Capitalist Society Better Than Socialist Society
Debate Rounds (3)
I will being by proving that there is NO way capitalism is better than socialism, and then move on to my opponent's point.
1. This constant competition forces evaluation of people as means to an objective; wealth, and even just enough to feed their family. People are not valued as individuals, but rather simply worth as much as the profit they can produce. Once people are valued, however they can logically be devalued, this leads to people being traded about as objects. Once objects lose stop making profts, however they are thrown away, a fate that capitalism assigns to living human beings.
Capitalism denies the inherent worth of human beings, but more than that, forces people to assign a value to others, in order to meet such basic needs as feeding ones family.
2. Capitalism is the driving force behind most of the problems in today's world. The open market forces competition in order for people to survive. This competition creates a winner take all, and a loser starve society. This win all or lose all creates conflicts.
This competition between companies fuels todays conflicts.
Slavoj Žižek explains
On closer inspection, what IS this "clash of civilizations" effectively about? Are all real-life "clashes" not clearly related to global capitalism? The Muslim "fundamentalist" target is not only global capitalism's corroding impact on social life, but ALSO the corrupted "traditionalist" regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. The most horrifying slaughters (those in Rwanda, Congo, and Sierra Leone) not only took place - and are taking place - within the SAME "civilization," but are also clearly related to the interplay of global economic interests. Even in the few cases which would vaguely fit the definition of the "clash of civilizations" (Bosnia and Kosovo, southern Sudan, etc.), the shadow of other interests is easily discernible. A proper dose of "economic reductionism" would thus be appropriate here. Instead of the endless analyses of how the Islam "fundamentalism" is intolerant towards our liberal societies and other "clash of civilization" topics, one should re-focus on the economic background of the conflict - the clash of ECONOMIC interests...
3. Socialism prevents theses harms.
Robert L. Curry explains (from his book Scarcity, Choice, and Public Policy in Middle Africa),
"The alternative model of development, socialism, would surmount many of these difficulties by severing its ties with international capitalism. The vital point is that the basis of socialist organization is the meeting of people's needs, not the making of profit. The decision to devote the nation's resources to the production of one thing rather than another is made in the light of what is needed, not what is most profitable. Furthermore, such decisions are made by the people through their responsible institutions—their own government, their own industrial corporations, their own commercial institutions. They are not made by a small group of capitalists, either local or foreign—and the question of foreign domination through economic ownership is thus excluded. Socialism, then, is the prime means at the disposal of Third World countries for transforming their societies in an egalitarian, self-reliant, indigenously manned and controlled, and productive direction."
Now, I will respond to my opponent's point.
"The class has grades that vary from a 100 all the way down to a 30.The teacher realizes this discrepancy and decides to "even" out the grades, thus everyone gets the same grade. Students who put more time and effort into studying did not benefit, and those who decided not to study did benefit. Where is the fairness in that?"
This is not how socialism works; My opponent very obviously straw mans socialism with a really terrible analogy, and tries to draw a conclusion off of it. Socialism has everyone working towards a common goal; the betterment of society, instead of only looking out to themselves. This does includes paying equal those who cannot work, but not those who choose not to work. They are a weight on society, and would not be allowed in the socialist society. Also, remember because everyone works for a common goal, people benefit more from socialism, instead of working to their own private ends.
"When people see incentives, they will work harder; things will get done; people will innovate. If people see no need in having to work hard, they will become indolent and will rely on the government to do everything for them."
I have already shown how the hyper competitive capitalist market is a terrible thing. Socialism does not rely on the government to do everything, it makes people work for a common goal. People who do not work would not live in this society. They would be sent away to another society.
Again, many thanks to my opponent, and I look forward to our next round.
Grand_Moff forfeited this round.
Grand_Moff forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Numquam 8 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||7|
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.