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

Marxism is better than capitalism

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 79326
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Marxism main goals are :

1. common ownership for machinaries and any production tools
2. The distribution of capital have to be taken in democratic way, where the labours have the rights to vote. The main goal is to abolish privatization of capital.

Round 1 is only for acceptancce
no more arguments in round 4

No troll please and let's have some fun.

Thank you


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks again for accepting my challance con.

I will refer Marxism to Karl Marx ideology, and capitalism to adam smith ideology.

I will bring 4 arguments in total which I will divide on the second round and third round.

Here we go.

As the motion stated. I would be a pro for Marxism compare with capitalism because :

1. Capitalism has given us a lot of contribution in producing goods and services before. But when the production of the goods and services reach a level where it is too much for people to consume the whole created products. Capitalism could no longer efficient. We should stop producing somehing we already produced enough and we must give it a chance for people to start producing other goods that are needed but less profitable. Such as, we should slow down the research on make up and start to boost the research on cancer.

In capitalism where the decision of production is given to each individuals, we can not control the use of resources that can benefit the majority needs. The resources being used is to obtain the most profitable goods and services. Not the most beneficial goods and services for majority.

2. Marxism will provide a true competition.
The ultimate jargon from capitalism is for individuals to have "free fight liberalism". But in reality, is it true that people will have a fair free fight? if we want to have a fair competition, each fighters must be equiped by the same equipment. Take example,In reality when a state can not interfere the market, people with less money can not obtain the same quality of education with people with more money. We need more government role to control economics. That is to ensure the poeple to have same equipment to fight. So the system will allow that the people who will take home more money are the ones who deserve.

We need a well rationally planned economic system instead of a total anarchy economic system like it is under capitalism. The accumullated capital will have no human conscience. Every decision being made will only have 1 consideration. That is, How much profit that we will get.


Note that Pro did not define capitalism in round 1, but rather, in round 2, refers to Adam Smith ideology. However, Pro's opening statement implies that this debate concerns modern day capitalism. To show why this is important, I would like to provide some text from a paper by Murray Rothbard describing Adam Smith's contribution to economics (1):

On the other hand, Marxists, with somewhat more justice, hail Smith as the ultimate inspiration of their own Founding Father, Karl Marx.

In fact, it was Smith who first proposed the labor theory of value, an important tenet of Marxism. The problem is, this theory has been abandoned, which isn't surprising, since it doesn't take much thought to see there is little connection between an items value and the labor that produces it. After all, if that were true, I'd quit my day job and just start making something ... anything. It wouldn't matter what.

One cannot simply define capitalism as "the private ownership of the means of production". Instead I would like to define the key components of capitalism as it exists in the United States today:

1) capital accumulation and the private property protection
2) highly evolved division of labor
3) highly evolved use of money, along with market prices based on voluntary trade

Point #3 invariably leads to a repudiation of the labor theory of value, therefore Adam Smith ideology is not a proper definition of modern capitalism.

I will now address Pro's two points given round 2.

Pro's first point claims that we are producing too much of some goods and not enough of others. However, no methodology has been given to determine what "too much" means. It seems that Pro basis this solely on his/her own subjective value. Under capitalism, the amount of a given good produced is determined by supply and demand. Market prices formed by voluntary trades are key to this system. If supply is abundant and demand low, an items cost is low. If supply is tight and demand high, an items cost is high.

How would Pro (and Marx) solve this "problem" of too much beauty products produced rather than cancer research? Note that under capitalism, the amount of these two goods produced is exactly as demanded by everyone. To shift funds from beauty products to cancer research, there must exist a few elites forcing this to happen. Could there be anything more un-democratic than that?

Pro claims that under capitalism the wrong goods are produced because they are produced based on profit motive instead of what's most beneficial to society. The mistake made here is the same as described above. The word "beneficial" is based on subjective value. What gives Pro, or Marx, or a few socialist elites the right to tell others that their subjective values are wrong?

Pro next claims that capitalism does not provide everyone a fair chance to succeed economically and that Marxism will somehow fix this problem. It's easy to criticize a system, but it's quite a harder problem to "solve" it. Pro thinks that somehow government will solve this. I would ask Pro to describe how that would work. This can't simply be assumed because Marx said it would be. But fair is fair. I will now describe how capitalism solves the incredibly difficult problem of limited resources and infinite human desires.

I have already hinted at this above in my discussion of market prices and supply/demand. This system evenly rations resources to create products that everyone, by way of voting with their dollars, demands. Pro claims that everyone does not have an equal chance to share in this success. I claim that is patently false. In 2013, the number of households with a net work over $1 million was 5.1 million and 80% of these households were first generation millionaires. That means there were 4 million first time millionaires. Also, usually this fortune will be lost by the second or third generation (2). This means that the population of millionaires is constantly changing.

But perhaps none of the rich started poor. But that isn't true either. Here is a list of 16 billionaires who started out poor (3). But perhaps those 16 were just "lucky". But now I'll refer to a study that states "It's nice to think one can easily go from being dirt poor to filthy rich, but it doesn't usually work that way." (4) So this study seems to be biased in Pro's favor. But this study states that 26% rose from poor to middle class and 4% rose from poor to rich. I would say that, given that resources are limited, these are pretty good numbers. What numbers would Pro find acceptable? But, more to the point, how would these numbers be improved under Marxism? Simply assuming this into existance is not acceptable.

At this point, I will show why Marxism has no hope of making things better. In fact, the opposite is true. Marxism will cause economic chaos and hardship.

Economic Calculation Problem
There is no private ownership under Marxism so there are no market prices. This fact alone deals a devastating blow to Marxism. I have already described by market prices are critical to a functioning economy. This problem was first exposed by Ludwig von Mises in 1920 (5)

Consider there are 3.6 million retail stores in the United States (6). If each store has just 100 products, and if each product has just 10 price changes per year, that is 3.6 billion price changes. And this is only retail, which makes up about 16% of GDP. If we extrapolate that out, we get something like 22.5 billion prices changes for all products per year in the United States. Each of these price changes is in response to supply and demand at a local level. This simply can't be done under Marxism. Prices of higher order capital goods are even more critical because they help to conserve not only earths resources, but affect prices down the production line. In retail alone, the 360 million products had to each have many decisions made regarding materials to use, location of factories, etc. Prices drive all these decisions.

In fact, after the publication of Mises paper, socialists knew they had a problem. They fought back by attempting to come up with solutions to this problem (such as "Market Socialism") none of which is tenable. The result will be overwhelming issues with over and under supply of goods.

Debate Round No. 2


That is so true that Marx was inspired by Adam Smith in making his theories. In fact to achieve Communism is to pass the capitalism state

From what I understand, Cons"s arguments basically consist on these 3 things

1.No democracy under Marxism

In fact, I would rather say that there is no democracy in capitalism. Capitalism creates very large concentrations of money and property at the hands of a relatively small minority of the global human population. leading, to very large, and increasing, wealth and income inequalities between the elite and the majority of the population.

As con have said, the main tools for a peorson to vote is by using their dollars. And who is owning these dollars? Well, according to statistic :

"In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%"

Source :

What kind of democracy there be when the production of goods are being driven with this top 1%? Kindly note that from the data above, the 80% of population only can vote on their 7% of wealth to show what they really need. The dollars fail to show the real demand of majority. Take example on medication case in Amerca where it is demanded and nearly half americans can not get a proper medication. This people can not tell those big corporations to switch their production on beauty products into hospital and more doctors. This is simple, because the accumulated capital is not in the possesion of most people. the capital is owned by the 1%.


My question is simple, How can capitalism solve the problem where demand is high but the production is low, makes the price go higher while this demand is very important to be fullfilled?

This is ladies and gentlement the real undemocratic things which cons afraid of. A few elite to control the whole society.

2.Over supplied will not always cause the market price to go down.
in the capitalist economy, commodities are produced for profit. This so-called profit motive, the core of the capitalist economy, creates a dynamic whereby an abundance of commodities has negative consequences. In essence, an abundance of commodities disrupts the conditions for the creation of profit.

They will burn the excess of production to sustain the profit. Or even worse, they will lay off their employee to reduce production. A reduction in employment, in turn, reduces consumption. As overproduction is the excess of production above consumption, this reduction in consumption worsens the problem. This creates a "feed-back loop" or "vicious cycle". And actually this also happened to US market pricing in 2008. Where the house prices are kept declining and people lost their job. The new equilibrium was never met, yet the housing price kept declining because simply no one has the money. And people still can not buy the house.

3 How Marxism will create a fair justice of competition is simple. By giving the same education quality of everybody (No school fee anymore), very cheap medication, Very cheap healthy food, And affordable housing. From Con's data above, we could see that all those people who have great mind comes from middle class or even what you consider as poor. Can you imagine if we even support them in education, cheap medication and affordable housing? And how many of people which less brilliant than that could achieve higher level than where they are now.

