The Instigator
maydaykiller
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SebUK
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Communism does not work.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 866 times Debate No: 67374
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

maydaykiller

Con

I will be arguing in opposition to the notion that communism is a bad system/does not work.

Debating will begin once someone accepts the challenge. Looking forward to a great debate!
SebUK

Pro

Hello , 'Communism does not work' is an assertive statement so I assume Con wants me to fulfill the BoP and I will try to do that but I request that he makes a case for himself if he can too . In this debate I will be arguing in favour of Capitalism .

Key Terms - First let's define the key terms Capitalism is '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:''-Oxford Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) , I request that we do not use that definition as the current system we live in is Crony Capitalism which is defined as 'An economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials:' (Oxford Dictionary Definition -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......) another definition of Crony Capitalism presented by the Cambridge dictionary is 'an economic system in which family members and friends of government officials and business leaders are given unfair advantages in the form of jobs, loans, etc.:' -(http://dictionary.cambridge.org......) .

I consider Capitalism to be synonymous with 'free market' and that is what I'm gone refer to when I will mention Capitalism in this debate. Economists and Philosophers such as Ayn Rand when referring to Capitalism also understand it as being synonymous with 'free market' . Ayn Rand has said 'When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. ' -(http://capitalism.org...) this website also defines Capitalism as -

'Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion.

Capitalism is the system of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.'

Now Communism defined by the Oxford Dictionary 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.'- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

A big question throughout the 20th century and even now for some is which system works better. I believe Capitalism (loosely regulated) is the best system since it works in the most effective way and I also consider it to be morally right , now you may ask why? Capitalism is sort of a value-point system, and the points are capital . In a prosperous nation there is thousands upon thousands of charities we cannot say people are inherently evil not a lot of people literally starve in the west . Capitalism allows people to better themselves and their situation by building up Capital and it allows those in need to get the right kind of help . The following is an example of how less involvement of the government will mean more people will start to work.

'In the late 1990s, the United States established a reasonable record in reducing child poverty. Successful anti-poverty policies were partially implemented in the welfare reform legislation of 1996, which replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).'- https://www.youtube.com...

What the Welfare State does is lower incentive . In the example that I mentioned the reform required that some Welfare mums either had to prepare for work or get jobs , this was set as a condition of receiving aid , so the effect that the reform had was that the employment for single mums increased and as this happened of course child poverty also declined quite considerably, so as Stefan Molyneux said in the quarter century before this welfare reform there was no net change in the poverty rate of children in single mother homes but after the reform poverty rates dropped significantly from 53.1% 1995 to under 40% in 2001. This shows how the Welfare State lowers unemployment and destroys the inicitive of the lower classes to work.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com... Here is a source showing how private charities are more efficient then government programs .
''Michael Tanner Director Health and Welfare Studies at the Cato Institute testified to Congress that 70 cents (or 70%) of every government entitlement dollar goes not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats (1). It is astonishing when we compare this figure to private charities. Information is critical to a free market society. There are several watchdog organizations that monitor the spending of private charities. One method that private charities are rated is the percentage of their budget that is spent on administration. According to Charity Navigator (2), one such watchdog for private charities, food banks & pantries only have 1.6% of their budgets used for administration, community foundations have 7.6% of their budgets used for administrations, and private museums had the largest percent of their budgets going to administration, which was 18%. On average private charities spend about 10% of their budgets on administration.'

I have showed evidence for how Private Charities are more efficient then government programs . The fact is Communism advocates for forced equality while Capitalism is based on the idea that you should be allowed to make money regardless of your background. Capitalism is based on the ideas of free trade while Communism and Karl Marx's ideas are based entirely on forcing equality unto people and restricting their freedom . Is it really the fault of the rich that someone who is an un-educated worker and has 10 children doesn't have as much money as he would like ? It is his fault for not being responsible enough to make a future for himself and for his offspring but even so he still has a chance to become rich this is the beauty of Capitalism . Wherever you come from you have a chance for a better life .

Lets say that man one day borrows some money from a bank and creates an extremely successful company? that's unlikely but it is possible in Capitalism unlike in Communism which enslaves you and in which you can only be as prosperous as the state allows you to be. That man has a choice he could go to a charity (that would be much more common in an entirely capitalistic country with no taxes) , charities are a lot more efficient than government programs like I mentioned previously an average private charity spends 10% of its budget on administration and most of the money goes to help the poor while government programs spend the majority of the budget on administration.

If taxes were eliminated or at least lowered I don't see why some people couldn't re-direct some of their money into charity which is a lot better since it gives you a choice of what charity to donate to . In Communism a human person is just a tool that can be used for the goals of the community - http://www.michaeljournal.org...

I don't have enough space for my final paragraph , but that's okay since I assume Con will make a case for himself in his next response and then I can post my final paragraph in the next round.

