The Instigator
Freedomandliberty
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Communism in general is far worse than capitalism

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,079 times Debate No: 18711
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Freedomandliberty

Pro

Communism is the repression of the masses, the government control of all means of production. Communism has always brought famine, war and fear to the people it was initially made to guard. Communism as well as socialism are systems in which the people suffer and their freedoms taken, time and time again history has showed us that a people who want to climb out of the ditch of poverty are best off using capitalism to do so. As Ludwig von Mises proved, pure communism is all but impossible. Communism may have good intentions, but in the real world intentions mean nothing all that matters is the pure and simple results of a system.

Capitalism has brought freedom, low prices, equality, peace, wealth, prosperity, less poor people than the amounts found in communist and socialist nations, and far far far more production than could ever be achieved by a communist or socialist state. Now before you hopefully respond, I would like to add, that the current system failures in the USA are most certainly not a product of capitalism, but a product of corporatism. Corporatism is the use and steering of the government by private companies, that is not what capitalism is. True capitalism would mean a complete separation of government control over means of products, true capitalism would mean near everything was privately owned, and true competition could exist.
shift4101

Con

First of all, I accept. I would like to point out that we are debating the TWO EXTREMES of economy, pure Capitalism and pure Communism, and I need to show how Communism is at least 30% (worse being less than 50%, far worse being less than 20%, but I'm gracious) as good as Capitalism. I'll get right to it.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST COMMUNISM REBUTTAL.

Communism is the repression of the masses

No, Communism is the representation of the masses in terms of economy. By definition,

Communism: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs

http://www.google.com...

Communism has always brought famine, war and fear to the people it was initially made to guard.

Famine: The only times I recall where Communism led to famine was the "Five year plan" enacted by the Soviet Union and the general oppression of Chinese states. Neither of these instances were by direct fault of Communism, but rather the terrible condition of Russia's economy and the fact that the Chinese government is oppressive in nature, and almost always has been.

War: I think this is funny. Communism was actually so effective, Capitalist states had to take action to stop it from spreading. In itself it doesn't lead to war. It takes two to fight.

Fear: This is oppression and American propaganda.

If you still believe your claim, please, expand and site your sources.

time and time again history has showed us that a people who want to climb out of the ditch of poverty are best off using capitalism to do so.

Cite your sources.

As Ludwig Von Mises proved, pure communism is all but impossible.

You have to expand and cite your sources. You aren't talking common knowledge.

Communism may have good intentions, but in the real world intentions mean nothing all that matters is the pure and simple results of a system.

Communism works in a perfect world. Nothing else does. If we ever want to obtain a perfect world, we can't keep running around worrying about the economy and exploitation and "social reform". The longer the USA, or any other capitalist nation, is around the longer our progress toward unity will be hindered.

ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITALISM REBUTTAL.

Capitalism has brought freedom, low prices, equality, peace, wealth, prosperity, less poor people than the amounts found in communist and socialist nations, and far far far more production than could ever be achieved by a communist or socialist state.

My opponent has made so many claims in a single sentence, I am fatigued looking at it. Never mind don't read that.

Freedom & Equality: Nowhere in the definition of Capitalism do people get freedom and equality. They get it from democracy and social reform. Social reform being small implementations of Socialism, which Communism is the extreme of.

Low Prices, Wealth, and prosperity: Wrong. Monopolies are a counter example to this. True, for a while they might lower prices to a point where their competition cannot compete, then proceed to buy them out, but only then to jack up the prices sky high. And without social reform, which is a small implementation of Socialism, they can continue exploiting people until maybe one day a humanitarian inherits the trust and breaks it up, in which case someone else will just do the same thing. So instead of everyone getting equal chances at fortune, the people who start with the most capital typically get the most money in their lives, should they chose to spend it to exploit the poor, which some will definitely do.

Poverty & Production: I need a source to refute.

