The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Does Socialism work in a realistic society?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 59120
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Would Socialism work in a realistic society? In my opinion the answer is no.

I will be debating for the 'con' side, meaning that I believe socialism can not function properly as a government system. My opponent will be taking the 'pro' side, meaning they believe that socialism actually does work as a government system.

First round is for acceptance. Good luck.


challenge accepted :)
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2


I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I wish you good luck.

I'd like to begin by stating my reasons why socialism will not work in a realistic society, and they are as follows;

1. Socialism discourages hard work
2. Socialism restricts freedom
3. Legalizes theft in name of "redistribution of wealth"

I will begin by addressing the first topic. A security net is a system to make sure that people who are hard working, deserving individuals have the ability to exercise their full potential. But a socialist government system creates a security net that is so secure, that it's easier not to work than to work. Now let me ask you this, what is the reason we work? We work to make money. So is it right that someone who barely works is making the same amount of money as someone who works really hard? The truth of the matter is it's not. If this were to happen we would see a huge decrease in productivity. Someone who works harder and longer should be making significantly more money than someone who fools around at work and doesn't get their job done. Many people have said this before me, but socialism ENCOURAGES laziness. Even the people who naturally work hard at what they do will eventually stop working hard simply because they would be making the same money as others in their positions. It robs people of initiative, drive and ambition.

Moving on to issue two, Socialism restricts the freedom of individuals. Under a socialist government, everything from production to housing is government owned. This means that you do not have the ability to OWN your own business, as the government OWNS it. The reason for the government owning a majority of things is because they want to promote a "feeling of equality". Socialists want everyone to remain the same and equal, so everyone can own a business or no one can own a business. This undermines the spirit of entrepreneurship[, innovation, and competitiveness. Which are all things that are essential for a population to succeed and thrive.

On June 3, 2013 Police in Venezuela seized 2,500 toilet paper rolls, 400 diapers and 7,000 liters of fruit juice in an overnight raid of a warehouse. The Venezuelan Police essentially stole these items to "redistribute the wealth". What kind of functional society doesn't let you own as much fruit juice as you want? Why is it that the government had to steal these things so that they could redistribute the wealth of toilet paper and fruit juice? Socialism actually promotes this. Let that sink in, Socialists promote theft in the name of redistributing wealth.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the socialist ideal of a worldwide and local cooperation is good. However, the socialist model is not the way to do it, perhaps there is a better way to go about something like this.


(I am not assuming that you do not know the difference between socialism and communism but just in case it is so, and I am not saying it is, read source 2)

Allow me to begin with the goal of the government: making its citizens happy.
Of course the government cannot control all aspects that make a person happy, they cannot force people to like you nor make sure that you grow up in a loving family. However, they can choose to influence:
1. How much money you make.
2. How healthy you are to a certain point (healthcare)
3. How you will be taken care of if you have ill fortune.

(source 1) Having more money makes people happy but the more you have the less more happy it makes you. For example: between having 50,000 dollars and having 100,000 dollars is a larger 'happy' difference than in having 50 billion or 100 billion dollars. Also, not everyone has the same chance on succes: if you grow up in a black ghetto you will have less opportunities than someone who grows up in a rich family and goes to Harvard. Socialism diminishes this stark difference by making education free and giving everyone the chance to unfurl to his/her maximum capacity. Moreover, some people are just not very smart, that is not their fault, that is not because they are lazy, that is because they do not have as much good fortune as smart people.

Non-socialist countries also do not have much of healthcare which means that people die who otherwise would have been helped in socialist countries.

In a extremely non-socialist country as the USA there is almost no social safety net to support poor people. I live in the Netherlands which is quite socialist and I can assure you that doing nothing and getting social assistence doesn't pay off: you get barely enough money to sustain yourself foodwise and some people cannot even afford to buy a house (and live on the streets). I think it is only humane to support people who are in between jobs because that is in 90% of the cases not because they are lazy but because they have no opportunities for jobs.

There is also a difference between socialism and communism (source 2). If you work hard in a socialist society you will earn more than other people, in contrast to a communist society, in which it doesn't matter how hard you work.

(source 3) if we look to the countries that are most happy the top three is: Denmark, Norway, Switzerland. All of them have a very good social security net and are socialist countries.

To sum things up, people deserve to be treated well regardless of their environment or intellect and this is only possible in a socialist society. The economy of the country will detoriate slightly but because the wealth is more evenly distributed the overal happiness of the country will improve.
(please excuse language mistakes, it is not my native language and I am only 16)

source 1: (note: the makers of the video confuse communism with socialism)
source 2:
source 3:
Debate Round No. 3


Socialism and Communism are almost the same ideology. Communism is the extreme form of socialism. From an ideological standpoint there is no substantial difference between the two. In fact there were societies (USSR) that defined themselves as socialist and communist interchangeably. Sometimes they said socialist and sometimes they said communist. In the USSR's case, in the name of their country they called themselves socialist. However, the USSR also defined themselves as communist frequently. My opponent says that I, and many others do not know the difference between socialism and communism. The only difference between to two is that communism is more of a direct reading. That is the only difference in the purest form of both, which is what we are talking about in this debate.

I'm going to point out that the countries you have mentioned (Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Switzerland) do not directly define themselves as socialist. The Netherlands, for example define themselves as a parliamentary democracy. None of these countries are directly socialist, they just have a few socialist idea's enacted into their countries. Every country inevitably has a few socialist idea's being put forward into their law, even the United States. It is not right for people to label these countries as socialist because the fact of the matter is, they aren't. Of course there are political parties that Socialists are apart of that may have significant success in the Netherlands, but that doesn't make them a socialist country. Even in the united States there is a socialist party. The ways the countries I mentioned work, are not the purest form of socialism.

I may have not gotten the point across correctly the first time, but I'm not talking about the social assistance aspect. I'm talking about physical jobs. For example, why should a bank teller make the same amount of money as a bank CEO? If I'm a bank teller than everywhere I go to work as a bank teller will be the same amount of salary to be earned, with no room for growth and development. This may be different in the Netherlands, but that is because they aren't defined as a socialist state. Other systems such as capitalism work much better in this regard, because if I don't like the pay scale of a specific bank I'm working at I can easily find another bank with a higher pay scale.

Thanks for bringing up social assistance though, this is pretty much what I was talking about before when I compared socialism to a insurance policy. Can't find a job? Great here's your welfare and food stamps. You haven't worked for two years? Even better, we'll keep giving you incentive's not to work by extending your unemployment insurance. As I said in my previous argument, this decreases productivity because people are willing to live a mediocre lifestyle. My opponent claims that it's not enough to support yourself, but it actually is. The government makes it enough to support yourself, because they believe that nobody should have nothing and that everyone should be exactly equal in some regard.

Socialism uses taxation to promote economic and social egalitarianism.


The_Nameless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


softmer forfeited this round.


The_Nameless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited less