It's time for the workers of the world to unite
Debate Rounds (2)
In the first phase of this process, the following measures would be implemented:
* The full nationalisation of key services, utilities and industries; such as: health, education, agriculture, sanitation, public transportation, energy (production and supply) and banking.
* The funding of political parties to become the responsibility of the state and private or corporate donations to politicians or their parties will be outlawed. In addition, all media organisations, such as television broadcasters and newspaper publishers must be licensed and obliged to provide politically impartial coverage of events at home and abroad.
* Everybody able to work will be strongly incentivised financially to do so, meaning no welfare payments for those fit and able to work but choose not to do so, and a punitive tax on unearned income from trust funds and other financial instruments that allow aristocrats and other over-privileged people to live on inherited or gifted wealth.
* All public libraries, gardens and museums should be open to the public free of charge.
These goals can only be achieved if the workers, meaning everybody that is in paid employment, show solidarity on an international level and form a powerful movement to force change in their respective countries.
I understand that it can be frustrating when large corporations exert a lot of power over ordinary people but we must remember that not only does everyone have a chance to start a business but also that businesses compete against each other and that lessens the power they have. Nationalization of key services will reduce competition among those services. Banks will no longer be fighting against each other offering the lowest interest rates to attract customers. Schools/Universities will not be offering additional financial aid and superior education and trying to undercut each other and get the best students. The competitive spirit will be destroyed.
Funding of political parties by the state does two things. First it reduces the incentive to actively campaign. The ability to gather funds is an important skill for a politician to have and funding should never be guaranteed to them. In the United States, it is usually the person running for president who has to raise funds. They need good leadership and public speaking skills to do that. Secondly, if the state provides funding, taxes would increase which is not a good outcome for people who are not interested in paying extra taxes to fund political parties.
Trust funds are passed on from one person to another. If someone earns a large amount of money and want to pass it along to their children, they should be able to do so without government intervention. Again, one of the basic principles of capitalism is minimal governmental interference in private matters.
Opening public libraries etc free of charge will cause the government to lose revenues that it has been getting so far. The result of this would be increased taxation to cover it. Ordinary people's income taxes would increase. I would not want to pay additional taxes for libraries, parks and museums if I never use them. Free market economies are characterized by low taxation and increasing taxes is leaning toward socialism.
It would of course be ideal if workers show solidarity toward each other. However, in a culture like that of the United States, corporate workers will look out for themselves over others, so such a socialist state will never work.
Firstly, comrades, I will reconfirm that I am referring to talking about workers of all countries, not just the UK, the struggle of the working classes to free themselves from the yoke of capitalist oppression is an international one and our goals can only be achieved at a global level.
The issue of competition is relevant to businesses, but not public services. That's because the sole purpose of a private enterprise is to make a profit to be divided amongst its shareholders. Their customers are merely a means to that end: the object is to extract from them the maximum amount of money at the minimum of in order and clearly that corporate philosophy is not appropriate for the provision of public services, particularly to the most financially disadvantaged members of society.
With regard to education and banks: there can still be competition but the reward will be promotion and pay rises for the employees of these establishments that improve standards and benefit society the most.
Moving on, they say there's no such thing as a free lunch. Why would anyone donate substantial amounts of money to a political campaign? To gain influence with the politician once they are in power, of course. It is very unhealthy for democracy when the people with most influence in government are not the electorate but the corporations and high net worth individuals that fund their political party.
The cost of funding election campaigns need not be high, and would represent a very small percentage of government expenditure, and what could be more important than protecting the democratic process from corruption?
Regarding inheritance, this is a means whereby wealthy families are able to ensure future generations enjoy privileges and advantages over other children and young people. Those less fortunate are already at a social and economic disadvantage and their opportunities to reach their full potential in life are further restricted by not being able to access the best education or be able to afford to take internships that often are a pre-requisite the the best jobs. Taxing inheritance and using the money to fund education that will benefit all, not just the privileged few. The estates of people who choose to donate their wealth to charity upon the deaths, on the other hand, would not be subject to taxation.
Libraries, galleries, museums and botanical parks belong to the nation and must be open to the public free of charge. Not all children have free access to the Internet and these educational facilities are important sources of knowledge and learning. It's is morally repugnant that only the children of the rich should have access to them.
In conclusion, this socialist movement can only function on an international level: history has shown that it cannot succeed in isolation and that's why it is time for the workers of the world to unite to bring about a fairer, more egalitarian societies operating as meritocracies rather than as a collection of quasi-democratic laissez-faire capitalist regimes where the privileged few take all and the devil takes the hindmost.
Thank You Brian for the warm welcome. I am really enjoying being on debate.org debating various topics with interesting people. I am surprised that I never found this site before.
Here are my responses to your arguments:
While many corporations do try to extract the maximum amount of money from customers, it doesn't change the fact that customers can go to a different businees which provides better customer service. In order to stay in business, the first corporation will then be forced to provide better customer service and improve customer relations or go out of business. Case in point: Blockbuster vs Netflix. Blockbuster had terrible customer relations and charged an insane amount of late fees. Netflix came along and charged no late fees. Blockbuster had to file for bankruptcy and close many of their stores. They are still in business but they changed many of their policies to be more customer friendly in order to compete with Netflix.  Pro didn't say why corporate philosophy is not appropriate for public services. I say that being able to choose the best service actually helps the financially disadvantaged members because they can shop around for the cheapest price rather than a one-size fits all price.
Pay rises for workers in educational and banking institutions might work. However, it is very difficult to measure who helps society the most. However, if customers are given a chance to choose, then all institutions will try to attract them by giving them deals that will help them the most. More customers means more profits for the institution. It will be a win-win.
In the United States there are limits on the maximum donations that an individual or corporation can make. It is $2500 for an individual donation and it is a federal crime to evade donation limits through straw donors. Thousands of people donate to their candidate and it would be impossible for all or any of them to influence the politician. Your argument about influence might be true for very large donations but a donation cap like that in the United States solves this problem. With that in mind, it would be inefficient and immoral to prevent volunteers from donating while forcing people to pay higher taxes to fund the elections.
Wealthy families are wealthy because they earned the money. They have an absolute right to pass it along to whoever they choose. It would be inappropriate for the government to step in and take a slice of that pie just because they feel that a "previlieged few" have too much money and that it needs to be redistributed to people who weren't so previleged. The government can always get the money to fund education by giving student loans that need to be repaid. I don't understand why people can't "afford" internships. People get paid to do internships (at least in the US). They don't have to "afford" them.
It would be nice for everyone to have access to libraries and museums. But this doesn't take away from the fact that not only are they paying for them through taxes, but all the poor people who never use them are also paying for them through their taxes which they might need for more basic things like food and shelter. If you are saying "tax only the rich", then I would argue that the rich have no obligation to pay for the maintenance of libraries and museums. What is morally repugant is forcing the rich to pay for free internet for poor children. If they want to donate money to charitable causes such as One Laptop Per Child, they should be highly encouraged to do so. But in a free country, the government should not force people who honestly earned their money to give it up if they don't want to. How then will people find the motivation to work hard and be successful if the government can take their money away at any time?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Double_R 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I had a tough time trying to understand what Pro was arguing for. Pro makes a statement as a resolution but then instead of showing why the resolution is correct, he simply shows a plan to implement it and eventually shows reasons the plan should be supported. Without clear definition he leaves himself wide open to be countered in any way his opponent chooses, which Con did effectively.
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.