent to socialism. There are forms of socialism with those things, but socialism doesn't have to be implemented with those things. For example, libertarian socialism sometimes doesn't even have a government(sometimes it can be an anarchist society) and anarcho-syndicalism(syndicalism is another form of socialism in which workers' unions control the means of production and the union leaders are elected by the workers) wouldn't have a government either. So, there is no government in those socialist systems to provide these "free" things that my opponent suggests. In case you need a real-life example of a libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist society, Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish civil war was one such society who was anarcho-syndicalist.

As for your point that it causes debt, it only causes debt if taxes or tarrifs are not raised or if expenditures elsewhere are not decreased in order to pay for the government-funded university education.


As for all of my opponents rebuttals to generic anti-capitalist arguments, I don't think I need to address any of them since I didn't make any of those arguments, or I don't think I did.

I guess I'll comment on a few of my opponent's rebuttals:

The socialist system sees people with other views as cogs in amoral government interests. Also, I'm starting to think he should have titled his little blog "10 Reasons To Hate Corporatism". -Cat47
I don't see how this argument only applies to corporatism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, so a capitalist naturally undermines cooperation because they prevent the cooperative ownership of the means or production by owning their own business for themselves. That has nothing to do with corporatism, that is capitalism.

This guy thinks that business advertising is "government propaganda"... Also, North Korea, a socialist country, has killed people for not listening to government propoganda, requires people to listen to propaganda on radios, and all sort of music and television legalized in North Korea must glorify it's murderous regime. -cat47
Again, North Korea is a totalitarian socialist state. All totalitarian regimes, whether right-wing or left-wing, tend to instill their population with propaganda and they limit opposing opinions. This is a problem that deals with authoritarianism(where totalitarianism is absolute/extreme authoritarianism) versus libertarianism(where anarchy is the extreme of libertarianism). The United States is an authoritarian country, it's not totalitarian of course, but it is authoritarian. For example, the government sets education standards, and there is a clear bias in the history, government, and economics classes in schools against socialism. I never learned much about revolutionary Catalonia, or the Free Territory of Ukraine in school, yet both were socialist nations which were the opposite of totalitarian. It's as though schools only teach the totalitarian aspect of socialism in order for us to think that is the only kind of socialism out there and make us opposed to it. Only an authoritarian state would leave things out and try to paint an opposing ideology in a negative light. So, America does similar things in its education system, where it paints some things as good and others as evil.

Capitalism is not a form of "ocracy" or "archy" and this is another example of people who know absolutely nothing about capitalism comparing it to facism.
That didn't seem to compare capitalism to fascism actually, they just stated that capitalists would turn to forms of fascism in response to the people using a democratic vote to undermine the capitalist.

And they didn't call capitalism a form of government like a "ocracy" or "archy" as you called it, it would do good to re-read that argument. However, capitalism does still have a form of government to it, as it's the business owner who controls their business and orders their employees around. The businessowner governs over their employees and business. It is a form of government on a very decentralized level. They govern over you in an economic way. The state governs over us in a political and legal way, and organized religion governs over us in a moral and religious way.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cat47 1 year ago
Cat47
If you're interested in wasting time, go ahead...
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
I was talking about the comments, yes.
Posted by Cat47 1 year ago
Cat47
Not sure why you'd have a debate over a comments section fight or are you talking about debating him on capitalism?
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
Since this appears to be such a hotly divided topic, perhaps we should have a formal debate on the subject. ;)
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
@Capitalist Slave:

I understand why you might think I was voting in a biased manner. However, this was not the case. You and Cat47 both listed sufficient sources for your debate to prove your various points, whether it had to do GDP, poverty rates, or something else. That is why I tied you for sources.

The point still remains that you made a claim of morality in your argument without backing it up properly, while your opponent did not. That is why I appear to be holding you to a higher standard than I do your opponent.

Secondly, may I ask which, specifically, of your sources do you associate as "scientific studies"? And afterwards, could you please explain how these scientific studies pertain to a debate about economic systems of physical wealth production?
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Kescarte_DeJudica:
And I refuted basically everything pro argued for by showing the GDP/capita, poverty rates, etc of socialist countries over time. I not only focused on morality but also economic reasons as well. Everything in my debate on economic reasons was well-supported, so I don't see why because I failed to provide real-life studies for one aspect, that this would mean my opponent had better arguments. There were many more things my opponent also didn't offer evidence of(such as this non-existent graph they pointed to in round 2, or not providing any studies proving the quote they brought into play in round 3), yet you only pick on me for it. Bottom line is, I think you had a bias in your voting. The fact you also didn't vote for me for better sources seems to suggest this as well. I offered at least a couple of scientific studies on the matter, while my opponent offered none. Scientific studies are more reliable sources than what my opponent offered, and I'm not just saying that out of bias, that is generally accepted.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Kescarte_DeJudica// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con focused all of his arguments on GDP in socialist countries versus capitalist countries, but failed to show how life quality was effected by this. Pro, on the other hand showed that capitalism produces better life quality through their being plenty for everyone, without all the "wealth" being concentrated. Thus, I award Pro arguments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] After reconsideration, the decision remains the same, chiefly because of the clarifications posted in the comments. The voter is clear about why they decided to ignore or downplay specific points. The voter is not required to be exhaustive in his analysis, but does provide enough specifics for this vote to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
@CapitalistSlave:

Because in your reasons, you use morality as an argument for why socialism is better than capitalism. Thus, you have brought a non-economic point into a economic-type debate. Pro didn't claim morality in his reasons for capitalism, he only argued that is was a better model for producing material wealth. So, in his case, GDP and numbers work just fine. But when you bring morality (which is not physical material wealth, though it could certainly be non-material wealth) into the argument, you have to show how that affects life quality. This has to be done through individual cases, it can't simply be a matter of "socialism is more moral because it gives money to people who could be earning it" until you show a real-life example of how people are not getting money they earned, at a loss to someone else. And then you would have to show how this is "immoral". That was your biggest debate downfall.

Otherwise, I think you did very well for the most part. Does that answer your question?
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Kescarte_DeJudica:
But my opponent didn't even offer case studies of people's lives in capitalism, why would you hold me to a higher standard than them?
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
@CapitalSlave:

While you certainly showed differences in GDP and the poverty rate, those are numbers, life quality is far more detailed than that. If you had shown some case studies of real people before and after the implementation of socialism vs. capitalism, then it would have been a much different story.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
Cat47CapitalistslaveTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con focused all of his arguments on GDP in socialist countries versus capitalist countries, but failed to show how life quality was effected by this. Pro, on the other hand showed that capitalism produces better life quality through their being plenty for everyone, without all the "wealth" being concentrated. Thus, I award Pro arguments.