The Instigator
WarWorld
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
SebUK
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Communism is better 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 3 votes the winner is...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 66476
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

WarWorld

Pro

I believe that Communism although it has never been fully implemented is still better than Capitalism. In Communism, the community or society solely owns the resources or the means of production. On the other hand, in Capitalism, the resources or the means of production lies with a private owner. This causes only that person to benefit and not the whole community. Communism stands for a class less society, which doesn"t see any difference between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, Capitalism divides the society into rich and poor. Capitalism can be said to be the exploitation of the individual. While every one is equal in communism, there is a great divide of the class in capitalism. Capitalism divides people and Communism brings people together. That is why Communism is the only form of government where there is no racial inequality, but there are also bad things about Communism. Communist nations tend to have dictators and those Dictators are often bad ones. Joseph Stalin once said that Communism will hang the capitalist using the rope sold by the capitalist. Stalin killed millions of his own people to protect the communist system. In the end, communism failed and capitalism was in. Communism does not work very well, but it can be changed for the better and not for the worse. Capitalism does not have that possibility it cannot be as flexible Communism. Communism with a few tweaks could fully surpass all other forms of government.
SebUK

Con

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 , 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 ofgovernment officials and business leaders are given unfairadvantages 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...). The website I just referenced in brackets defines Capitalism on that page 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 fromreligion.


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, with the points being capital . In a prosperous nation there is thousands upon thousands of charities we cannot say people are inherintly evil not a lot of people litterily 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 showinng 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 adminstration. According to Charity Navigator (2), one such watchdog for private charities, food banks & pantries only have 1.6% of their budgets used for adminstration, community foundations have 7.6% of their budgets used for administrations, and private museums had the largest percent of their budgets going to adminstration, 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 bmake 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 restricing 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 succesful 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 elimanted 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... is tyrannical to the highest degree as It gives the government beaurocrats 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. I wish my opponent good luck and rebuttals will come next round .
Debate Round No. 1
WarWorld

Pro

Crony Capitalism kills the Free Market it dos not work with it. Here is a source proving my point: "I believe we no longer have free market capitalism and we no longer have a democracy," says David Stockman, the blunt-talking former Michigan Congressman and Director of the OMB during the Reagan administration.

What now exists at the heart of the U.S. economy, Stockman argues, is "crony capitalism" - a system that benefits and even rigs the system in favor of America's banks and bankers at the cost of average Americans. It's a system built on the back of government-issued bailouts and free money. "The Fed is the great enabler" through its free money policies, which "generate results the market wouldn't otherwise provide for," he says.

For example, banks - which caused the 2008 economic and financial crisis - are enjoying profits once again as so-called "risk assets" reflate. Meanwhile, well-meaning members of the middle class intent on saving cash continue to get "savaged" (Stockman's word) when they keep money in low-yielding savings accounts and rely on a dollar that continues to lose value.

When Bernanke & Co. allow banks to borrow money at no cost for so long it turns "capital markets into a rip-roaring casino that really is not productive for the real main street economy and is generating windfall gains for to a very limited number of people for no good purpose," Stockman tells Dan Gross in the accompanying interview.

These policies are nothing new, Stockman says, but "crony capitalism" hit new levels of absurdity in the recent past with the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts.
People are inherently evil, people have more of a tendency to be evil than to be good. Look at a baby, It will steal from other children and in turn cry when something is stolen from them. Who has taught this child to be evil. No one, people are evil that's the way the world works. Charity just fuels the Political war machine, Politicians start charities either for publicity or for the sake of boredom. They don't think about the people they are helping, they think about what the could gain. In Capitalism, you can better your self but in Communism everyone can better themselves. Forced equality is a lot better than no equality at all. In Communism that uneducated worker would not exist at all everyone would have the education they needed to be useful to society. People are not allowed to be lazy in Communism if your not working your hardest than you don't get paid. At least in Communism you get a roof over your head and food in your stomach Capitalism cant offer you that.
SebUK

Con

Crony Capitalism kills the Free Market - my opponent states the following 'Crony Capitalism kills the Free Market it dos not work with it. Here is a source proving my point: "I believe we no longer have free market capitalism and we no longer have a democracy," says David Stockman, the blunt-talking former Michigan Congressman and Director of the OMB during the Reagan administration.' I would like my opponent to point out where I said Crony Capitalism is a system that we should have and where I have stated Crony Capitalism is a good way to go. I do not support Crony Capitalism . I'm gone ignore the next thing my opponent said as it has been copied and pasted from this website - (http://finance.yahoo.com...)The Argument from Evil - This part has not been copied and pasted so I will address it . Pro said 'People are inherently evil, people have more of a tendency to be evil than to be good. Look at a baby, It will steal from other children and in turn cry when something is stolen from them. Who has taught this child to be evil. No one, people are evil that's the way the world works. ' I would like to remind all readers that the burden of proof is on Pro , he has not backed up his claim with evidence so it's just a baseless assertion that can be dismissed . On the other hand I believe humanity is flexible . There has been a study on babies and it has shown that : 'At Yale University scientists have designed an ingenious experiment. They wanted to see if babies are born good or bad. Hundreds of parents have volunteered their children. The two scientists behind the project are Karen Wynne and Paul Bloom. Professor Bloom explains "I would give a year of my life to spend 5 minutes as a baby to be able to recapture what it feels like to be that sort of creature. We're interested in the origin of morality, the origin of good and evil. We want to see what people start off with, do they start with good impulses or bad impulses and how does that develop into an adult sense of right and wrong." They wanted to find out what is in a baby's brain. Trying to unlock this secret they devised a kind of morality play, that each baby would watch and then gauge their reaction. About 70% of the babies showed a tendency toward good.'-(http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk...). My opponent says that 'Charity just fuels the Political war machine, Politicians start charities either for publicity or for the sake of boredom. They don't think about the people they are helping, they think about what the could gain.' My response : Are you trying to say that the rich donators simply spend millions on charity out of boredom? again that is a baseless assertion , an opinion which you have not proved to be true. I would like to however quote a chunk of an article. ' #2: The empirical evidence I mention above comes from Frederic Almy, secretary of the Buffalo Charity Organization, who in 1899 gathered data on outdoor relief and private charity in forty cities, ten of which had completely abolished outdoor relief. Almy found that the cities with the lowest level of such aid had the highest level of private charity, and vice versa. See Frederic Almy, “The Relation between Private and Public Outdoor Relief—I,”Charities Review 9, no. 1 (1899): 22–33; and Frederic Almy, “The Relation between Private and Public Outdoor Relief—II,” Charities Review 9, no. 1 (1899): 65–71. Almy’s study does have some drawbacks. The relationship he found did not hold very well for cities with intermediate levels of outdoor relief; for these cities, the main observable relationship was that northern cities provided more total aid (public and private) than southern cities did. (Almy thought that the explanation for the regional difference was the harsher winters in the north.) Also, Almy’s study only measured private giving by regularly organized charitable societies; it omitted charity provided by individual churches, mutual aid societies, and the Salvation Army, so it may be that his study systematically underestimated the amount of private charity. Still, Almy’s study seems to refute the claim that when state welfare is abolished or drastically cut back, significant harm must result since private charity will not pick up the slack.' - (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...;) . I will leave the audience to draw their own conclusions . 'In Capitalism, you can better your self but in Communism everyone can better themselves. Forced equality is a lot better than no equality at all. ' I'm gone have to repeat myself once again , that is your opinion which is irrelevant unless you back it up with evidence or facts . You can include your opinion in your arguments of course just like I did but make sure to label it as such and don't state your opinion as a fact . In Communist countries people did/do not 'better themselves' . Communist countries are not anywhere near the top of the 'list of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita' for example . - (http://en.wikipedia.org...) . 'In Communism that uneducated worker would not exist at all everyone would have the education they needed to be useful to society. People are not allowed to be lazy in Communism if your not working your hardest than you don't get paid. At least in Communism you get a roof over your head and food in your stomach Capitalism cant offer you that.' Ive already talked enough about private charity , Capitalism can offer you that . It's just that it's harder if you choose to be lazy or have a bad reason for a lack of sufficient funds or such for the life that you live . Now i'm going to talk about Pro's case in R1 . He stated that because the resources or the means of production lie with a private owner in Capitalism that the community does not benefit , the person benefits instead . This of course he does not back up with any facts or evidence . I don't understand why Pro thinks the community cannot benefit if the people in it individually benefit first . Pro then says the following 'Communism stands for a class less society, which doesn"t see any difference between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, Capitalism divides the society into rich and poor. ' Communism has failed to create a class-less society and the evidence for this is historical . Additionally I do not see economic inequality as a bad thing . 'Capitalism divides people and Communism brings people together.' In what way I have to ask. 'That is why Communism is the only form of government where there is no racial inequality' . I don't personally believe in racial equality but I don't see how Pro drew his conclusion . A wikipedia page on Antisemitism in the Soviet Union states that ' Antisemitism in the USSR reached new heights after 1948 during the campaign against the "rootless cosmopolitan" in which numerous Yiddish-writing poets, writers, painters and sculptors were killed or arrested.[1][2] This culminated in the so-called Doctors' Plot.' - (http://en.wikipedia.org...) . My opponent says that Communism does not work very well but it can be changed for the better and not for the worse . This theory does not make sense it is a fallacy that can be used in support of anything an example can be a situation in which the US government attempts to train elephants to fly and then 20 years later after one failed attempt after the other they try to do it again and all the say is 'but it can be changed for the better and not for the worse' . I don't consider that a sufficient enough reason .
Debate Round No. 2
WarWorld