Now before you hopefully respond, I would like to add, that the current system failures in the USA are most certainly not a product of capitalism, but a product of corporatism. Corporatism is the use and steering of the government by private companies, that is not what capitalism is. True capitalism would mean a complete separation of government control over means of products, true capitalism would mean near everything was privately owned, and true competition could exist.

This has nothing to do with this debate. But still, there is no reason Corporatism can't occur in a pure Capitalist state either, in fact, it DID happen in the years proceeding the Progressive Era. [1] However, this cannot happen in Communism, because the wealth is split equally.

I believe I have confirmed that pure Communism is at least 30% (if not much more) as good as Capitalism.

Vote CON.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Freedomandliberty

Pro

Firstly I would like to add, that you must know very very little about the history of famines in the soviet union, even famines in the communist world. Firstly i will ask you, have you ever heard of the Holodomor? (http://en.wikipedia.org...) it was a mass famine that is estimated to have killed off somewhere in the region of 10 million people. I can also point you to a list of famines and mass starvation's in russia here (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The most major and deadly famines were as a result of the communist parties ideals. The collectivization of land meant that peasants no longer had a chance to competitively work to gain for themselves. People were essentially made serfs again, all that was changed was the name of their masters.

As for War, i think this is funny, Marx claimed that communism or socialism could only truly come into existence through violent revolution. and every socialist or communist state had socialism or communism arise in it by force. Russia, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba. In fact most of eastern Europe had communism and socialism forcibly established by the soviet union during and after WW2. Capitalism however does not promote violence, due to the simple fact that violence is not profitable for a business. Destruction is not productive. You will find that businesses almost always prefer to solve their disputes in a court room, rather than by violence. Because in a capitalist system you have an incentive to make your own life better as well as an ability to do so.

As for fear, http://en.wikipedia.org...

As for my statement, time and time again history has showed us that a people who want to climb out of the ditch of poverty are best off using capitalism to do so. here are some situations in which the people have done better after capitalism was introduced.
" Among economists, the countries most famous for rapid economic growth are the East
Asian "Gang of Four": Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Between 1960
and 2007, incomes in these countries grew on average by more than 5 percent each year.
They have been joined recently by China, whos e extraordinary economic development has
given it annual per capita growth over the same period of 6.2 percent, second only to
Botswana, with 6.5 percent. This means that the average income in China was seventeen
times larger in 2007 than in 1960. "http://williameasterly.files.wordpress.com...
In this source it is suggested that china has grown massively from its previously communist days. Currently the Chinese, who have recently accepted some capitalism are experiencing some of the most rapid growth in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org...(latest_year)#Five_fastest_growing_in_each_region

Russia, after it abondoned communism had a massive increase in GDP despite being relatively unstable for a period of 4 years. http://upload.wikimedia.org....

London in the early to mid 1800's had awful working conditions as well as widespread poverty. Yet by the end of the 1800's and early 1900's much of the poverty had stopped. Much of the original poverty was caused by a huge influx in workers from the countryside, of course with a capitalist system London was for a time unprepared for such an increase in population, but as employment grew and many people came to cater for this large group and people.

In a perfect world, with no scarcity and perfect humans, anything would work. Socialism and communism failed because they ignored human nature as explained well here http://www.thefreemanonline.org....

No where in the definitions i viewed of socialism or communism mention freedom and equality. Of course if you have the ability to own your own land, you have the ability to develop that land in anyway you please. You have freedom in that you can choose what you wish to do with your own property. But in a socialist system, or even a communist system, private ownership is limited or banned altogether. If you live on land that is owned by someone else you have no ability to decide what happens on that land, there may be votes with the people who live on that land, in which case only the majorities decision will be enacted. You will still not have as much freedom as if it were to be your own land. As for equality, in a capitalist system all have the same ability to work their own way up in the world. Those with truly innovative ideas are rewarded by the market and become rich. In capitalism deals and actions can happen which are mutually beneficial, eg, I give you money to make my product.

