Communism is superior to capitalism
Debate Rounds (3)
The ideals of communism.
Communism is a founded on equality and worldwide cooperation by Karl Marx during the industrial revolution, when business owners were making huge amounts of money and suppressing the poor working class. Marx thus saw Communism as a way to counter the grievous difference between social classes in a utopian society in which all are equal. No one would be elevated too much nor stooped too low. In many way it resembles a stock company. Everyone puts in some and shares the profits, the risks and the losses.
Marx also pointed out Communism is immune to capitalist pattern of growth and recessions. For those unfamiliar with this he believes capitalist countries will enter an era of prosperity, before a recession is triggered, whether it be war, natural disaster, loss of confidence in the market, or a successful competitor. Companies will start to lay off workers, who's family will not have money anymore and thus lose the ability to buy company's products and services, causing businesses to lose profit and as a result lay off more workers, an ever downwards spiral to anarchy and destruction, unless the roads of communism is taken.
I agree. My key points include
Communism results in a more united, focused nationwide effort for a goal, whether it be to industrialize faster, increase agricultural outputs or improving trade and the economy, or even mobilizing for a war. In capitalistic countries when a nation is in need the government is at the mercy of the country's businesses and profiteers. For example lets say the soviets declared war on the united States. The two countries are equal in all areas except for their political government. The soviet government (communist) would estimate how much resources it need into the military, how much are needed to produce supplies, how much into propaganda. The united state government, on the other hand, would be powerless to do such things, and when it does try to do such things it is met with violent riots. (new york draft riots, Vietnam draft riots, etc.) Even though the freedom of the soviet citizens would be violated as opposed to American ones, (since they are not taken from their job to help mobilize for war) ultimately the American's would be conquered by the more effective soviet war effort, and thus lose their freedom anyways. Thus, capitalistic citizens have more "temporary freedom" that is, the freedom to deter and avoid what their country deem is best for the country, in sacrifice of national prosperity and unity. Another example under the same point: A single united oil company in the soviet Union, backed by the government, vs. free enterprise, squabbling and ununited (not a word) companies in the United States. The Soviet one would ultimately outcompete the US one, because it does not need to spend much of its profits in advertising campaigns and attempts to destroy other similar companies. Even though it is a monopoly, and able to influence market prices, much of the profits it makes would actually be used to improve scientific technology, making it superior to capitalistic companies, which would be spending research money on advertising its product. Main point here is communism lead to unity under a strong united central government that has EDUCATED and effective plans for the country's advancement as a word power.
Communism also leads to equality! After all, everyone's income, possession, and workday is the same! Your rich neighbor Joe with his powerful Company will no longer be able to show off his limousine and legally exploit you with his expensive lawyers! A sense of equality will ban greed, envy and jealousy, further reinforce a sense of national unity and identity.
Conclusion of my points. A communist country will have better economics, more flexibility, a sense of equality and strength, and no destructive conflicts with the 1% as opposed to a capitalistic country.
Now let me finish my initial argument by stating a few weakness of my argument. Many communistic countries suffered from terrible ordeals under dictatorship, economic weakness and eventual collapse. People lose the incentive to work hard as they will all receive the same no matter how hard they work. These arguments are not the ideals of communism but instead chanced side effects. However they are very likely side effects. I will not address these arguments as they will be your points and I will address them in my rebuttal.:D
(please excuse any weirdness, or unusual parts of my debate, as this is my first one and I'm only 14.)
sources: Wikipedia article on comunism, http://en.wikipedia.org... and capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org...
My history textbook.
My shrewish mom who grew up in china:)
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for instigating this debate. It's been quite awhile since I debated on this subject and look forward to a great debate. But before we begin I feel that definitions are in order so that my opponent, myself, and the readers are clear as to the scope of the resolution. I will also assume, since the instigator has not stated otherwise, that the primary burden of proof will lie with Pro. Therfore my burden will be to disprove my opponent's case while theirs will be to prove it.
Capitalism- I will be defending free market capitalism, defined as an economic system of private property rights, minimal government intervention in market forces, and private non-governmental ownership of the means of production.
