The Instigator
Kefka
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
cweeks9109
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Socialism creates a more prosperous state than does 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,767 times Debate No: 11681
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Kefka

Pro

Socialism creates a more prosperous state than does Capitalism.

Now...
--------
Prosperous - http://www.merriam-webster.com...

While Socialism is a tentative term, I will define it as an economic theory that grants the public control of the means of production. This system allows for the greatest productivity of general wealth without severe class conflict between those who control capital, and those who work under the former. And this is where our two economic theories find themselves in a Mexican standoff.
--------
Capitalism is driven by self-interest. Feeding off of the idea that life is completely controlled by a desire to attain more and be more, it's assumed that with this in mind, we will strive greater than we would when driven by the desire for greater good. The idea is to produce the greatest amount of wealth and satisfaction, so if one bears the most fruit when predominately looking out for their own success, this will beget that goal. Essentially, if everyone follows this path, every individual will epitomize productivity and in turn, possibly inadvertently, create the greatest common good; this would flow logically if not for two major impediments: competition and class conflict.

Competition - It's often theorized that competition brings out the best in us, consequently bringing out the best in our efforts. In a free market run by supply and demand, quality in high demand and low supply, or quantity high in demand low in supply usually triumphs. And for one to triumph in a system another must come out less fortunate; one may argue it is only inevitable that some will succeed while others fail, but at what cost will we continue to disallow ourselves to break this cycle? The greatest of quality should be available to the public, but when competition becomes the fulcrum of maintaining that state (Since in a free-market, government has little to no regulation rights), monopolization and stratification breeds. A more fair and sincere system exists.

Class conflict – Living in a Capitalist society, a man dreams of a radical, yet tasty and healthy new cheese. He sets his sights on the horizons and begins preparing to sow the fields of his future company. But this dream cannot materialize by his efforts alone; he will need to hire workers who can work the factories to produce his new cheese in the commercialist country of Nacirema. From this point a tension will develop; if this company succeeds, who should be most greatly credited with the fruit it bears? For whatever reason a worker decides to subject him or herself to subordination is inconsequential; they are now part of this company that must work cohesively to survive in a highly competitive economic environment. But what motivation does the worker have to stay with the company? He/she has the desire to flourish along with the product he helps create. However, again, who should be merited, and to what extent? Well, the original bearer of the idea should be most greatly rewarded since he was the first seed, correct? Not necessarily. It's impossible to perfectly measure effort and reciprocate accordingly. But we must look at the situation from the outside; the "owner" may have started it, but how would the awesome cheese company have come to fruition without the help of that one worker, or the many more that would be needed?
----------
Now we tie together the problems of Capitalism and attempt to mend them with Socialism. As stated before, Socialism's definition is tentative and argued within the socialist community, but a suitable framework to begin with is that it grants the public (Government, but in essence, the government IS the people) control of the means of production and the allocation of resources. Why should it be like this? Communist arguments aside, it will eliminate the past impediments of Capitalism and pave the way for a more equal and fruitful state.

"From each according to their ability and to each according to the need." – Karl Marx
From each according to their ability – Without the necessity to adapt to an economic environment of competition, people are able to pursue their true interests. If the painter needs not to worry about lacking the sufficient funds for survival, why should he or she have to enter a field that does not interest them, but will pay the bills? And now we can use the same argument Capitalism implements to fuel its entire system: self-interest. A painter will be paint until no tomorrow if it's what they DESIRE to do, and they will do so with the greatest quality, because it is their passion; whether this is by pride or pure enjoyment of others appreciating their work, the same end is met.

To each according to their need – "Need" is the main qualifier of this theory. "Well having what you need is nice, but also having what you WANT makes life worthwhile" – Yes, and Socialism doesn't impede any of this – unless what you WANT involves squashing others and feeding your egotism. Actually, if that's what you want, go play a sport, but leave the prosperity of others out of it. Though, once a fully aware society would accept Socialism, it's not unreasonable to expect the ego of most would be self-tamed by education. What Marx meant by "need" was not that only the bare minimum should be given to prevent famine and disease, but to simply ensure that point of disaster was never reached. Socialist theory depends on the idea of surplus value. With a large population, most able to work with various skills and modern technology, a surplus will ensue. What is done with this surplus would be decided by the government – but again, the government represents the people, and more directly IS the people, as democracy can perfectly coincide with Socialism. So with everyone's needs covered, where do those trivial pleasures that make life gratifying fit in? Surprise, surprise, the"government" doesn't directly control EVERYTHING. Marx made sure Socialism only concerned itself with what we NEED; he left the rest for us to have fun with. Video games, television shows, every little thing that prevents us from dying of dullness, is unhindered. Again, the level of greed involved with these frivolous (or sometimes not) commodities might diminish in a society that would allow Socialism to bloom – but there is nothing about Socialism that strikes at the Achilles' heel of people's desires for satisfaction in our short but exciting lives.
cweeks9109

Con

I would l to thank my opponent for opening this debate.