Pro

Before I start my argument Thanks for the debate I learned a lot

I still stand by my decision that people are born evil. They may try to be good all their life, but every single person has the desire to do bad. Take when a person sees something they want they may not take it, but they will want to own it. If a baby was never taught good it will almost certainly do bad. Here's some proof: Towards the end of his life, Freud became largely disenchanted with the human species and considered us one of the worst types of animals. Granted, a lot of his feelings were based on the tumultuous time period in which he lived, as he witnessed World War I and died just as another major war, World War II, was getting started.

In his 1930 book, Civilizations and its Discontents, he wrote ""men are not gentle creatures, who want to be loved, who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness."

Hundreds of years before Freud, philosopher Thomas Hobbes had a similarly pessimistic view of humanity and famously wrote that the life of man in his natural state is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Essentially, he believed all men were equally capable of killing, and when two people want the same thing the inevitable outcome is war. In his mind, government and civil society were the only ways to curb the brutishness, yet he admitted even governments and the elite were full of corruption.

Charity is just the rich that have gotten ahead in life pitying the ones that cannot get ahead. Charity can often be associated with accepting the bad things in society. Reinhold Niebuhr says "We have previously suggested that philanthropy combines genuine pity with the display of power and that the latter element explains why the powerful are more inclined to be generous than to grant social justice." He also thought that a powerful person's donation to charity was "a display of his power and an expression of his pity."

In Communism people can better themselves in a way. Like if you are an uneducated worker Communism can give you an education and a job. Even if it is not something you would want to do its a lot better than working in a factory or living on the streets. When there are classes in society the people at the bottom will always want to be the people at the top. This breeds resentment and will eventually lead to some sort of conflict.

Overall, there are six elements in Marx's view of class conflict.
"Classes are authority relationships based on property ownership.
"A class defines groupings of individuals with shared life situations, thus interests.
"Classes are naturally antagonistic by virtue of their interests.
"Imminent within modern society is the growth of two antagonistic classes and their struggle, which eventually absorbs all social relations.
"Political organization and Power is an instrumentality of class struggle, and reigning ideas are its reflection.
"Structural change is a consequence of the class struggle.

Hobbes promoted that monarchy is the best form of government and the only one that can guarantee peace. In some of his early works, he only says that there must be a supreme sovereign power of some kind in society, without stating definitively which sort of sovereign power is best. In Leviathan, however, Hobbes unequivocally argues that absolutist monarchy is the only right form of government. In general, Hobbes seeks to define the rational bases upon which a civil society could be constructed that would not be subject to destruction from within. Accordingly, he delineates how best to minimize discord, disagreement, and factionalism within society"whether between state and church, between rival governments, or between different contending philosophies. Hobbes believes that any such conflict leads to civil war. He holds that any form of ordered government is preferable to civil war. Thus he advocates that all members of society submit to one absolute, central authority for the sake of maintaining the common peace. In Hobbes"s system, obedience to the sovereign is directly tied to peace in all realms. The sovereign is empowered to run the government, to determine all laws, to be in charge of the church, to determine first principles, and to adjudicate in philosophical disputes. For Hobbes, this is the only sure means of maintaining a civil, peaceful polity and preventing the dissolution of society into civil war.

The Communist Manifesto is one of the most concise summaries of a government. It is pretty sound theory but in application it fails. Communism is not as futile as trying to teach an elephant to fly it will become a major form of government.
SebUK

Con

Thanks for the reply.

.'I still stand by my decision that people are born evil. ' I won't take that away from you , I have responded with a study and you did not try to counter-argue , you have not fulfilled the BoP let's just leave it at that and call that your opinion.

'Take when a person sees something they want they may not take it, but they will want to own it. ' My opponent is telling us why he thinks all people are evil , I don't see how this is relevant to Communism and Capitalism but I would like to remind all the audience that Pro has the BoP on him . He makes a statement that all people are evil yet he doesn't back it up with any evidence so I think it is fair enough to dismiss it . I personally don't think the urge to own things is a bad thing especially as it can lead to hard work and determination to get it.