Communism- Looking through my opponent's round, it appears as though he is defending a system of state socialism as opposed to an anarchist variety. Communism can be defined as an economic system in which the means of production are owned and operated entirely by the government.
Superior- of higher grade or quality. Though I do not see this definition as very useful since the actual criterion of superiority is still left vague. So I'll define superior as leading to more overall economic prosperity. If my opponent supports a different definition, he may provide it in the next round and voters can decide on which is more appropriate.
Refutation of Pro's case
C1) Communism and capitalist states of recession
My opponent's first point is to argue that capitalist economies are vulnerable to an inevitable state of prosperity and subsequent recession whereas communism is not. My opponent's reasoning however is flawed for this point. He argues that some variable X (war, disaster, loss of confidence) causes companies to lay off workers who are then unable to buy the services of other companies, forcing companies to lay off more workers, leading the economy into a vicious cycle. However, my opponent simply assumes that variables X will destroy demand in every sector of the market as opposed to the more likely result of demand lowering in the specific sector involved. My opponent must provide justification for this point before it serves to prove anything. My opponent's arguments for the supposed invulnerability of communist economies are also lacking in justification. They are as follows:
Sub-C1) Unification of focus
My opponent argues that when the government controls the economy, it provides a more focused and unified approach to stimulating growth in the economy and solving economic problems. However, the viability of socialist calculation has been effectively disproven. Ludwig von Mises provided the crushing blow to communism in the following form. In order for an economy to operate in a viable or efficient way, there must be some method of calculating the best choice as to the allocation of resources. Under socialism, no rational method can be used and the only economic system which provides such a method is capitalism.
(Non-labor) Capital goods which are exchanged under a market economy are heterogeneously distinct from labor. However, economic exchange requires that these two types of goods be able to be exchanged in some coherent way. In a capitalist economy, this method is found in the pricing mechanism whereby goods are compared via the relative costs involved in their production. Prices are therefore able to signal to producers what goods are most efficient to produce at a given time. Under socialism, no such mechanism exists disallowing rational calculation as how to allocate resources.
C2) Alleged superiority of monopolist nationalized industry
My opponent next argues that when an industry is nationalized and therefore monopolized, it is able to devote more resources to developing relevant technology as opposed to out-competing rivals. My opponent however fails to realize two market forces which a monopolized industry would be unable to ignore.
Sub-C2) The point of competition
Competition allows for corporations to not only obtain knowledge as to consumer preferences but also forms a check on the power of businesses over consumers. On consumer preferences, under a system of pure competition, consumers are most free to decide which businesses they choose to frequent. If a business fails to meet consumer demands, consumers will be less inclined to patronize their services. When given a choice, consumers will frequent businesses that best meet their respective preferences. Under a monopolistic system (which my opponent is advocating) consumers have no choice as to whose services they obtain and so nationalized business are less inclined to serve consumer interests as compared to a competitive system (capitalism). A competitive system not only allows for consumer preferences to be best met, but insures that a single firm does not dominate a market and thus come to obtain too much power over consumers. A socialist nationalized economy is vulnerable to both of these. It is only under a competitive system that businesses are most inclined to develop the relevant technology needed to satisfy the needs of the consumers.
C3) Equality under communism
My opponent's final argument is that under a system of communism, the "income, possessions, and workday" of everyone is exactly the same. My opponent has however failed to provide reasoning for why complete and utter equality is a worthwhile goal to pursue in the first place. Unless my opponent can reasonably show why equality is so worthwhile a goal that a system of mass wealth distribution is necessary, this point does little to further my opponents point.
My opponent has failed to uphold his three contentions. On capitalism's alleged vulnerability to recession, my opponent has yet to show why a) any of variable X which my opponent provided would necessarily affect every single sector of the economy as opposed to the initial sector where the problem originated or b) why a communist economy would not be so vulnerable to such conditions. I have also shown why an industry immune to the preferences of consumers would be not only less efficient but less inclined to serve consumers. Competition I have also shown to be vital to consumer sovereignty whereas monopolistic firms are anti-thetical to it. My opponent has also failed to show why equality is a worthwhile goal to strive for. My opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof for this debate and thus I urge a Con vote.
Now, to begin, superiority means generally, overall, which system would be the wisest course to be adopted by a nation's government to be a world power.