Debate Round No. 1
maydaykiller

Con

First and foremost I would like thank Pro for accepting to join me on this debate.

I reckon that capitalism, at first glance, might look like the better economic system. But I believe it is key we mention the uglier side of capitalism, being the exploitation of cheap workforce, the millions being enslaved to produce your products. Multinational corporations, in their never ending quest for profits are employing a business strategy based on cheap production and resale at a much higher price. Giving the hardworking foreigners, inhumane working conditions and extremely low wages for long hours of work. It is even estimated that a quarter of a BILLION children (5 - 14 years old) are being forced to work in sweatshops around the world. As Pro said it 'Capitalism is the system of Laisser-Faire'. Indeed, it is, but laisser-faire leads to prosperity and wealth for some but undoubtedly leads to exploitation and misery for others.

Moreover, Pro mentioned something that I found rather interesting, '...this is the beauty of Capitalism . Wherever you come from you have a chance for a better life.' Currently, in the United States, the richest 1% of Americans, made almost 20% of all the available income in the country. And the beauty of capitalism means, that they could easily have an influence in politics and they have used that influence : They've managed to cut Income Tax for the richest in HALF (From the 70's) Capitalism means that money is the driving force behind everything, but bad policies ensues, our elected officials make decisions that benefits the few. A study by PewResearch shows that the wealth gap between an upper-class family and a middle class family of four is about $88 000.It has also has proven that 60% of Americans believe that the economic system favors the wealthy. We're living in a time were the wealth gap is larger than in the past 30 years. And undoubtedly, the gap will continue to widen. Capitalism is not a system where everyone succeeds, it is a system controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy.

In sharp contrast with communism, where there is pronounced belief in equality, the median wealth of white households in America is 13 times higher than that of black households which leads me to advise pro to reconsider '...Capitalism is based on the idea that you should be allowed to make money regardless of your background' It goes without saying that capitalism is not a system that promotes equality.

Furthermore, pro is arguing that welfare 'destroys the incentive of the lower classes to work'. The minimum wage in America is currently $7.95 per hour, this barely allows to make end's meet. Incredibly enough, lower classes are better off on welfare than on the petty minimum wage.

I will close my argument with two points that follows as such :

- What really is capitalism ? Capitalism is the exploitation of the poorest to provide for the richest. It is the unregulated system of obedience to wealth. It's the inhumane system that relies on low wages and high prices to enrich the wealthy, not a system that works for all. What is the explanation for starving families in the richest country in the world? A report cited that Chief Executives made 774 times the minimum wage. And most of them have regularly opposed raising their employees minimum wage. What kind of malevolent system allows the employer to make 774 times the salary of the employee?

- On the other hand, what really is communism ? Communism is the belief that the wealth of the nation should not be owned by a few and their offspring. It's the belief that everyone should have access to humanity's most basic needs. Education, as well as post-secondary education, healthcare and housing were free of charge in the Soviet Union. It's the belief that, as guaranteed in the Soviet constitution, employment is a right not a privilege.

Sources :

https://www.dosomething.org...

http://www.photius.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.pewresearch.org...

http://www.pewresearch.org...
SebUK

Pro

Last paragraph - Communism is tyrannical to the highest degree as It gives the government bureaucrats the power to decide how much necessary resources you can use and how much you earn and what you can sell or not . In Capitalism people are free to choose what they want. Communism gives the lazy as much as the hard working, while Capitalism allows each individual to sell their labor creating a result where the hardest working are rewarded in accordance to how hard they work. In Capitalism each person is independent while in Communism each person is interdependent, interdependence is a form of slavery. In Communism people work the way the central monopoly (government) tells them to but In Capitalism they work where they want.

Con starts off by saying that Capitalism might look like a better economic system but only at first glance , he then states he thinks it is important that we mention the uglier side of Capitalism . The uglier side of Capitalism according to him is the exploitation of cheap workforce, the millions being enslaved to produce your products and Multinational Corporations seeking profit . Next he gives us a statistic that states a quarter of a billion children aged 5-14 years old are being forced to work in sweatshops around the world and we have to trust him here because his sources are all listed at the bottom and I am left without a clue which one I should look through. We will address this 'uglier side' of Capitalism next but first let me address his last point in his first paragraph. Con makes the case that the free market leads to prosperity and wealth but only for some and for the rest it leads to exploitation and misery. This is a completely baseless claim and unless Con shows us a single example of a free market state where people are being exploited and live under misery then he has failed to fulfill the BoP and I cannot address it because it is completely groundless and therefore I cannot argue against it.