As for lower prices wealth as prosperity, you claim that monopolies are responsible for raising prices etc etc. However the very definition of a monopoly
The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
Is exactly representative of what would happen in a socialist or communist state, the government in a socialist or communist state has complete ownership over the means of production and therefore has a complete monopoly over all means of production. Although in capitalist systems the freer and less government control there is the less likely it is for monopolies to form. This is due to Government closing of markets, in a very free capitalist society, government intervention would be small and therefore taxes would also be very low. This would mean that the cost of either setting up business in one place or moving business to another place would be very low as well, as there would be little or no import tax. This would mean that for monopolies to successfully survive they would need to buy up near endlessly expansive markets instead of the much smaller state and county sized ones that exist now. Look at iceland, it had a freemarket system and it is highly developed and enjoys many freedoms http://www.mapsofworld.com...

Corporatism can only exist when government does intervene with private business, if a government refuses to ever intervene with the affairs of private business, then corporatism cannot exist.

As for the "progressive era" it is known as a classic example by Austrian economists of where government spending and government control eventually led to a huge bust in the 1930's.

Pure communism completely ignores incentive, in a capitalist system incentive is the driving force. Capitalist nations have always been more wealthy than communist or even socialist ones. Haitian refugees choose to flee to the free and capitalist america which is 500 miles away, even though the socialist state of Cuba is only 50 miles away. Every socialist or communist nation that exists today is home to many hardships and troubles. North Korea, can barely even keep its lights on at night, Cuba is struggling to produce goods for its populace. Ask yourself this, why has socialism failed in most regions where it was adopted, whereas capitalism and freetrade hasnt?
shift4101

Con

I thank my opponent his reply. I'll get right to it.

Holodomor has nothing to do with Communism. With the information I took from your link, it killed in the area between 2.5 and 7.5 million people because a bad harvest of the U.S.S.R.'s farms, only 70% of the standard crop was successfully harvested. The other famines also have nothing to do with Communism. The "communist parties ideals" you speak of are subject to change, and have changed. The only part of Communism that is required to remain constant is its definition, which I am defending.

Marx claimed that communism or socialism could only truly come into existence through violent revolution.

And he was right. Such radical change cannot come progressively, like social reform in many countries of modern times, but rather through radical, instant revolution.

In fact most of eastern Europe had communism and socialism forcibly established by the soviet union during and after WW2.

The European nations were conquered. They don't get a choice, they are not independent anymore. They have to abide by the rules of their rulers just as every other conqured nation has had to abide to the rules of any empire in history.

Capitalism doesn't directly promote violence, no, but it does encourage imperialism, slavery, and exploitation! Imperialism is the colonizing of inhabited lands for free labor and resources. Slavery is forced, free labor over other men, and is almost always oppressive. Exploitation is when the poor are required to work to pay bills they cannot afford, a sort of economic slavery. All of these benefit the owner of the business, who has no reason not to abstain from these practices without Socialist or humanitarian intervention, the former being more likely.

I ask my opponent to stop giving links for arguments. Sources are to cite, not to present.

The Great Purge was a totalitarian decision, not reflected by the main interests of Communism. Men and women under Communism have less to fear than their Capitalist counterparts; No bills to pay, no worrying about food or water, and no social classes. This is the basis of Communism, even if we are still looking for an effective way to manage and deliver these ideas to the people, that does not mean that it is an ineffective system, but rather one that requires much, much more study.

As for my statement, time and time again history has showed us that a people who want to climb out of the ditch of poverty are best off using capitalism to do so.

This is true. But this is not in perspective with the world. Listen here:

1. If the wealth of the world is constant, then someone who become richer results in someone else becoming poorer.
2. The wealth of the world is constant.
3. Therefore, when someone becomes richer, it results in someone else becoming poorer.