I will not attempt to paint vided pictures of a perfect world that my opponent has. While they have a valid argument that people will have the ability to pursue what makes them happier because they wouldn't't have to worry about feeding their families.

The problem with this logic is that what happens to the people who make the money that feeds there families? If the painter loves to paint but he/she cant sell any of there paintings then what about the people who earn money. What about the people who went to college for eight years to be a doctor and yet they get no further than the adult who lives in a government house and waits for his or her check to come in the mail. Professional jobs will move to other countries where they promote competition and growth. If there is no trophy at the end of the marathon then why run it? To know you won or to have had the enjoyment of running it? Well when you get to the end of the finish line it would suck to see other people got exactly what you did but they drove to the finish line.

In a socialist economy there is little reason to expand, what incentives for business to expand and grow in an economy is there if, at the end of the day there profits return to all the people instead of the people who earned them. If businesses have little or no reason to grow then how will that sustain an economy? How will that pay for the painters who can not sell there paintings? Do not confuse me for an elitist who does not care for the person who does what he loves. I am simply saying that if there is a socialist economy then the painter will be worse off because he will have promises of equal ownership, but if what everyone owns is worthless then it doesn't matter how many people own it.
Assume for a moment that the economy actually survives for a few years. What happens when there is an economic down turn? This is destine to happen regardless if it is a capitalist economy or a socialist one. How then would this state sustain it's self. What happens when unemployment rises, the government has more money to pay to people with less coming in. This would be deficient spending. The value of this states currency would start to fall. Other countries would start to pull there investments because they would be loosing money quickly. That would just result in the loss of more jobs and now there is more mouths to feed. The doctors will now have more work to do because a unemployed and sick nation is much more likely to get sick. Yet they wont get paid any more for there efforts. It will be considered for the greater good. This is a very negative scenario that could happen to a socialist economy. In a capitalist economy you could reduce taxes in order to increase spending thus creating more jobs.

I will not argue that a capitalist economy is not the fairest in the world; but a capitalist economy with social programs would work better to sustain a better quality of life for all rich and poor.

My opponent says that by having a free market monopoly's with rise up become the more sinister side to capitalism. With a free market the companies that do the best at there job will be rewarded with the most business. If what my opponent is saying is true then I would ask why hasn't this happened yet? Has the country I live in right now not been practicing capitalism for over 200 year? I still have plenty of choices to purchase my good from weather it be cars or canned soup. If a monopoly rises here in America and starts over pricing its products and hurting the American people would another company of the same product not come forth from another nation just to take over the market? By over pricing your goods you open your doors to be under priced. In many cases the exact opposite of what my opponent proposes would happen, happens; because of free market and competition prices are reduced because consumers who purchase the same product will want to pay the least amount of money for it. So if there is two companies that make socks and company A can sell them for less, company B is thinking of new ideas in order to maker there product either better than A's or cheaper to make. That is part of a heathly economy.

The problem with the people running the government is that the people are not that smart. Most people do not know how to run a country. Without an elected group of individuals who have the intelligence and know how to run a country then it can not with stand the test of time. Many states that exist today are terrible inefficient and there is only a handful of the population controlling them. What if everyone had a direct say in the conversation? Would anything ever get done? This website can attest to this in America we debate just for fun, how much more debate would take place if everyone took a seat at the decision table? Instead of having progress to further your state you will be constantly disagreeing about only a few issues at the table. If a government is spread to thin than it weakens its power to were it can not accomplish its own goals.
Debate Round No. 1
Kefka

Pro

Thank you to my friend Mr. Weeks for partaking in this debate of epic awesomeness.

Now….
-------
"What about the people who went to college for eight years to be a doctor and yet they get no further than the adult who lives in a government house and waits for his or her check to come in the mail"

- Where in Socialist theory does it advocate someone just sitting at home doing nothing? There are still laws to prevent people from taking advantage of the system. How efficient would a system be if it allowed behavior like this? Furthermore, it is entirely the individual's choice to major pre-med and continue on to medical school. There would be no monetary incentive for him or her, as we know income would be dispersed equally, unless a sickly person "needs" more than the healthy doctor. People should pursue what interests their soul, not what interests their pockets.
---------
"Professional jobs will move to other countries where they promote competition and growth. If there is no trophy at the end of the marathon then why run it? To know you won or to have had the enjoyment of running it? Well when you get to the end of the finish line it would suck to see other people got exactly what you did but they drove to the finish line."

