The Instigator
dr.jimmythefish
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is socialism a half measure and thus unequal to the challenge of freeing the poltrariut.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/30/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 98559
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

dr.jimmythefish

Pro

Socialism is like recreational war, it lacks the totality of its opponents. Thus it will never be common on a global scale as humans are creatures of extremes. You will fail to win as you lack total conviction, as with war you win by being ruthless and extreme, if you sympathize with the enemy then you will lose.
Capitalistslave

Con

I for one believe most people are never going to get the idea of personal property out of their heads. With communism, if I'm not mistaken, there is no personal property and everything is shared communally. Communism would also abolish the state, as well as monetary systems, which can still exist under socialism.

I believe there's a reason why monetary systems developed, it's an easy way to do trade. It's a measure of labor spent, or at least labor vouchers would be, which is essentially just another form of money. It just doesn't seem plausible that after hundreds of years people would be in favor of ending all personal property, getting rid of the state, and also ending monetary systems, which all would be necessary to achieve communism. It's never been done on a wide scale either, at most, we've had maybe a dozen countries do it at once.

I challenge the idea that people want extremes, since pure capitalism doesn't even exist anymore and nearly every country has a mixed economy.
Debate Round No. 1
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

If people want moderation then you would be the ideological norm, but what people want and what they get are different, people want less government involvement (because the feds have gotten more into the world's problems [refugees] then the nation's economy, thus are selfish gits) and more national economic programs. But I want to give people what they need if they work, if you've a hobo you will eat until there is a shortage. Money is the cause of all crime, all poverty, and the worsening of all famines since the development of the global economy. Thus it should be destroyed, to put this in metaphorical terms all people should understand, think of the myth of St.George and the dragon, the princess is the proletariat, we communists are st George and the dragon is the bourgeois.
Capitalistslave

Con

I agree that probably most people want less government involvement, as do I. I'm a libertarian socialist. I'll explain more about libertarian socialism in a comment to save space here.

As for money being "the cause of all crime, all poverty, and the worsening of all famines since the development of the global economy."
This is a claim that needs evidence. The existence of money doesn't cause poverty. Money that is horded by the wealthy, and prevented from going to the poor, is what causes poverty. Getting rid of the bourgeosie would solve the poverty problem, as workers would then be able to split among themselves the money that would have normally gone to the capitalist.

As for it being the cause of all crime, I think crime is often caused by poverty or a lack of money, at least theft would be. So, rather it's the lack of money that causes crime. If someone has money, why would they steal? If someone has plenty of money, why would they kill someone for money?

Debate Round No. 2
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

As long as there is money people will hoard it, because people are lazy selfish a---s. Crime is caused either directly or indirectly by poverty, direct cases are petty thief and small miggings, indirect cases are all forms of organised crime as they use the poor to gain money (the poor are paid) and as they need poverty and desperation to both racketeer and enforce there operations, they are dependent on capitalism.
Capitalistslave

Con

Well, you can easily have laws preventing the hoarding of money if you want, I wouldn't necessarily support that, but that would solve that problem, and getting rid of money is not necessary. Just because people will hoard money, doesn't mean we have to get rid of it. We just need an economy that works for everyone and not just the wealthy.
Debate Round No. 3
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

The bourgeois has time, he can circumvent law. The means of enslavement must be destroyed, otherwise they will only rise again (Stalin), thus we must to protect the liberty of the individual, and yes I, a Communist, like civil liberty. You want balance, I do what I believe is right by decking the gits.
Capitalistslave

Con

Well, I think the burden of proof lies with you to show that money, and private property enslaves us. There's not much to respond to here until I see a good reason to believe these things are enslaving us.
Debate Round No. 4
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

You are a socialist thus you are in agreement that capitalism is bad. The entire concept of communism is based on this idea, but I cannot make you a communist, thus I cannot prove this to the audience of capitalist oppressors. Thus I cannot prove this as it is a matter of how you as a individual look at the world, only you can decide your opinions on this and other issues like it or be in bad faith.
Capitalistslave

Con

Well, you could have tried to argue how money and private property enslaves us, rather than just claiming it does(claims need reason/logic or facts to back it up). Perhaps the character limit you set on this debate made it so that you couldn't really argue for it properly, but I think there was sufficient room for a reason or two. If you provided reasons formoney and private property enslaving us, I may have agreed with you and conceded the debate. It would certainly be easier to convince a socialist to turn communist than a capitalist to turn communist.

We could make a debate specifically on how money and private property enslave us, if you want. I would be up for that. If the claim is "Money and private property enslave us" you would take the pro position and I would take the con position. Feel free to challenge me again if you think you have good reasons for believing money and property enslave us.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 1 year ago
dr.jimmythefish
Capitalistslave, you ask me to make you perceive, only internally can you choose weather or not to see the natural injustices of the world , if you create an echo chamber of capitalism then you fail to do this, also I thought as a socialist you would perceive this.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Why not just ask..Why did communism never work..That could be interesting....Wrong species or wrong ideology ?
Posted by LordDeclan 1 year ago
LordDeclan
Communism, or at least Marxism, removes Private Property but keeps Personal Quality. Marx makes this quite clear in the Communist Manifesto.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
As mentioned, I'm a libertarian socialist.

What this entails is I support a democratic control of the means of production(socialism) and support very limited government. Each libertarian socialist will vary in terms of how much government we should have. Some are outright anarchists, some believe in a little more government than I do, but in general, we either support no government or limited government. And all libertarian socialists who do support a government, they support a republican or a democratic form of government.

How libertarian socialists accomplish a democratic control of the means of production, or how it looks differs from one libertarian socialist to another. I, personally, would support a transition away from capitalist businesses, and go to co-ops, which are democratic-businesses. I would not have a problem with the government creating a law that all businesses had to transition to cooperatives, however I do oppose government involvement in most other areas, as I believe government should only protect rights and that is all. I consider it a right of the workers to own property for their work that they give, and that's why they should have control of businesses. In many cases, the business owner did nothing to own that business. Many ask for loans to start a business, which doesn't require any work, so I don't believe they are entitled to own that business. Many business owners inherited money, again, they didn't work for that business they buy with that money, so they don't deserve it. There are probably only few capitalists that fairly worked for their business, but I consider it a violation of rights that the workers have no say in that business, as I value democracy.

The business owner is a position of power, as you get to have say in who gets to work for a living. Thus, when we don't get to choose who the business owners are, we are living in a whole bunch of monarchies, as traditional businesses are monarchies essentially.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
In case you're wondering where I've been, I was working. Unfortunately I have to take part in the capitalist system to be able to acquire what I need. I am looking into applying at cooperatives, which I would prefer much better and no one would be able to call me a hypocrite since I would be working for a socialist company and also have socialist ideology. Supervisors at my current place of employment are helping me look for cooperatives to apply at. There are so few of them, which is a shame. I looked online for some, but that nearest one I found online is like 50 miles away. I don't believe that is the nearest cooperative, so there must be one closer by, which is what my work is helping me look into.

Fortunately, I don't work for a terrible capitalist company, they are good-hearted, as it's a company focused on helping the poor and they are there for medium-term employment to help people get the job experience they need to get a job elsewhere.

With any luck, by the end of 2017, I should be working for a cooperative.
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 1 year ago
dr.jimmythefish
Spell check is stupid
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I'm guessing the last word is proletariat?
No votes have been placed for this debate.