A main goal of Communism is to prevent this from happening. When one country benefits from another country, another suffers. When one conuntry suffers from another country, another benefits. This creates social classes. This creates exploitation of the poor. This creates racism.

London also experienced a series of socialist movements in the 1800's, most notably the Charstist Movement, http://en.wikipedia.org... was no need for a "purely Capitalist state" to improve the lives of immigrants who either had to work for little or starve to death. This is an example of exploitation, which could only be and was solved by social reform.

In a perfect world, with no scarcity and perfect humans, anything would work. Socialism and communism failed because they ignored human nature

I was referring to a "united" world rather than a genuinly "perfect" world. But even then, in a perfect world nobody would strive to achieve more power or more wealth. Communism would occur naturally, people would give to those who need. Capitalism would not occur naturally in a perfect world, because it still would promote social classes.

No where in the definitions i viewed of socialism or communism mention . . . equality

Communism removes social classes. Social classes are a difference between humans. Therefore, by removing them, you make humans more alike, and thus more equal.

In a Capitalist system, however, people do not get equal chance in the world. A man born to rich parents will definately have more chances, even in a Socialist system, than a man born to slaves. Capitalism represents nobody, and Communism represents everyone equally.

As for freedom, my opponent fails to address the freedom of people born as slaves, or in the colonies of imperialistic nations. These people definitely do not have the same freedoms, as they were born in oppression. Communism is more concerned about the state of the people than the peoples liberties. In other words, they are more concerned with the state of the man without the home than the man with the money to renovate his own.

Is exactly representative of what would happen in a socialist or communist state, the government in a socialist or communist state has complete ownership over the means of production and therefore has a complete monopoly over all means of production.

Monopoly: The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. http://www.google.com...;

The only difference between a state owned monopoly and a privately owned monopoly is that Communsim gives back to the people. It acts out of the benefit of the people. A privately owned monopoly only acts out of benefit from its owners, and doesn't care about the people they are exploiting.

Although in capitalist systems the freer and less government control there is the less likely it is for monopolies to form.

Actually, reality is exactly the opposite. May I inform you of John D. Rockefeller? His company was the first to use pipes to transport oil long distances, a very efficient technique, and gained control of over 90% of the oil market. [1] The fact there was no government control made it that much easier. Nowadays, almost all governments have passed Anti-Trust acts to prevent monopolies from forming, which is Socialist reform.

And actually, Icelands economy is only 77.1% free. Thats 22.9% socialist. Bad example.

Austrian economists of where government spending and government control eventually led to a huge bust in the 1930's.

How was the Great Depression caused by government spending? It was caused by people spending money they didn't have, and when someone suddenly realized this, they took all their money out of the stock market, and so did everyone else. The people who didn't react quickly enough were left in poverty.

Ask yourself this, why has socialism failed in most regions where it was adopted, whereas capitalism and freetrade hasnt?

Because government does not exist by default. People naturally act greedy, and want to be more powerful than their fellow man. Capitalists embrace this, while Communists try to remove the greed, which leads to social class, exploitation, and slavery. Social reform has provided enough to prevent the latter 2 from happening, but only full economic revolution will fix the problems the world bares.

CONCLUSION

Communism
represents people as a whole, prevents social class, and prevents individual poverty. Capitalists leech off of the work of others, encourage exploitation, and rob people of their ability. Which is worse? Well that is for the voters to decide, but I don't think Communism falls below the 30% range I defined in round 1 of this debate, which remains unchallenged.

I await my opponents response!

_______

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Freedomandliberty

Pro

Then i am right in saying that socialism and communism lead to war violence and death, the very process of enacting communism or socialism according to my opponent must be done through radical instant revolution. Revolution in which war and violence must occur. Socialism and communism therefore require that many people be murdered before they can be enacted. In any civilized society murder is always seen as a bad thing, but those who wish for socialism and communism must have to see murder and death as a good thing when it is being committed in the name of their political system!