4.Please note that Marxism only did not allow you to own all "factors of production" such as machinery to produce goods. Yes I do know that price is very critical, even more agree after the con has given us the illustration of price changing. This is why we need to ensure that the production of goods, needs to be discussed before they are produced. We need to discuss the price, where to produce, how many labours needed and everything. This method will minimize the risk of overproduction (wasted goods) or less production. The equilibrium price is determined before we produce the goods.

How Marxism solve these problems are actually also my arguments in this round :

1.Marxism offers democracy.
Marxism is actually a very democratic system where everyone should take vote on what to produce. Not only in chosing the given producst, but the products are made based on request. We do not need dollars as tools to vote. We just need your voice. We should hire more researcher and under this era when the technologies are advanced, people could ask the government what they actually need. Please note that under marxism, the highest rulers are people. The proletarians who owns majority voice.

2.No Monopoly.
When firms have such power, they charge prices that are higher than can be justified based upon the costs of production, prices that are higher than they would be if the market was more competitive. With higher prices, consumers will demand less quantity, and hence the quantity produced and consumed will be lower than it would be under a more competitive market structure.
The bottom line is that when companies have a monopoly, prices are too high and production is too low. There's an inefficient allocation of resources.
However under marxism, we guarantee there will be no monopoly as the power has already been decentralized to people. People determine how many products they"re going to produce and also the market price.


In this round Pro has raised the issue of income inequality. I would ask Pro: would most people rather enjoy the living standards of the average marxist country (Vietnam, Cuba, China) but with increased equality, or would they rather have the living standards we have in capitalist countries? Would they choose poor and equal over wealthy and unequal? Remember, my opponent is arguing for pure marxism over capitalism.

It seems that the only way Pro can win this debate is to define the word "better" to mean "poor and equal is better than wealthy and unequal". This would shift the debate toward ethics and morality. However it would seem that "better" in this debate has implicitly been defined to mean wealthier. After all, it was Pro that raised the issue of wealth inequality.

Regarding inequality, Pro's source states:

"In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%"

I'm not sure this is relevant. Isn't the goal to increase wealth for all? Simply listing statistics that show there is inequality does nothing for Pro's case. Pro must show how marxism will produce more wealth than capitalism.

Let's look at the statistics in the above quote. Note, these figures came from UC-Santa Barbara Professor G. William Domhoff (1). The first issue with this is Domhoff's definition of wealth:

"economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale" (1)

However, this doesn't take into account marginal utility which is a term economists use to show how much utility (ie value) consumers get out of a good. For example, if you have no money at all, the utility you get from a basic income is very high while the utility you get from a yacht or expensive food is much lower. The former is needed to survive while the later is only nice to have. From this we can see that these wealth comparisons are superficial. The definitions completely ignore basic income, which is where the highest utility comes from! Let's say you earn enough to live comfortably, own a decent house and car, but save very little. According to this study, you are "poor".

Capitalism has shown that it produces such an abundance of wealth that even the poor in the United States can afford those items that provide the highest utility: food, clothing and shelter.

Let's look at a comparison of GDP per capita of three marxist countries compared to the United States (2)

China $7594
Cuba $6848
Vietnam $2052
United States $54,630

My opponent agrees that it is important to be able to "vote with your dollars". But note that, under capitalism, the consumer is king. But who decides how dollars are spent under marxism? It is not the public, but instead, it is an elite few who govern. My opponent claims that "80% of population only can vote on their 7% of wealth to show what they really need" but I would ask these 80% of the population to visit a local grocerer and look at the incredible variety of food available. Are these 80% not getting what they need? I would also like to point out two glaring flaws with Pro's argument: one, dollar-voting concerns consumer products, but the rich don't buy consumer products with real estate, stocks and bonds. In addition to this, let's run some back-of-a-napkin numbers on what millionaires vs non-millionaires in the United States might spend:

It 10 million millionaires in the U.S. spend 100,000 dollars per year, while the remaining approximately 225 million spend on average 20,000, the non-rich actually have more market power than the rich.

My opponent claims that nearly half of Americans cannot get "proper medication". However, economists think free market city-state Singapore is a good model to solve America's health care problems (3). And they blame existing U.S. problems on government intervention (4). I will also note that, if you read my opponents link, it doesn't really back the claim made. But worse, Pro compares the 50% of Americans who can get health care to the 50% who can't. Shouldn't we compare health care in the United States to health care in a marxist country?

Pro next makes the statement:

"My question is simple, How can capitalism solve the problem where demand is high but the production is low, makes the price go higher while this demand is very important to be fullfilled?"

Well, I'd ask Pro how marxism solves this. It seems my opponent is in search of an economic system that solves the problem of scarcity. I've already shown how, by way of supply and demand, that market prices under capitalism allocate scarce resources.

Pro's point #2 seems to claim that an over-abundance of commodities will disrupt the economy and that "They will burn the excess of production to sustain the profit.". This is a complete fabrication. I would ask to Pro to look at the price of oil over the last year, which was the direct result of production increases in the United States. Does my opponent have proof that they are burning this excess? If so, why do prices continue to fall (to the benefit of us all)?

In point #3, my opponent claims marxism will provide free education. However, nothing in life is free, unless Pro will argue that volunteers will build the schools for free and others will donate the materials for free and teachers will work for free.

In point #4, my opponent attempts to address my concerns over the economic calculation problem raised in the last round. However, Pro seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the problem, stating:

"We need to discuss the price, where to produce, how many labours (sic) needed and everything. This method will minimize the risk of overproduction (wasted goods) or less production. The equilibrium price is determined before we produce the goods."

But this is exactly what business people, capitalists and entrepreneurs do every day. They anticipate consumer needs, decide what and where to produce, etc. Why would a small body of "central planners" who do not understand the details of each industry be more effective than millions of individuals who have to prove themselves everyday at this task? Prices are not something that are discussed by a central planner. They form dynamically in the market based on consumer demand, supply and the cost of production.

This issue of economic calculation has not been addressed. Pro has not shown how a central planning board (that supposedly represents everyone) will make billions of price decisions very quickly in order to keep the market going efficiently. Prices can only form based on the voluntary decisions of all consumers - how can central planners know this dynamic information that literally changes in real-time?

My opponent next makes the unusual statement "We do not need dollars as tools to vote.". Huh? Wasn't that point already conceded?

Next my opponent makes a claim that capitalism forms natural monopolies. This is simply a bald statement backed by nothing. Monopolies can only take place with government backing and it is my opponents burden to show otherwise. Monopolies cannot form in a free market because the market clearing price is the price at which profit is maximized. If you try to raise the price, another competitor will underbid you and your sales will fall, along with your profit.

Debate Round No. 3


Thanks con for continuing this debate. However, I do find some missunderstanding about how you look marxism.

1. Living with marxism does not mean we have to be equally poor.
Communism is a state where people have to pass capitalism stage first. It means that marxism is most sutitable for a country that already has been prosperous such as US. Yes I do noted under capitalism has bring us such wealth, but that doesn't mean it is still efficient to hold. To boost up more productivity under capitalism is no longer efficient because the system is holding back people true talent with not providing fair equipment for people to make the market more competititve. Such as educations and basic welfare to the people. Capitalism is also against the democracy because it is naturally providing some elite (the 1% most wealthy people) to dictate the majority needs about what they should consume. This is why we should change the means of ownership from privatism to collective ownership.

How do marxism give prosperity to its people is actually the same with capitalism. That is by industry. A very well organized industry. The difference is only on the ownership of all poduction factors such as machinery and the accumulation of capital needs to be taken domocraticly including counting all labours voices. So let's say the labours want this capital to be spread, they need to be spread.

2. The highest ruler in Marxism is not held by some elite politics. The rulers just doing the role as a controler, meanwhile people are the one who making the rules. I prefer to call such system as dictatorship of the proletariat. It refers to a state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power.

3. The statistic which I given is totally relevant to this case.

"In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%"

As the con said, the goal is to increase wealth for all. This statistic is to show you who posses the this wealth. The wealth is surely is in the hand of some elite, not in the hand of the majorities. So it means the wealth means nothing for most of us.

But maybe the con thinks that capitalism system indeed has given the majorities a little bit of their wealth which brings most people more prosperous than before. Well let's take a look at US history on labour working hours. Because it is a very long story, you might search it on google yourself. The result is astonishing. You can work like this such as maximum 8 working hours per day is a result from from many labour strikes.It is not given just like that by the capitalist. We get it from many strikes.
People demand the wealth from the owner of the capital, for the wealth that is earned by both the owner of the capital and the labours themself.