C1: Seeing my opponent's unclarity about many of my established points I will expand upon them a little more. Right now the United States is in a devastating recession after 30 years of rapid growth since the 1970-80s recession, which itself came after 40 years of rapid growth following the great depression. Capitalist Europe followed the same path. As we have seen, capitalism leads to a cycle of rapid growth and then recession.
Now, I have proved how recessions come. Now, how does that recession keep going? My opponent stated a company's laying off of workers is limited to a specific sector. That is obviously not true, as I will prove. As the recession begin, company owners hope to pull through it alive. Thus they want to cut down on their expenditures, a typical capitalist procedure. As workers get laid off they find their income suddenly at 0. All luxury product, from TV to service to vacation to dinning to anything that is outside of basic needs is instantly gone. That effect many different sectors doesn't it? Meanwhile, the worker's income is still at 0. He will not even have money for food! He and his family will have to take to the streets, soon to be joined by their fellow workers who were laid off after them because their employer's company continue to spiral downwards from lack of sales. Now, how is a communism system different? While capitalistic systems have a cycle of rapid growth and rapid falls, communism is always a steady journey with no recessions. Simple logic explains it. Under communism, everyone is assigned to a post. There is not firing. Thus everyone's income is guaranteed at a stable, predictable rate. Even if wars/disasters do start a recession that recession cannot grow more severe as companies cannot lay off their workers. Thus workers will still get the same pay check every month and buy the same things they've always bought. While the company and thus the government is hit, facing war/disaster/loss of confidence it the market, the recession does not develop and thus the communist nation soon recovers, as opposed to capitalistic one as it spirals ever downwards in the system of firing and losing profit.
Now, Sub C1) My opponent ‘s next point is strangely aimed at socialism. Thus I will not dwell on it further. Please remain on topic. Communism is fundamentally different from socialism. http://wiki.answers.com...
I will, however, add to my point of unification and national unity by making the following point: A country united by a strong leader with a common leader is always better than directionless squabbling of free, small factions. A capitalistic country is equal to a weak, uncentralized government that has little to no power over its own country, while a communist government fully controls its own country's economics. It is able to unite its various sectors, and in turn allow its sectors to help out one another, as opposed to free capitalistic ideals.
Rebuttal for my opponent's next argument,
C2)monopolies. I see my opponent's arguments regarding C2 is the superiority of nonmonopoly to monopolies. I remind my opponent that monopoly to nonmonoply speak nothing about the country. The United States has seen some outrageous monopolies in its idealism capitalistic stages before it strayed from capitalism and passed anti-monopoly laws, a deterrence from Laissez Faire, a founding principal of capitalism. which states government does not interfere with businesses. My mentioning of monopolies was just an example of how a unified group of people is better than ununified with no common goal in mind.
Sub-C2) competition: My opponent next makes an interesting point. He states that "If a business fails to meet consumer demands, consumers will be less inclined to patronize their services. When given a choice, consumers will frequent businesses that best meet their respective preferences." Addressing the quote, if consumers all flock to the best company that gives the best products and services, and leave all inferior ones, isn't that the road to monopoly? I find his argument self-contradicting and thus will leave it at that.
C3) Equality under communism: I remind my opponent not to rebut in the first round, but instead make his own points about the pros of capitalism. Seeing that he didn't, however, I will expand on my point. Equality is defiantly an extremely worthwhile goal. With everyone equal, no one is above another. Thus there will almost be no hate, envy, jealousy, prejudice, nor murder, stealing and robbery. If everyone is equal, and there is no huge difference between the social classes and thus there will be no need for things one already have. No one will have the red limousine that everyone else wants, because everyone is all equal.
C-4, social difference: My last point from round 1, which my opponent failed to address, is(while stating I failed to uphold my three contentions) capitalism leads to difference between the classes. Capitalism under its founder, Adam Smith, supported Laissez-faire, which means government does not interfere with business. That lead to bigger and bigger division of the social classes as the rich became richer and poor became poorer. As the poor's chances of survival and rising to the upper class grew ever more slim, they demand a change, or a revolution. This often leads to bloody revolutions. For example the patricians (higher class) and plebeians (lower class) of Rome fought a 200 year civil war to settle the huge difference. The French Third Estate started the French revolution against the first and second estate because they were too poor to get by. In China and Russia, the difference between the higher and lower class was so great that the lower class could not survive, Thus they fought a bloody civil war, and swore, never again will the upper class profit from their sweats. Thus they adopted communism, in which everyone is equal.
