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

Due to Irrationality, Capitalism Needs Nationalism to Survive

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: 4/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 803 times Debate No: 52980
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Simple debate, simple point.

Unfortunately, human nature is not necessarily rational. Yes, there are many rational individuals who think before they act, but human nature is diverse. Many people entail "consciousness on the ride" where despite being perceptive of their surroundings, their judgment is emotionally overridden.

In turn, capitalism requires these emotionally judgmental people to be balanced against one another. If they're not, then they will violate private property out of selfish laziness. Some will do it because they're unwilling to produce themselves. Others will do it out of spiting the wealthy. Then, there will be those who want to help the less fortunate, so they're simply willing to steal from those who applied themselves to become successful instead of appreciating voluntary relationships.

These emotionally judgmental people by default target rational people. They target those who think before they act, and save before investing. They intrinsically engage in dialectic before analytic reasoning, and seek to compare and contrast themselves against others to obtain a sense of self. That is on an individual level, they seek out those who think things out instead of feeling things out, and as feelers, they seek to enslave thinkers to their will.

To avoid this, feelers must be bent on comparing themselves against each other. That is they must be divided among nations, and expected to compete against one another so the capitalists can survive.

If human nature was necessarily rational, internationalism could rule instead since the desire to compare and contrast would not target savings and investment. Unfortunately, human nature is not, so nationalism is needed instead.


The parameters of the debate are somewhat restrictive, but I will try my best to abide by them. Let's begin

As con, my burden of proof seems rather simple. It is my belief that based on the resolution and nature of the argument, I do not have to do anything other than point out a scenario where capitalism survived or still survives, and nationalism was not necessary, as this would prove that capitalism does not necessarily need nationalism to survive.

Nationalism: : a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries

There are many examples of prosperous nations with market economies that are not nationalistic, let's look at some examples:

Hong Kong: Ranked #1 on the Index of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong is anything but nationalist. in 2005, 67.4% of Interviewees on an HKPOP poll said they did not want Hong Kong to be independent of China

Switzerland: Ranked #5 on the Index of Economic Freedom, Switzerland is one of the least nationalistic countries in the world, and even considered by some a multi-national state.

New Zealand: Ranked #4 on the Index of Economic Freedom, New Zealand commonly identifies with Australia and is rarely seen as nationalistic by any sense of the word.
Debate Round No. 1


The problem with my opponents' arguments is they refer to dependent, not independent economies.

Hong Kong, Switzerland, and New Zealand are primarily involved in international finance and trade which means they need nationalism elsewhere. Without external nationalism, the internal internationalism in those countries would be unsustainable. Please remember that the proposition did not say "Capitalism needs internal nationalism to survive." It only said "Capitalism needs nationalism to survive."

"New Zealand has a market economy that depends greatly on international trade, mainly with Australia, the European Union, the United States, China, South Korea and Japan."

"As one of the world's leading international financial centers, Hong Kong"s service-oriented economy is characterised by low taxation, near free port trade and well established international financial market."

"The economy of Switzerland is one of the world's most stable economies. Its policy of long-term monetary security and political stability has made Switzerland a safe haven for investors, creating an economy that is increasingly dependent on a steady tide of foreign investment.

Because of the country's small size and high labor specialization, industry and trade are the keys to Switzerland's economic livelihood. Switzerland has achieved one of the highest per capita incomes in the world with low unemployment rates and a balanced budget. The service sector has also come to play a significant economic role...

...The majority of the working population are involved in the Tertiary or Services sector of the economy (71.0% in 2012)."


Objectivity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Con forfeited. Please vote Pro.


Vote should go to pro, I did not have the time to reply within the assigned time constraints, my apologies. Although I wish Pro would have made the reply time longer.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by jordanfadness 2 years ago
Pro seems to rely on the argument and the unfortunately all true argument at that in some convoluted way capitalism is tied with nationalism. Now con tries to argue that this isn't true on an internal scale which would be a fair debate but pro disregards these parameters and instead argues that since nationalism or even more simply any nationalistic notions(essentially human nature) keeps the world and the economy in swing that capitalism needs nationalism to survive. No while this is boringly true the pro misses the point of this debate. This is like saying that to create a grilled cheese sandwich you need slavery. Now while this doesn't make sense to the average observer I can rationalize and explain that without precursory slavery the human race may have gone extinct ergo no grilled cheese. The pro resorts to cheap logical ploys to prove his point. Under a fair and slightly more restrictive premise con wins outright. Chao
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Germany doesn't have a whole lot of nationalism following WW2. That destroys your argument sir.
Posted by edibleshrapnel 2 years ago
Hypothetical at best. This should be an argument for some college's "Theoretical politics" class.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, it looked like it would be an interesting debate, though sadly that didn't happen. Always good to check the rules before accepting and ask the instigator to change what is unreasonable, just for future reference.