4. On the the drop of oil price. The company didn't just burn the excess. Usually the company will burn the excess of production of corps. Crop destruction is the deliberate destruction of crops or agricultural products to render it useless for consumption or processing. It can be made by burning, grinding, dumping into water, or application of chemicals. But for oil prices, I Quoted from the NY times website (

"The oil industry, with its history of booms and busts, is in a new downturn.

Earnings are down for companies that have made record profits in recent years, forcing them to decommission more than half their rigs and sharply cut investments in exploration and production. More than 100,000 oil workers have lost their jobs, and manufacturing of drilling and production equipment has fallen sharply."

And also the worst case from america about the down pricing is on 2008 when the house prices is going down yet nobody could afford to buy those cheap houses (

5. Free education
The demand to abolish tuition fees in higher education is in itself entirely legitimate. There are a number of countries in Europe that still do not charge tuition fees, as well as countries that have abolished tuition after their introduction (e.g. Scotland, Ireland, Hungary). Europe also traditionally has higher taxes than the US, which allows those countries to offer additional social services. So this can be done by tax regulation. But remember the regulations are to be taken in a democratic way.

6. Monopoly under capitalism.
Monopoly occurs when the first investment to make the goods is so high that nobody can just enter the market.
Suppose under the real free market where everybody has the same equipment especially in money and technology, yes you are true that it is mostly impossible for monopoly to happen. But how about if the wealth is owned by the 1% and people need a very big investment to create a product? There is no competititon there. This company will form a natural monopoly because no one else can enter the market due to the capital barrier.

7. Medical Healthcare in Singapore.
This can be happen because the government encourage every citizen to have their insurance health care call medisave. Well to be fair insurance is under communal system which brings it closer to marxism and not capitalism. Under capitalism where the government role has to be very little, how come the system give an adequate medical health care? Even Obama see its flaw and created a plan called obama care where there is an insurance system needed. So marxism is used to take care of capitalism flaw


I'll first go thru Pro's points.

1. Pro concedes capitalism brings much wealth and the only explanation for how marxism will do this is:

"How do marxism give prosperity to its people is actually the same with capitalism. That is by industry. A very well organized industry."

Which effectively says nothing.

Pro says capitalism is "holding back peoples true talent". Marx claimed that people will be free to explore whatever work they desire but this is nonsense because a marxist economy is planned by a central body. Pro wants to believe "the people" will be in charge but how can everything be "owned" by everybody? Since an economy is always changing, how does "everyone" participate in billions of business decisions? What if ten people say they want to control a tool-and-die machine that is already being used by others? Who decides who gets to use it? Marx thought we could be more efficient but his ideas would reduce the division of labor, thus decreasing efficiency.

Pro's definition of Marxism is that it's exactly like Capitalism except that ownership is democratic. But democratic ownership is impossible. This is why, in reality, there is a small group in charge. Who planned farm collectivization in the Soviet Union in the 1920's? Soviet collective farms, or Kolkhoz, were force on the farmers starting in 1928. (1). Farmers were told what to do, ultimately by Stalin.

2. Pro claims that the people are in charge under Marxists governments. I've shown this is theoretically impossible, but its also impossible in practice wether it was Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Lenin or any other case.

3. Pro continues to argue that inequality is an issue and implies that marxism will solve this. Pointing out issues with capitalism does not prove some other theory will work better. Pro seems to defend the high production of capitalism and implies that Marxism would have the same high levels of production, but with much less inequality. Again, Pro can't simply claim this into existence. Note that Pro has completely dropped my point from round 3 where I compare GDP outputs of the United States with Marxist based governments.

Next Pro claims that labour strikes are responsible for the 40 hour work week. But what's this to do with Marxism? Labour unions ARE allowed under capitalism. Doesn't Pro need to show that Marxism could provide even shorter work hours? Note that the history of labour and unions in Stalins Soviet Union is one of a struggle for power:

"A resolution entitled About the Party Unity dissolved and banned any factions within the Party under the pretext that intra-Party discussions distract from "solving actual practical problems". This resolution radically shifted the balance in the notion "democratic centralism" from "democratic" to "centralism" and enhanced the groundwork of Joseph Stalin's future dictatorship." (2)

Pro provides no sources for these 40 hour work week claims, but says I should google it myself, which I did. I learned that the idea was born out of the industrial revolution. (3) This makes sense, because reduced working hours were the result of increased productivity of industrialization. Capitalism has raised standards of living, and workers in the early 19th century opted at least partially for reduced hours over increased pay.