Conclusion: Now, I believe I have rebutted all my opponent's arguments and summarize my basic points. Idealistic Communism: Immune from recessions, immune from destructive social revolutions, united, flexible system with a goal in mind. Capitalism: Squabbling, fighting, small businesses, too much freedom that leads to harm, bloody revolutions, a cycle of recessions. On the other hand, I found my opponent to stray from the topic of this debate, falsely rebutted all my arguments in the first round, which was predetermined for opening arguments of one's pros instead of the other's cons, and also wasted away half his first round addressing socialism, which is defiantly not the same as communism. Lastly I found my opponent to unjustly placing all burden of proof on me. If I did not state who supplies the evidence, obviously both parties support their own arguments with the necessary proof. Thus I strongly urge a vote for pro.
My opponent first attempts to shift the burden of proof so that it is shared between both of us. However, my opponent never made any such clarification in the opening round and so my own setting of the debate structure ought to be preferred. Also, the resolution itself also implies the burden of proof to the Pro side as it states that communism is superior to capitalism, not something implying equal sharing like communism vs. capitalism. The resolution is itself an assertion and so implies that the pro is defending the resolution while the con is attacking it. Therefore, the pro ought to retain the burden of proof.
My opponent first in his defense of inevitable capitalist recession says that most generally capitalist countries have followed a path of prosperity and subsequent recession, the Depression in the 30's, recession in the 80's and the current recession are cited as proof of this. However, remember that I am defending free market capitalism, not a mixed economy which is what most "capitalist" countries are currently and have been. For instance, in the 1920's leading up to the Depression, the American economy was far from immune to government interventions. An example would be the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 which so expanded the money supply that it caused the credit boom and general level of prosperity which eventually lead to a crash. So my opponent is correct partially in his reasoning. He is incorrect though in the cause. It wasn't a pure free market, but a state of centralized banking that caused the boom.
My opponent also argues that recessions must continue via a vicious cycle because workers who are laid off must necessarily have an income of 0. However, this is simply not true. My opponent in arguing this ignores the concept of savings altogether. What reason does my opponent provide to show that no one saves anything? None. Seeing as this is completely ignored by my opponent, the contention fails as the rest of my opponent's point rests on worker's always necessarily living entirely from paycheck to paycheck.
Supposed invulnerability of communism to recession
My opponent argues that recession cannot grow because government businesses are not allowed to lay off workers. However, I showed that recessions will not necessarily grow since even if workers are layed off, that does not necessitate an income of 0 since savings do not necessarily disappear with one's job. The chain of reasoning my opponent must use to arrive at this conclusion is flawed, however even if it weren't so, it does not help his case. I ask, how are national businesses supposed to make up for the costs that they incurred from not laying off workers? As I already showed, some sort of pricing mechanism is always necessary in order to compare heterogenous goods such as labor and capital. How do national businesses propose to pass of that cost?
My opponent, in response to my refutation of sub-c1, offers nothing but a repetition of his previous point without directing any sort of arguments at my own arguments. The reason my opponent provides is that socialism and communism are not the same. However, my opponent is getting too caught up in the wording of the problem. It's not aimed at socialism only, but at any type of centralize planning of the economy. My opponent's own source says that "Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization." This means that not only under socialism would the economy be centrally planned, but it would also occur under communism. Therefore my refutation stands.
My opponent's defense of his C2 consists of him pointing out that monopolies have in fact formed in "capitalistic" countries like the U.S. However, this says nothing about the economic superiority of monopolies to non-monopolies and that the U.S. has passed anti-trust laws thus abandoning capitalist principles. This point speaks nothing of the superiority of monopolies to non-monopolies though. My opponent has not attacked my reasoning at all and the fact that the U.S. has passed anti-trust measures merely means that it is not an entirely capitalistic country. I am not defending the U.S., I am defending free market capitalism.
My opponent argues that a country which provides the best services will attract all customers thus allowing it to form a monopoly. My opponent argues that this makes my point self-refuting. However, in order to argue that, all consumers would have to have completely identical preferences. Obviously this is not the truth and who provides the best services is always relative to consumer preferences. For instance, McDonalds and Burgerking both offer similar products. However, it would be impossible to prove that one product is absolutely better than the other since different consumers will prefer different types of products.
My opponent offers little justification for the supposed worthwhileness of equality. He argues for instance that under a system of total equality, there would be no murder or robbery since everyone's equal. But how does my opponent come to this conclusion? Unless every single preferencet of an individual is satisfied, there will always be the possibility of that individual will act so as to satisfy those preferences. My opponent can argue that a communist society would be able to satisfy every single preference of every single individual but that claim would be dubious at best. For the claim would have to ignore time preference entirely. No one can satisfy every preference they have at once and so it is effectively impossible for an individual to satisfy each of their preferences, thus always leaving the possibility of things like murder or theft.
My opponent, in his last point, argues that capitalism necessarily leads to a system of social conflict between the poor and the rich (or ruling) class. However, little warrant was provided by my opponent to justify the position that this must always happen. Although no system can conceptually create a state of total equality, there is little reason to believe that massive states of inequal wealth distribution. At the least my opponent has shown no evidence of this necessarily occurring.
Thank my opponent for his response. I begin the third round with the note that my opponent has not changed many prementioned issue with his first round argument. Furthermore, as I have pointed out already, if burden of proof is not indicated it means both side shares to proof. You must always think equal and not biased if nothing is indicated. I will dwell on this issue no more.
C1) I find my opponent to have a habit of citing insignificant and often self-contradictory points. He attempts to make up for his weakness in the second round by stating the United State was not purely capitalistic, and the rapid growth of the early 1900s were not from capitalism. Very well he just argued that capitalistic countrys do not have a rapid growth but rather still suffers from the recessions, therefore meaning countrys practicing pure capitalism will have recessions at all times, as illustrated by the next paragraph.
I have also noticed my opponent to cite very weak examples. He points out that workers have savings, and after they are laid off they will continue spending the same sum they spend every month, instead now relying on their savings. I find 2 fatal flaws with his argument. First of all he falsely assume that everyone have savings. That is impossible as companies in capitalistic countries have to compete with each other, and thus will pay their workers only the minimum the workers needs to get buy. A company that pays its workers large sums (so they can have huge savings) is an incompetent business and will soon go out of business. He also assumes laid off families will continue spending the same amount every month, now instead relying on their savings. However I understand the voters know a laid off family will cut their expenditures no matter how large their savings are, as their net income is still zero. No laid off family, no matter how large their saving, would go to Disneyland every weekend, or eat at Cruves, or go to malls anymore, thus reducing commerce and further intensifying the recession. I beg my opponent not to rely on miraculous cases such as “everyone has savings so even if they’re laid off they’ll still spend the same amount every month.”
Sources: The south park episode margaritaville illustrate my point quite well. It’s also hilarious.
My opponent’s defense of his confusion of Socialism and Capitalism is a weak attempt to save face by changing the wording of his original paragraph (which mentions socialism twice and communism 0 times) to incorporate communism as well, also stating I am getting caught up with his wording. However his key flaw is not admiting his mistake and change his points to direct at communism, instead directing “at any type of centralize planning of the economy” I find his rebuttal for Sub C1 pointless, as it is not aimed at Communism but a mix of socialism and communism. Seeing this fundamental lack of understanding from my opponent I acknowledge it is impossible to address Sub-C1 any further while he continues to believe socialism and communism are the same thing.
Sources: http://wiki.answers.com......(see above)
Again, I am confused by my opponent’s drifting from the topic to monopolies. First he claims monopolies are inferior to non-monopolies. I find that self-contradictory as I have already pointed out, monopolies are a sure sign of strictly capitalistic countries. Thus as he argued a country with monopoly is inferior to a country without monopoly, he points out capitalistic countries are inferior.