Exploitation of workers&Multinational Corporations - Con cannot make the case that these people in Third World nations are being exploited due to Capitalism , in Capitalism it is more profitable for the employer to actually pay his workers more for a few different reasons one being the fact that more workers will want to work for him than an employer that would pay them less and therefore the employer that pays them more will actually make more profit . Here Forbes talks about Henry Ford doubling the wages of his workers[1] . This of course is just a theory often used by Capitalists , I will present solid evidence . Con assumes that these workers from the Third World live in Capitalist nations or else he would have not used that argument and that argument wouldn't make sense if he thought that wasn't the case. This is actually a very naive assumption . According to the Economic Freedom of the World 2014 Annual Report African countries are actually some of the least economically free in the world as shown in this map[2] . Interestingly enough Botswana which is one of the most economically free countries in Africa is experiencing incredible economic growth compared to South Saharan Africa as shown by Prof. Scott Beaulier in this presentation around the eight minute mark[3] . I recommend the presentation to anything wanting to educate themselves on African economies. Con also forgets that there may be other factors that are contributing to Africa being so destabilized&poor such as foreign aid . Mr Shikwati said this in one of his interviews 'The government, thanks to aid, is richer than its people; hence everybody wants to join politics: very few want to become successful business people.'[4] . One theory claims that foreign aid is why so many people seek to get into power in African Nations , if my opponent thinks that the source is too old I will provide another one if he wishes me to do so. African nations are much closer to being a Kleptocracy than to Capitalism.[5]

Con states this : 'Currently, in the United States, the richest 1% of Americans, made almost 20% of all the available income in the country. And the beauty of capitalism means, that they could easily have an influence in politics and they have used that influence : They've managed to cut Income Tax for the richest in HALF (From the 70's) Capitalism means that money is the driving force behind everything, but bad policies ensues, our elected officials make decisions that benefits the few. A study by PewResearch shows that the wealth gap between an upper-class family and a middle class family of four is about $88 000.It has also has proven that 60% of Americans believe that the economic system favors the wealthy. We're living in a time were the wealth gap is larger than in the past 30 years. And undoubtedly, the gap will continue to widen. Capitalism is not a system where everyone succeeds, it is a system controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy.'

Con tries to show us that there is income inequality in the US , this is true and I support this . I do not understand why those who are hard working and educated shouldn't be allowed to make more money then those who are not . Con gives us a bunch of supposedly scary statistics but he doesn't explain to us why income inequality is a bad thing. Just as a note from me I would like to mention that I do not support the rich having to pay higher rates of taxes. My opponent talks about the influence of the rich in politics but he ignores that this is centrally crony capitalism which is focused around business&government working together. I already explained that I will be arguing in favour of a lightly regulated free-market Capitalism. I support the state&economics being more independent of each other. Con also talks about the income gap and I have a perfect video to address this . It talks about the data trying to prove that the income gap is growing and the flaws within it. The first part of the video goes like this : It is a myth that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer , the top 20% of income earners today do have a larger share of national income then they did in the past and the bottom 20% of income earners do have a smaller share of national income then they had in the past however there are two problems with that date , first of all that data doesn't tell us anything about the absolute condition of the poor , just because one has a smaller share of income doesn't mean that one is absolutely poor so for example it could be the case that even though poor Americans have a smaller share of national income their absolute income is higher . If I asked you if you would rather have 1/6th of a pizza or 1/9 of a pizza your answer may dependant on how big the pizza is having 1/9th of a pizza may be better if the pizza was much larger then the one that of which you would have 1/6th of . The real income of the poor Americans today is higher then it used to be even though their share of the total income is somewhat lower but all this misses the more fundamental point .... To not run out of characters I am not gone type the whole video out . It is located here [6] or you can go here instead to read about the second point the video was gone make [7] . The rest of Con's arguments I will address next round as I don't have enough characters left.
[1][http://www.forbes.com...]
[2][http://www.freetheworld.com...] [3][http://www.learnliberty.org...] [4][http://www.africanexecutive.com...] [5][http://en.wikipedia.org...] [6][https://www.youtube.com...] [7][http://www.ajc.com...] As I said, I will address the rest of Con's arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
maydaykiller

Con

maydaykiller forfeited this round.
SebUK

Pro

Now I will address the rest of Con's arguments. Let's go back to what I was addressing last round , I talked about most of the paragraph where Con included some statistics but I didn't mention the end bit . At the end Con stated 'Capitalism is not a system where everyone succeeds, it is a system controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy. ' I can agree with one part of this , Capitalism is not a system where everyone succeeds but I don't see that as a negative thing . In Capitalism those who are the most educated [1] and hard working succeed . Why should people who don't put any effort into their future be treated better than those who successfully planned their lives and now are making a profit?. In regards to Capitalism being controlled by the wealthy , that is an outright lie. A free market is spontaneous [2] . The government has a monopoly on force , a business owner cannot force you to do anything unless the government grants him this privilege . If that occurs than the system is Crony Capitalism and not Free Market Capitalism.