4. Here Pro seems to be claiming that its a problem that the oil industry is shutting down oil rigs. This shows that Pro doesn't even understand supply and demand. I'm not even sure what Pro's point is here but I'm assuming it is that 100,000 workers lost their jobs. But this looks ONLY at the workers and ignores the economy as a whole. Oil rigs are being shut down because they are too inefficient to produce oil at these lower oil prices. If they did continue, they will make losses and many losses results in recessions. Yes, it is true, these workers lost their jobs. However, they will be pushed into jobs that are more efficient. This is the market working!

5. Pro again claims that higher education can be "free" but fails to address my prior rebuttal: nothing is free unless teachers work for free and builders build schools for free. All this "free" eduction is payed for by taxation, which came from the productive fruits of others labor.

6. Pro next claims that Capitalism creates natural monopolies but provides no example of this, which is not surprising, because it's a myth.

7. Next Pro attempts to address my use of Singapore as a free market example of health care. Regardless of Singapore, I doubt anyone would use the Marxists countries I've listed as a good examples for health care systems. Pro claims Singapore is a communal system but provides no proof of this. Pro also claims that, since Obamacare was created to address America's health care flaws, that proves that a Marxist system works better. Comparing a capitalist system that has government intervention does not prove this. And here again, government is to blame for much of the current problems. Much could be written on this, but instead I'll briefly talk about one of the only truly free market health facilities in the U.S.:

The surgery center of Oklahoma
This surgery center is one of the only places I know that lists prices publicly, and unlike inflated hospital prices, these are the actual prices you pay. (6). Knee replacement surgery at SCO is $19,400 while the average U.S. price is $49,500 (7). Why the large difference? It's because the price system has been broken by government intervention:

""There's no method to the madness," said lead author Dr. Renee Hsia, an emergency room physician and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. "There's no system at all to determine what is a rational price for this condition or this procedure." (8)

Pro also uses the housing bubble as an example of this issue. But Pro states that even after house prices dropped "nobody could afford to buy those cheap houses " which is both untrue and unhelpful. Pro's own source states:

"But for those who think that the worst is over, Merrill Lynch said that housing prices still remain comparatively high. The brokerage believes that home prices are still far above historical norms when compared to other measures such as rent or GDP." (4)

So home prices were too high but why did this occur? A free market does not produce prices that are "too high". This can only happen with government intervention, which here took the form of softened lending standards and artificially low interest rates.

Pro states

"How do marxism give prosperity to its people is actually the same with capitalism"

This is obviously not true as I've explained thru out this debate. Pro has provided no counter to the economic calculation problem and has failed to defend Marx's labor theory of value. Pro has failed to explain the impossibility of "everyone owning everything" and provided no defense of the failures of current and historic examples of Marxists inspired governments. Instead Pro has tried to simply wish utopian outcomes into existence. If that is a valid way to win this debate, I could simply claim the following: if governments would stop intervening into markets, under capitalism everything would be free.

Economics is the study of the allocation of SCARCE resources and capitalism is the only system that automatically balances supply and demand and allows us all to enjoy high living standards without the horrors seen in places like the Soviet Union. So vote Con!


Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
There seems to be an issue with CR/LF conversion from my mac to the DDO server. If I cut/paste from RTF, I get double-line breaks. If use use TXT, I get what you see in R4 of this debate.

Preview probably showed this, but I likely didn't notice.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
In capitalism you can say ". I am. You are not,(me) "..In marxism you can say ". We are"...The way is probably. "i am. I do. You and i must meet"..Because we are. Or think so....
Posted by treeless 1 year ago
If you can't find an opponent, I will accept the challenge.
Posted by TubOLard 1 year ago
It never ceases to amaze me how the big government advocate doesn't trust the decision making of people until those people are government bureaucrats.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is arguing that a concept of theoretical Marxism is better than actual capitalism, where the data from the only existing approximations to Marxism shows it to be a failure. That gives Pro an enormous mountain to climb, because without any empirical support its arguing fantasy versus reality. Con's arguments that Marxism depends on the labor theory of value and that the labor theory is false where not adequately addressed by Pro. Con should have at minimum countered Con's example of working without pay being as valuable. Pro never gave a reason why central planners could decide what is beneficial better than individuals. I don't think Pro got Con's point that riches tied up in investments are not the same as consumption; yes, the rich are more secure, but they are not determining the consumer economy. Con was ahead on S&G until the last round where something went wrong. It ended a tie. Con's sources were more on point and realistic.