My opponent then makes another weak attempt to push off my rebuttal, stating the extremely unlikely case that all companies in the same markets will be equally tied in profit as different consumers have different preferences. I remind him to achieve an exact tie is very rare. He mentions the similiartiy between MacDonald and Burger king, thus I must point out how self-contradictory this point is. He claims MacDonald and Burger King appeal to different groups and thus prevent one from being the monopoly. Thus I must remind him MacDonald’s net worth is over 10 times that of Burger King, thus disproving his point. Also, One business will always be slightly superior, whether it is the company possess a strong CEO, appeals to a wider group of people, or have good advertising programs. The superior company will thus make more money than the inferior, having more capital to develop its product further and leaving the inferior company further and further behind until one becomes a monopoly. Examples of this process include Intel (and AMD), Walmart (and K-Mart,) Google and all its now defeated competitors, or Apple, or even the radio vs. the television. In all cases they once had equally powerful competitors and were able to outcompete them. I find my opponent’s reasoning that capitalistic countries will not have monopolies because its business would be exactly equally competitive with its rivals extremely silly.
My opponent points out my weakness that crimes will still exist in an all equal society. I remind him I am defending Communism, not Utopias. He also fails to see my main point. While I exaggerated by saying an all equal communist society will be an utopia with no crimes, the main point is crime rates will be MUCH lower than in capitalistic countries. In communist countries, there is simply nothing to steal. Food is served for free in government hosted cafeterias, money is gone and thus there are no stealing or robbing. While murder might still exist, (rape, or just serial killing) the absence of stealing and robbing makes a communistic country a much safer place to live. My mom is a living example, telling me in the 1970s in china they don’t even bother to lock their doors when they leave the house. There is nothing to steal!
Source, Family history
I find my opponent confused at my last point. Thus I will state it again in simpler terms. Capitalistic countries allow the rich to become richer and poor to become poorer, as under capitalism a rich, superior family will continue to get even richer and even more superior as the generation go on, (since a rich family’s kids are educated and thus in better position to be more successful adults) I believe so far that point is clear. Then there comes the obvious point that huge social differences leads to conflict between the classes. I believe I need not to dwell on that further. These conflicts often turns into massive revolutions in which the rich were killed and their wealth distributed to the poor. (French revolution, English civil war, Chinese civil war, the Russian revolution, etc.) all those forms of communism.
Communism offer many advantages as opposed to capitalism. Under communism there is a sense of equality and fairness, thus doing away many thievery and robbery, leading to a safer society. Communism is immune to the economic cycles of recessions that capitalistic is often subjected to. Communism is immune to social violence between the classes of society, as everyone remains equal. It is also united by a central leader that interferes with the different business markets and ties them together, aiming for a common goal instead of the competition and disunity capitalism is often subjected to.
Throughout this debate I found my blessed opponent to surprise me many times with things I did not know, and help me analyze my own views of both parties. This debate has developed my insight on this topic tremendously, and I thank him. However it is unfortunate he did not follow the predesignated rules, as well as shifting work (the burden of proof) on me when it is not indicated so. Furthermore I am also disappointed that many of his points were slurred between socialism and communism, thus I urge a vote for pro.
My opponent has not responded to any of my points on the fact that the resolution itself implies the burden of proof to the pro and since my opponent never explicitly stated how the BoP would be assigned. Since I was the first to post how it should be assigned and the resolution which my opponent made implies BoP to Pro, the primary burden of proof should stay with my opponent.
First, I never stated that initial growth of the 1900's was not due to free trade. I merely stated that the United States has not had a purely free economy and thus anything that happens in the U.S. economy does not necessarily reflect on laissez-faire. My opponent has also taken from my argument that I somehow conceded that purely free market economies still er from inevitable recession. Where did I concede this? I actually showed that it was not due to free trade, but due to centralized banking in the U.S. that contributed to the artificial credit boom, resulting in the current recession.
On workers and savings, my opponent makes a few straw men out of my initial position. He argues that I assume that every worker has savings. I never stated this. I stated that my opponent's initial layout of the cause of recessions assumed that no one had savings. My opponent, in an effort to disprove the concept of savings entirely, argues that businesses will always pay their workers the bare minimum since they must compete with other businesses. Now while businesses will not necessarily always pay employees a 6-figure salary, it has long been recognized that employers will generally pay employees according to their marginal productivity. One's salary is usually going to be directly proportional to one's productivity. This means that businesses will not always pay their employees the bare minimum to go on living, but one's salary is not set in stone.
I do realize that workers will not spend at the same rate when relying entirely on their savings as they would when they were employed, however, remember that my opponent argued initially that laid off workers would not be able to buy services and products since their net income would be 0. Since I have shown that income does not equal the amount of money someone has, my opponent's initial argument fails to prove that workers will necessarily not be able to buy any product or services after they are laid off.
My opponent claims that I misinterpreted the difference between socialism and communism and that since my refutation only applies to socialism, communism is immune from the criticism. However, my opponent's definition of communism included the following, "Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization." Again, my criticism was aimed at the viability of centralized calculation of how to allocate resources and labor in the economy. My opponent according to his own source is defending centralized calculation, therefore my refutation applies to his argument. Since my opponent never responded to the argument, he has conceded it and the argument succeeds unchallenged.
My opponent, instead of arguing for the concept of monopolies (which is what a nationalized business under communism would be), he assumes that monopolies are inevitable under capitalism and applies my argument to my own position, allegedly making my argument contradictory. However, as I already pointed out, monopolies are an essential characteristic of centralized planning since the centralized authority has complete control over the economy, rather than allowing private businesses to compete. Therefore, my monopoly argument also pertains to my opponent's position. He has thus failed to even mention my rebuttals and so I will extend them. It is true that monopolies may form in a state of pure free market capitalism, however they are not conceptually required for capitalism to exist as they are for communism to exist. Thus, if my opponent wishes to apply my argument to capitalism, he must also agree that it applies to communism even more so.
My opponent, in trying to refute sub-c2 of my refutation, again strawmans my position. He claims that I am arguing that every business will always be completely equal under capitalism because if they are not completely equal, a monopoly occurs. One business being superior does not mean it is a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as "Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted." McDonald's doing better financially than Burger king does not mean that it completely controls the fast food market, nor does it mean that other fast food chains are prohibited from entering, as it does with communism.
Furthermore, this does not even respond to my initial refutation of my opponent's point. My opponent argued that if consumers really to businesses that satisfy their preferences, the business that satisfies their preferences best must become a monopoly. However, as I already pointed out, consumer preferences vary and so it is always unlikely that one business will be able to satisfy every consumers every preference better than every other business. My opponent never responded to this and so I will extend it.
My opponent responds to my refutation that crimes would still exist (by conceding), but does not argue further on why equality is a worthwhile goal to pursue. He extends his argument that crimes would be lower in a communist state, however as I already pointed out, individual preferences vary. Therefore, in order to truly reduce crime, an economic system in which consumers have the widest variety of economic choices must be in place. Also, I would remind voters that my opponent's source for the claim that communism would end theft is his mother, who is far from a reliable source as not only can we not verify that my opponent's mother even lived under communism, but her individual experiences have not been show to not be biased or mistaken.
My opponent's argument from the conflict of social classes relies on the necessary presumption that a system of capitalism would presume a richer and a poorer class. However, my opponent has yet to show logical reasoning for why this must necessarily occur under an economic system of voluntary exchange. He has so far showed examples of revolutions against a dominating political class (the French revolution against their absolute monarchy, the Russian revolution against the Tsarist autocracy, etc.), not revolutions purely motivated by a system of pure free market capitalism. My opponent's examples include countries operating under systems of feudalism, mercantilism, and state directed capitalism, none of which are economic systems which I undertook to defend. Therefore, my opponent's contention that free market capitalism leads to social revolution fails in that in the supporting evidence he produced, revolutions were actually sparked by a mix of political issues and other economic systems.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Wow fantastic debate, bias aside I think both sides put up great arguments. In fact I'm going to have to follow 16kadams lead and call it a tie save for the fact that Con used more legit sources...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: both pro and con did well so I am going with sources. I do not think a shrewish grandmother in china is a good source, nor is wiki answers, well wiki answers is ok but He should only use it if another source supports the answers in there. Pro wants to vote bomb me even though my RFD is reasonable
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.