The Instigator
JackHex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
pattywyatt31
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Socialism Doesn't work

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: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 319 times Debate No: 95879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

JackHex

Pro

Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Is by nature flawed and will never work. Socialism should not be looked at as a realistic political movement.
pattywyatt31

Con

Thank you for defining socialism and when using socialism for the rest of the debate we will be referring to the definition you stated. So for the scope of this argument, is the argument about socialism in general or is there a more specific example? Like a specific country during a certain period of time?
When you say "is by nature", what do you mean by that? Are you saying that in nature major industries are not owned by the government? Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by it "will never work"? How does it not work? Additionally, when one says it "will never work", does this mean that socialism can never ever be an option? Even for cases when the government could start up a major industry such as a food plantation that would help feed it's people, when there are no individuals or companies to do so?
Socialism can be a realistic political movement. For countries where the majority of people are poor, it is difficult for individuals to have enough money to start up a company that could benefit society. Whereas the government may be able to start up major industries when individuals cannot.
Debate Round No. 1
JackHex

Pro

This will be about socialism as a whole.

Debunk:When you say "is by nature", what do you mean by that?
What I mean by that is simple. Humans by nature are incapable of working for a common good, as they will always put their needs first.
Socialism can be a realistic political movement. For countries where the majority of people are poor, it is difficult for individuals to have enough money to start up a company that could benefit society: For that we would need to be sure that the government is not corrupt and it's actually capable of making it all run smoothly. Inherently not everyone in the government will work for the better of society but instead filling their own pockets. For socialism to work we would need everyone in the government to be uncorrupted which we all know it's not possible. Example of how wrong socialism can become you only need to look at Venezuela, a country suffering for the so called socialism.
http://www.frontpagemag.com... Chavez called it: Revolutionary Socialism, different name same thing.
And most of the time countries where the majority are poor the governments can't afford to just start setting up this industries. That is why international inversion in those countries is needed. The government has too much to work in and can't actually give themselves the luxury of doing it themselves. Example of this is Latin America where most countries need foreign investors or they will enter a crisis. Governments can't industrialize by themselves in those situation.

Socialism is simply an utopia as communism and before you argue I am whipping the Communist argument Lenin did say I find quiet interesting. "The goal of socialism is communism."
pattywyatt31

Con

You make some great points and I am enjoying debating this with you.
Could you include the resource, research, or link that says that by nature all humans are incapable of working for a common good?
So although one stated in round one that socialism "will never work" and "should not be looked at as a realistic political movement". Would one be willing to say that socialism can be a realistic political movement and could work, but only if the people within the government are not corrupt and capable? Also, why would everyone have to be uncorrupt? What if the majority were capable and uncorrupt? (corrupt meaning cause to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain)
Would one agree that the definition of communism is advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs? And based on the definition in round one socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. In this case then I would agree that socialism can easily become communism. Just for clarification, is one saying that socialism will not work because it is the same as communism?
Even though a government might not be able to industrialize by themselves in situations such as Latin America, they do have more power than the common folk to attempt and receive help to allow them to industrialize. So in order for socialism to work for countries, such as Latin America, they will have to reach out for help. Although Socialism might not be realistic for a permanent plan, it can be realistic for a temporary fix. It can help get countries back on their feet, by providing food and jobs in places that are unable to. Eventually, it is possible for a new political movement. Thus, Socialism is a realistic political movement.
Debate Round No. 2
JackHex

Pro

I sincerely apologize for my late response but I had things to do.

Now to my answer:

History has proved that humanity for one reason or another doesn't work well together. We have a problem seeing the bigger picture.

"Would one be willing to say that socialism can be a realistic political movement and could work, but only if the people within the government are not corrupt and capable?" For me it's hard to believe that can happen but if it does, it is probable it will work for sometime. After all governments change and people are changed, it won't be always that ideal way. I find that it is too volatile to actually be seen as a good idea.

"Would one agree that the definition of communism is advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs? And based on the definition in round one socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. In this case then I would agree that socialism can easily become communism. Just for clarification, is one saying that socialism will not work because it is the same as communism?"

Well while I didn't exactly mean that I find that to be a rather interesting point. No socialism has enough differences to not be communism, but I do see it as "a means to an end." And in my view of the world I believe people will do a better job than people inside the government. If you could tell me some countries where socialism has fully worked. After looking through Wikipedia I found a few examples where socialism failed. And here is one of the socialist countries that still exists.

