The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Is socialism an acceptable political idealogy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Simonsheppard32 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,076 times Debate No: 95223
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Socialism is at its core, down rated communism. Communism has always been bad, and will always be bad. Socialism believes in a sharing of the common wealth. Although if everyone gets paid the same for very different jobs, what would motivate you to do your job. Also why do you have to share hard earned money with other people? There are people litterally escaping socialism as we speak. Did you know that nazism was a form of socialism. Although it was race oriented, and socialism is social class fueled. Socialism is very bad, it is destroying our country, it will always. Socialistic ideals are cancerous, it keeps spreading. So lets cut it out before it becomes problamatic.


The resolution of the debate is rather or not socialism is acceptable. All I must do is show socialism is acceptable, not necessarily that it’s better or preferable to any other system.

He states that socialism is “down rated communism” and claims that communism is bad. He has provided no evidence of this and if this was true, it doesn’t follow that socialism is bad. Communism is a higher stage of socialism, but they aren’t necessarily the same.

Amish culture might be a stage of Christianity, but it’s not the same thing as Christianity. If the Amish are bad, you can’t claim that Christianity as a whole is bad. Con is therefore committing a fallacy of division, as he is inferring a part of something is bad because the whole of it is bad [1]

Con states that socialism is the “sharing of the common wealth”. However he provides no source or reason to believe this is the case. Socialism isn’t the sharing of wealth, but the collective ownership over the means of production sometimes called private property (i.e. the workplace) [2]. Specifically:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. [ibid]

Sharing of wealth can occur theoretically under capitalism if everyone decides to do so, since it makes no claims about the means of production, wage labor or exchange in a market place. Therefore, Con’s attack on socialism is based on a misunderstanding.

There exists socialistic systems which don’t have sharing of any wealth whatsoever. Wages and markets still exist, yet workplaces are self-managed [3]. Other systems such as collectivism possesses a voucher system where you are paid directly for how many hours you work and how hard your job is [4]. So, you don’t have to share your hard earned money nor is there any absence of incentive.

However, even assuming that socialism necessarily has distribution of wealth, Con’s arguments still fail. He assumes monetary incentives are stronger than natural incentives. This is demonstrably false. Research shows internal motivation is stronger than monetary incentives and that monetary incentives actually demotivate us [5]. Why should someone share their wealth? Because they would also benefit from the economical system and participating in that would be better for the greater good.

He states there are people escaping socialism. He never lists any examples, but he is most likely speaking of state socialist nations. However, state socialism isn’t the only idea within socialism and rather such a thing is actually socialism is debatable. If the state is made up of the collective, then it isn’t a state, merely a self-governed society. However if the state is made up of a select few which control the means of production, then how can it be said to be anything more than state capitalism? Where would the collective come in?

He then claims nazism was a form of socialism. Even granting this, it’s merely a guilt by association fallacy. It doesn’t attack the system of socialism, only the supposed adherents. However, national socialism certainly isn’t socialism anymore than the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea is democratic. Nazism is centered around white nationalism and white supremacy, not economics [6]. Hitler expressed disdain for the Marxian concept of socialism and claimed he was a “true socialist”[ibid][7]. He also explained that he didn’t think economics was of primary importance within Nazism and stated privately that he would defend the capitalist’s private property [7]. In practice, the Nazis were completely fine with private property as long as it supported the state and the property owners were German [8].

He then goes to assert that socialism is destroying our country without evidence and claiming it's cancerious, ect. Yet, we can see his objections to socialism are all flawed.

Why Socialism?

First, I believe I have shown socialism is at least acceptable. It doesn’t entail anything more than worker’s control over the means of production. It doesn’t entail job demotivation nor does it entail any sort of dictatorship. All of Con’s objections fail. However, I will go one step further and claim socialism is actually preferable.

The interest of society should be to increase well being and freedom. This is more or less an assumption, otherwise Con wouldn’t care if “socialism is bad”. Since we would preferably like to live in said society with the most freedom and well being, we ought to prefer such society.

Under collective ownership, decisions in the workplace are made by majority vote or by a consensus system. Unlike under the reverse where decisions are made by one person for the sole interest of increasing profit for himself. Which sounds like the system which has the most freedom? Under collective ownership, rules of your living space is determined entirely by you and not some landlord. Again, which system sounds like it enhances the most freedom? It should be clear that socialism is the answer.

What of well being? Under capitalism, work produces unnecessary stress and mental health problems.

A study done by the ADAA found that a majority of workplace stresses are due to things such as deadlines, staff management, dealing with workplace problems, and workplace relationships [9]. These stresses interfere in both professional and personal life, yet due to fear of the boss’ actions many choose to remain silent about their problems and undergo unhealthy coping habits [ibid].

Under socialism these individuals would both be the workers and the owners. They would have freedom to expand deadlines and there would be no hierarchy of management to fear, so any problems can be solved autonomously. Many of the causes of workplace stress would simply cease to exist under socialism.

Lastly, socialism ought to be preferred because it doesn’t rely on exploitation of labor. The capitalist who owns a business only hires someone because they can make money off their labor. Necessarily, your labor is worth more than what the capitalist is paying you. Yet you are only being paid a fraction of what he is making off you. It therefore follows that the business owner is exploiting you for profit. Since socialism doesn’t possesses this exploitation, it is preferable.

Back to Con











Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by NestorTheZizek 1 year ago
This was a disappointing debate
Posted by BackCommander 1 year ago
"what would motivate you to do your job."
The fact that in a realistic world you'd be assigned to do it, because it'd be what you're good at.

"Did you know that nazism was a form of socialism."
Did you know that almost all dictators say that they are socialist or communist in order to get the people to back them? True socialism or communism is easily toppled by human greed. Humans are the only negative to either ideology.

"Socialism is very bad, it is destroying our country"
No, that's called CAPITALISM. A system in which the rich have political power and the poor have no choice.

"Socialistic ideals are cancerous"
No, nationalist ideals are cancerous. Socialism serves the people, all of them, as equals.
Posted by ThePostMarxist 1 year ago
That was disappointing. I was expecting the troll to provide a rebuttal
Posted by wetmoistdamp 1 year ago
Pro is doing an absolutely spectacular job.
Posted by blamonkey 1 year ago
I would be willing to debate this topic after you debated this with N7, or you could just open a new debate and do both at once.
Posted by n7 1 year ago
"Did you know that nazism was a form of socialism."

Posted by spraven 1 year ago
Man, I would love to hear some great ideas from the Pro
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.