-I've already addressed competition, and as for growth, what's stopping someone wanting to improve their product/service for simply that purpose? Intrinsic incentives are far more valuable than material incentive; the former is actually attainable. "Possessions" only stay with us for so long, but with time we will lose it. Nothing but what we learn belongs to us. Physical objects may comfort us temporarily, but when do we learn HOW to live with them, with others, or with ourselves? (Hippy rants are fun)
-------
" I am simply saying that if there is a socialist economy then the painter will be worse off because he will have promises of equal ownership, but if what everyone owns is worthless then it doesn't matter how many people own it."

-This is basically an argument for supply and demand. If there is a scarcity and high demand, it's worth more. If there is abundance, it's simply common and cheap. Therefore, land owned by all is "worthless," since it's not special or doesn't have a mall built on top of it.
-------
"What happens when there is an economic down turn? This is destined to happen regardless if it is a capitalist economy or a socialist one. How then would this state sustain itself?"

-As stated before, with the allocation of resources controlled to prevent a small demographic from hoarding it all, a surplus would be expected. From this surplus we can disperse the necessary funds/resources to a plan for re-growth. Or with a Socialist system set in, taxes can be set up as a safety net for situations like economic failure or unemployment rates.

Ex: In Denmark, the minimum tax rate for adults is 42% and scales to over 60%. A progressive tax system ensures those who make more, pay more in taxes. Not exactly Socialism, since their market is a "mixed market" (A combination of Capitalism and Socialism. And according to Forbes magazine, Denmark has the greatest economic climate in the world), but this shows the benefits of having a controlled wage. Health care is completely free and when one enters college, THEY get paid. But even greater "proof" of Denmark's prosperity is their general level of "happiness." It is consistently rated the "happiest place in the world, based on standards of health, welfare, and education." So……..yeah.

-http://en.wikipedia.org...

------
"My opponent says that by having a free market monopoly's with rise up become the more sinister side to capitalism. With a free market the companies that do the best at their job will be rewarded with the most business. If what my opponent is saying is true then I would ask why this hasn't happened yet. Has the country I live in right now not been practicing capitalism for over 200 year?"
-Well, I'm not sure how it "hasn't happened" yet. But first, I must declare something: we are not capitalist. We are a hodgepodge of socialist education policies and a capitalist free-market with government restrictions (hence defeating Laissez Faire). So no, you've been living in a socioeconomic jizz-pool.

To address the apparent non-existence of monopolization-------> "If a monopoly rises here in America and starts over pricing its products and hurting the American people would another company of the same product not come forth from another nation just to take over the market."

-What if the population is sandwiched by two sinister buns? One is the law demanding you have auto insurance; the other is the "competition" between auto insurance companies. This nasty combination sullies the people with capitalist and socialist policies. Citizens think they have a choice, but really it's a restricted choice of which company you want to rape you less. Now, the argument could be rebounded towards complete Socialism requiring you pay only one source, the government. But the latter situation was reached by choice and with the greater interest of the population in mind, while the former was formed by the interest of a company executive board that dictates their prices independently and through their finagling with interest groups lobbying Congress.
------
"The problem with the people running the government is that the people are not that smart. Most people do not know how to run a country."

-I would agree with you for the most part. Though I would hope, as I've said, that when a true socialist state is created, the general population would have gained a little more wisdom. But I'm slightly confused by my opponent's continued argument about the necessity for those to be "elected" to help run things a little more smoothly – Socialism and Democracy can run along the beach together quite fine, hand holding and everything.

"What if everyone had a direct say in the conversation? Would anything ever get done? This website can attest to this in America we debate just for fun, how much more debate would take place if everyone took a seat at the decision table? "

-I would argue that debate is tremendously more important at the decision table than "for fun." The Socratic method of inquiry and argumentation is a beautiful method for political and everyday life troubles. We should constantly question EVERYTHING that we believe and the reasons we believe them. Our ideas need to be like snake skin and shed regularly. Consequently, I find it immensely necessary that every person possible include themselves in politics on either a local or national level, whether their say is heard by millions or one person. Much more than expected is accomplished when the general population is always learning.
cweeks9109

Con

cweeks9109 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Kefka

Pro

Kefka forfeited this round.
cweeks9109

Con

cweeks9109 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Kefka

Pro

It seems my opponent has forfeited this debate, and I will question him in person as to why. :D

I extend all of my arguments. /Kefka laugh.
cweeks9109

Con

cweeks9109 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Batmon 6 years ago
Batmon
Kefkacweeks9109Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kefka 6 years ago
Kefka
Kefkacweeks9109Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40