As for the taking and forcing of communism on the nations of eastern Europe by the soviet union, my opponent claims that once a nation is taken by force, they no longer have any independence. In WW2 in western Europe the nations there were instead liberated by american and British forces. In western Europe capitalism was adopted was once more as it had before the war, and as such recovery from the war was much faster in capitalist western Europe.

Funnily enough my opponent claims that capitalism encourages imperialism, slavery and exploitation. Firstly imperialism defined here - A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. (google). This involves a nation expanding its influence. Imperialism is a nation or country expanding, not private companies. In a true capitalist society, there would be no government ownership over means of production. This would then mean that when the government wanted to invade another country it would have to purchase weapons and equipment from private companies, meaning that the government would have to pay large sums of money to continue imperialism. Instead modern capitalist nations find it far cheaper to simply engage in diplomatic talks with other nations to transfer materials etc. However in a communist society where trade should not exist, a government would need to have ownership of natural resources in order to use them. The government in a communist or socialist country would also be able to pay far less for war since they own all the means of production. Put 2 and 2 together, since communist nations can not trade, they must have ownership over the land which has the natural resources. They can much easier afford to go to war, and often they did. Early imperialism from 1800's to 1919, was permitted entirely by European governments who owned many factories and other means of production that made equipment for their wars. Private companies did make money off the imperialism, but the imperialism would have continued regardless of whether private companies were profiting from it or not.

As for slavery, i find this funny google defines a slave as "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them". In a socialist and communist state, everyone belongs to and is the property of the state, they are also forced to obey the state, as well as work for it. In a socialist or communist state, no one has the option of not working for the state, people receive the same amount of income regardless of how hard they work or how productive they are. I would call the people in a socialist or communist state slaves. Lastly you say capitalism causes exploitation, and yet the definition of exploitation "Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes". http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., is true in a socialist state, government officials use and utilize the free work they can derive from the masses to achieve their own governments goals, regardless of whether the people want them or not.

Now for your statement that "wealth in the world is a constant" i must say that you are absolutely completely wrong. The global GDP, which is general domestic product has been increasing throughout the past few hundred years. In 1960 the world GDP was 1.3 trillion dollars in today's money, the population then was 3 billion people on the planet. In 2010 the world population was nearly 7 billion people and the world GDP was 63 trillion dollars in today's money. That means that global GDP in 2010 was 48 times higher than it was in 1960. http://data.worldbank.org...
The reason for this monumental increase in growth?, well it comes to many things, firstly and most importantly the making of easy global trade and fast communication in which investors could use to make wiser and safer investments. The invention of many new technologies also helped, more efficient ways of mining, exploring for oil, many new vaccines and many new trading deals. Also much more resources have been discovered, as well as much better farming technology. China becoming slightly free market has also helped, as well as the collapse of most communist nations. The rise on the graph is steepest just after the fall of communism when many new workers came to the west looking for better lives. The divides in social classes become worst when there is no free trade. In the soviet union especially the vast majority of people lived and were part of the working class, whereas there were a few party officials who were rich, and powerful. China which is just starting to try capitalism currently has one of the fastest growing middle classes in the world. Many people who were previously in the working class have opened up their own businesses, or found better jobs in the booming economy. The thing with capitalism is that when things are done, they have to be agreed upon by both parties. If a tradesmen is asked to fix something in a house, his employer must agree to pay him to fix it, and he must agree to fix it for an amount of money he deems fair. In capitalism things can only be done when they are mutually beneficial for both parties involved, if they are not beneficial for both parties, then it is unlikely that both parties will participate.

A perfect world is a very subjective term, you see a perfect world as one in which all people work together for mutual gain, i see a perfect world as a world in which all are free to follow their dreams and achieve their desires. A perfect world nor a perfect system can ever be achieved because people are not perfect, if we were perfect everything would be perfect anyway.