'If a baby was never taught good it will almost certainly do bad' It is more likely for children raised by bad parents to become evil people themselves yes I agree just like Stefan Molyneux does and he is a famous Anarcho-Capitalist who stands against hitting children . (https://www.youtube.com...)

'Charity is just the rich that have gotten ahead in life pitying the ones that cannot get ahead.' -Opinion not an argument.

'Hundreds of years before Freud, philosopher Thomas Hobbes had a similarly pessimistic view of humanity and famously wrote that the life of man in his natural state is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Essentially, he believed all men were equally capable of killing, and when two people want the same thing the inevitable outcome is war. In his mind, government and civil society were the only ways to curb the brutishness, yet he admitted even governments and the elite were full of corruption.' I'm not debating Thomas Hobbes , nor do I care what he thought . You can fulfill the BoP by backing up your opinion with arguments this on the other hand is not helping . -Back to charity.

'He also thought that a powerful person's donation to charity was "a display of his power and an expression of his pity." Does it really matter why somebody donates ? Would you rather have no-one help the poor? As I have shown in R2 government redistribution is less effective then private charity . My opponent has not shown that the majority of those who donate to charity are rich .

'The study, from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, looks at charitable giving in 2012. Compared with 2006 — the year before the start of the Great Recession — Americans who earn less than $100,000 per year contributed 4.5 percent more of their incomes to charity that year. Meanwhile, those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 reduced their giving by 3.3 percent, and Americans earning more than $200,000 cut back their donations by 4.5 percent:' - (http://www.salon.com...)

The source shows that there is a raising trend amongst the poor and middle classes to donate to charity . Pro to make a good case has to prove that 1)The rich donating is somehow a bad thing 2)The reason for the donation is more important then the fact that there is a donation 3)The majority of those who donate to charity are rich .

My opponent continues 'In Communism people can better themselves in a way. Like if you are an uneducated worker Communism can give you an education and a job. Even if it is not something you would want to do its a lot better than working in a factory or living on the streets. ' Pro did not back his claim up with evidence , he has not proved that Capitalism can't offer jobs and education . In fact I highly doubt he will give me a source showing that Communist countries had higher quality of Post 18 education then the European semi-Capitalist nations , I also highly doubt that he can prove there were better job opportunities in the Soviet Union then people had in the West.

'When there are classes in society the people at the bottom will always want to be the people at the top. This breeds resentment and will eventually lead to some sort of conflict.' Pro has not showed any examples , additionally he did not back his opinion up with a source therefore it stays an opinion and gets dismissed . Pro proceeds to tell me the six elements in Marx's view of class conflict and he explains to me what Hobbes thought . Which is pretty irrelevant to the debate . His last paragraph states :

'The Communist Manifesto is one of the most concise summaries of a government. It is pretty sound theory but in application it fails. Communism is not as futile as trying to teach an elephant to fly it will become a major form of government.'

Pro admits that partially Communism fails and through this negates his own resolution . The fact that in Pro's opinion Communism will become a major form of government does not affect whether Communism is better than Capitalism.

Conclusion

Overall I feel that Pro failed on many layers , he himself admits through the debate to not believing that the enforcement of Communism works , secondly he failed to back up his opinions with evidence or sources which leads to me simply skipping through large chunks of what my opponent wrote . He used a number of quotes but that is all they are and he did not effectively use them to support his own case. Thirdly he failed to address most of my criticisms while I responded to everything I should have, and therefore he has not fulfilled the BoP . Vote Con .

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FreedomJosh 1 year ago
FreedomJosh
Capitalism is a form of Government that allows citizens the pursuit of happiness cause say I wanted to spend my life breeding snakes something that would benefit me not the government would a communist government allow it or put me to work in a labor camp.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Conservative101 1 year ago
Conservative101
WarWorldSebUKTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments. Con gets conduct for more relevancy and less opinions and assertions. Con used better sources
Vote Placed by Elijahhill97 1 year ago
Elijahhill97
WarWorldSebUKTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I agree with how close this debate was and many of the arguments made it difficult to decide but I believe sebUK made the more convincing argument. Bravo to both debaters
Vote Placed by gomergcc 1 year ago
gomergcc
WarWorldSebUKTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: The premiss was very subjective as "better" was not defined officially in the debate. Both did have good arguments for there subjective views on what is good. Both used reliable sources. Con had more grammar mistakes. Most notable was not separating paragraphs properly.