Laos (80% of population works in agriculture, one of the lowest annual incomes of any country in the world. 1/3 earn below $1.25 per day)

Former Non Marxist-Leninist Socialist Countries
Algeria (1963-1989)
Burma (1962-1988)
Cape Verde (1975-1992)
Egypt (1958-2007)
Iraq (1968-2003)
Libya (1969-2011)
Madagascar (1975-1992)
Sudan (1973-1985)
Syria (1963-2012)

I see a trend here where it might work at first but ultimately it's doomed to failed.

"Even though a government might not be able to industrialize by themselves in situations such as Latin America, they do have more power than the common folk to attempt and receive help to allow them to industrialize. So in order for socialism to work for countries, such as Latin America, they will have to reach out for help. Although Socialism might not be realistic for a permanent plan, it can be realistic for a temporary fix. It can help get countries back on their feet, by providing food and jobs in places that are unable to. Eventually, it is possible for a new political movement. Thus, Socialism is a realistic political movement."
That's the problem of socialism, it's not permanent. You can't put something temporarily and hope it holds till the country can get back on it's feet. Because as history shows it won't hold together long enough. That hope is the picture of wishful thinking.
Wishful Thinking:the attribution of reality to what one wishes to be true or the tenuous justification of what one wants to believe. You can't justify it as a realist movement if it relies so much in variables that mostly aren't in your favor. And lets be honest Venezuela showed us what happens when the variables are wrong.
Instead of giving all the power to the government I believe that if you want to create jobs and help people you should give the small businesses grants. Let them work hard to make something great. After all most international companies started from nothing.

So in my closing thoughts, something that's temporal and in need of such strict circumstances cannot be seen as a realistic political movement. And I will leave this as article as one of the reasons I believe socialism doesn't work. https://fee.org...
pattywyatt31

Con

Now one says, "History has proved that humanity for one reason or another doesn't work well together." however, there are 7 billion people on this earth right now and about 160 billion before those who live today, and there are many records of humans that have worked together and were successful and many records of humans working together and not being successful. There are just too many people on this earth to declare that they don't work well together.
Socialism might not be the solution to every country but it should still be looked at as a realistic political movement. Even if it might not work best as a permanent option, it still can be a possibility. Also when one says "fully worked", what does this mean? The phrase "fully worked" can mean many different things to different people, to me, it means to achieve a purpose or result". In this case, then China has used socialism as a political movement and it worked.
One says, "Because as history shows it won't hold together long enough.", could one share the research behind this statement? History is very complex and has contradicted things many times. Once again, with 160 billion people in history, it is impossible to find something that hasn't happened.
One says, "something that's temporal" however, temporary (temporal) can be a very relative term, and in the oxford dictionary it means, "lasting for only a limited period of time." After all there are many political movements that only last for a limited period of time. For example, the ancient Roman empire was a mixture of democracy and oligarchy, however this lasted for 500 years before collapsing. Nearly every political movement can be seen as temporary depending on the amount of time one is looking at.
Thank you for taking the time to debate this with me and I am happy to read the article you shared. You made some very interesting points and I will keep them in mind when thinking about this topic.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 4 months ago
PowerPikachu21
I hope JackHex didn't leave the site. I still have a debate with him!
Posted by BackCommander 4 months ago
BackCommander
@KadeDaBabe, by your logic look at the houses of the leaders of Communist and Socialist nations, they make the houses of american politicians look like cardboard boxes covered in taco bell mild sauce that has congealed into a thick and moldy paste-like substance. My point is, Socialism doesn't allow people to starve on the streets or refuse to perform medical operations due to lack of insurance.
Posted by KadeDaBabe 4 months ago
KadeDaBabe
Socialism doesn't work and it is a terrible idea. There is a lot of proof and it just ruins countries. You look at pictures of there hospitals, houses, and work buildings and there a wreck. Then you look at the politicians houses and there beautiful and luxurious. Socialism may look good with all the "equality" and "free" stuff, but it's not. Vote for Trump!
Posted by BackCommander 4 months ago
BackCommander
Not meaning to offend, even though my use of the word garbage seems to indicate otherwise.
Posted by BackCommander 4 months ago
BackCommander
Socialism: 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.

Even if for some reason someone decides to debate you, your definition is garbage.
No votes have been placed for this debate.