By removing social classes, many problems are created, firstly the middle classes are typically known to be the largest consumer class, due to its size and moderate wealth this class often buys most accessories. They pay their money to the Upper class, which typically own many of the means of production, factories, docks etc. And they pay the working class to produce their products. Of course in many free capitalist nations there are is a huge amount of class mobility, allowing people in the different classes to change to different classes. In a communist or socialist society, this whole order of things is completely destroyed. Government instead tries to play all three roles. This is a near impossible task, even if a socialist or communist government was to be given an army of well meaning eager slaves ready to do their masters bidding. The government would have to keep track of what all of them need, as well as what they want, as well as how much each individual in them can work. A task that is almost impossible for one organisation to achieve.

The people who own large monopolies actually do give back to the society they take the money from. Unless of course they get all the money the make and stash it under their beds where it will never be spent. Rich people spend huge amounts of money, the money the spend has to go somewhere, it can only go back into the economy.

John D Rockefeller was the first person to innovate the way in which oil was transported. He found a much cheaper more efficient way to do it, and was rewarded by the market for doing so. Would he have still invested so much in energy saving pipelines if he hadn't been working for profit?
shift4101

Con

Thank you Pro for your reply, I'll get right to it.

Then i am right in saying that socialism and communism lead to war violence and death

My opponent fails to see my point. Both sides (Capitalist former adn Communist latter) are both equally responsible for the revolution. Capitalists do not want the change and fight, Communists want the change and fight. You shouldn't put the responsibility on those who enact change. It is like saying "We shouldn't have liberated the Jews from Germany, because we would be the ones at fault." Germany being Capitalism, and the liberation being the revolution into Communism.

Firstly imperialism defined here - A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

This definition actually does benefit an argument. My argument, that is. This is one example of why Capitalism would lead to Corporotism. Corporations looking for new land and wealth will press the government to expand its borders and colonize different countries, which would lead to imperialism AND war. My opponent also that in a purely Capitalist state, all land conquered by the country would immediately be given up or sold for private ownership, or else its useless land because the Capitalist government cannot own any mean(s) of production. Therefore, Imperialism and War will occur due to Capitalism.

This would then mean that when the government wanted to invade another country it would have to purchase weapons and equipment from private companies

My opponent suggests that a Capitalist country does not have the means to attack other nations, much less defned themselves, which is another argument for me. Purely capitalist nations, as stated by Pro, do not have the means to defend themselves, while Communist nations are very, very good at defending themselves.

google defines a slave as "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them". In a socialist and communist state, everyone belongs to and is the property of the state, they are also forced to obey the state, as well as work for it.

This argument is silly. Communism divides the wealth equally to the people. So as long as every individual person IS an individual person, everyone will own an individual life, or more specifically their own life. They are not slaves to the state, they are the state.

Voters, please note my opponent did not refute my claim that Capitalism leads to slavery.

"wealth in the world is a constant" i must say that you are absolutely completely wrong.

After this statement, my opponent begins his ramblings about the GDP and the Chinese economy. I however, meant the wealth of the world is CONSTANT. The truth of the matter is we just learn new ways to exploit the world, not that the wealth of the world changes over time.

If a tradesmen is asked to fix something in a house, his employer must agree to pay him to fix it, and he must agree to fix it for an amount of money he deems fair. In capitalism things can only be done when they are mutually beneficial for both parties involved, if they are not beneficial for both parties, then it is unlikely that both parties will participate.

Unless slavery is involved, which PRO seems to believe is found in a purely Capitalist system, or at least doesn't defend that it cannot occur. An employer could also threaten the tradesman or his family if he refuses to do it for free. With no government intervention, I fail to see how this cannot happen.

They pay their money to the Upper class, which typically own many of the means of production, factories, docks etc. And they pay the working class to produce their products.