Next thing con talks about is equality , he states that the median wealth of white households in America is 13 times higher than that of black households which leads him to advise me to reconsider whether Capitalism really allows everyone to make money regardless of background. I don't consider that to go against my claim that under Capitalism anyone regardless of background can better themselves by making money. First of all affirmative action prevents employers from discriminating other people of different racial origin in many places. (this is not to say I support affirmative action but it shows discrimination is an unlikely cause of black poverty).
'States do not stand on the sidelines when it comes to discrimination in the workplace. State legislation covering workplace discrimination is fairly widespread, and generally mirrors federal law in prohibiting discrimination based on race. The primary differences are in the procedures used and agencies contacted to make a claim of discrimination.' [3]

Additionally I just feel like Con has missed something very important , just because people of different backgrounds would have similar opportunities in the free market doesn't mean that they will achieve the same rates of success. There are different theories as to why for example blacks are that poor in America such as racial inferiority or the following.

'The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.' [4] . There are certain people who claim that the welfare state and the attempts at fighting poverty have actually worsened the quality of life in the African American community.

'Furthermore, pro is arguing that welfare 'destroys the incentive of the lower classes to work'. The minimum wage in America is currently $7.95 per hour, this barely allows to make end's meet. Incredibly enough, lower classes are better off on welfare than on the petty minimum wage.' people who are poorly educated and not willing to do any dangerous and hard jobs prefer to stay on welfare for this very reason , it is hard for them to succeed in the market therefore it is easier to just do nothing on welfare. The minimum wage is destructive and should not be higher than it is now , it increases unemployment . [5] . I don't believe it is fair for you to receive a high wage if you are not of value.

'Firms cannot pay a worker more than the value the worker brings to the firm. Raising the minimum denies more low skilled workers the opportunity to get a job and receive “on the job” training. The impact of raising the minimum wage in 2009 on teen employment makes it very clear that this is especially harmful for young teen workers looking for their first opportunity to have a job. Raising the cost of labor raises the incentive for employers to find ways to use less labor. ' [5]

Con chooses to close off his arguments with two points.

1)-'What really is capitalism ? Capitalism is the exploitation of the poorest to provide for the richest. It is the unregulated system of obedience to wealth. It's the inhumane system that relies on low wages and high prices to enrich the wealthy, not a system that works for all. What is the explanation for starving families in the richest country in the world? A report cited that Chief Executives made 774 times the minimum wage. And most of them have regularly opposed raising their employees minimum wage. What kind of malevolent system allows the employer to make 774 times the salary of the employee?'

In Capitalism , people choose to work for each other to gain capital. If a worker chooses to voluntarily work for someone then that is their decision and they are obviously gaining something from it. You may consider voluntarily transactions inhumane but that is your own subjective opinion. Wages are not low , they are at an all time high in human history . The living standards are the highest they have ever been. The system is not designed to enrich the wealthy but to enrich anyone who contributes to the market. High prices? the monetary system is controlled by national banks and loss of value is a serious problem for example in the USA the value of dollar has decreased significantly [6] . Another way to decrease prices is too lower taxes so that businesses can afford to lower prices. Do you have any evidence to prove that businesses would make sure prices are overly-high in the free market? I highly doubt so as if one company sells their product cheaper than another one the customers are more likely to buy from them and they will end up making more money.

2)-'On the other hand, what really is communism ? Communism is the belief that the wealth of the nation should not be owned by a few and their offspring. It's the belief that everyone should have access to humanity's most basic needs. Education, as well as post-secondary education, healthcare and housing were free of charge in the Soviet Union. It's the belief that, as guaranteed in the Soviet constitution, employment is a right not a privilege.'

Con tries to describe Communism here in a good light. Communism is the belief that the wealth of the nation should be redistributed to everyone , even those who don't deserve it , yes . It's the belief that everyone should have access to resources that have been stolen from those who worked for them so that they can afford things they view as necessary , yes and I don't see anything good about that. Food is one of the most necessary products yet the government doesn't control it but do you see a lot of people starving in European nations and in North America?. Conclusion- Con made a case for himself which I addressed in detail while he forfeited and didn't address any of my arguments. Vote Pro

[1]http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu... [2]http://oll.libertyfund.org... [3]http://employment.findlaw.com... [4]http://www.discoverthenetworks.org... [5]http://www.forbes.com...; [6]http://www.infoplease.com...

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by maydaykiller 2 years ago
maydaykiller
I apologize for that mistake. That was my first debate, and I guarantee I'll be numbering them from now on :)
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@con
When using that form of sourcing, they should be numbered
Posted by maydaykiller 2 years ago
maydaykiller
Marxist
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Does this account for Marxist Communism or Stalin Communism?
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Are we talking about the theory of communism working? Or about previous societies that falsely called themselves communist?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
maydaykillerSebUKTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proves that individuals in capitalist systems enjoy more liberties and chances at economic prosperity than communism.