This is Capitalism in theory, but not reality. History has showed us that the wealthy do not create more jobs for the working class, but rather put the money they earn in their pockets for safe keeping. So the circle of economy is broken, resulting in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

in many free capitalist nations there are is a huge amount of class mobility, allowing people in the different classes to change to different classes

I provided 3 reasons why this is not true in a pure Capitalist state. Imperialism, slavery, and exploitation of the poor are all examples of how class mobility is limited. Now, my opponent only addressed Imperialism (And I debunked his refutation), and left slavery and exploitation of the poor untouched. Until he can explain how imperialism, slavery, and exploitation do not occur in a pure Capitalist state, he cannot defend this calim of class mobility!

The people who own large monopolies actually do give back to the society they take the money from.

While it is true that the super-rich are able to give to the poor, my opponent fails to show any incentive for them to do so. People who exploit others for their wealth shouldn't donate to charities, they should just not exploit others or not be able to, under the superior economic system of Communism!

John D Rockefeller was the first person to innovate the way in which oil was transported. He found a much cheaper more efficient way to do it, and was rewarded by the market for doing so. Would he have still invested so much in energy saving pipelines if he hadn't been working for profit?

No, he wouldn't have. But state owned businesses would have done it for the benefit of everyone, not just themselves. Also, John D Rockefeller didn't need to invest in anything else after he controlled the oil industry, nobody could compete, and he had no incentive to increase the quality of his product. He was still making more money than he could count regardless what black looking substance he sold.
Debate Round No. 3
Freedomandliberty

Pro

Freedomandliberty forfeited this round.
shift4101

Con

I SHOULD post an argument, but debates like this are rather exhaustive. I think I have maintained my resolution, that hasn't been challenged.

Arguments extended

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
Freedomandliberty

Pro

Freedomandliberty forfeited this round.
shift4101

Con

Two forfeits by my opponent. Vote Con.

Let it be known my position has been changed. (Not because of my opponent.)
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by shift4101 3 years ago
shift4101
Are you fvcking kidding me?
Posted by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
@Lordknuckle, North Korea, China, Soviet Union are NOT COMMUNIST!
Posted by shift4101 3 years ago
shift4101
Looks like hes gonna forfeit... again.
Posted by shift4101 3 years ago
shift4101
Looks like hes gonna forfeit.
Posted by Lordknukle 3 years ago
Lordknukle
Shift4101:
Communism did not only lead to one starvation.
Have you ever heard of Holdomor (about the same as the Holocaust), or general starvation of people under communist rule? North Korea, China, Soviet Russia.....

Freedomandliberty:
You need something about incentive. It is what runs and makes capitalism succeed.
Posted by shift4101 3 years ago
shift4101
That is a nice argument, and I urge you to repost it round four, because I'm not going to respond to something in the comments.
Posted by Freedomandliberty 3 years ago
Freedomandliberty
I ran out of words in round 3, i couldnt respond to your final point. But to it i must say, that if greed is a natural force, what is there we can do to stop it. Almost everyone is greedy, i personally want a better life for myself. But i must say, that whilst the enemy of socialism is greed, the driving force of capitalism is greed. But I say that greed is a good thing, do you think that Henry Ford invented the Model T so the people could get around easier, or did he make it so he could make money?. Did bill gates make microsoft so that the masses could use computers, or did he do it so he could make money?. Did Thomas Edison make the lightbulb so he could help the poor people, or did he do it so he could cash in on a niche product?. Almost every great advance in technology was done in greed.
Posted by shift4101 3 years ago
shift4101
Change the voting period to a week, and I will accept.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 3 years ago
Lordknukle
Freedomandlibertyshift4101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: It pains me to say this.. but con won. Many of pros arguments were not well formed and did not use sources. The capitalist side has an advantage when debating this topic (for obvious reasons), however Pro did not use them. BTW, the single biggest reason why communism fails is because of incentive/greed.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Freedomandlibertyshift4101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: communism is terrible, and pro proved it.