Socialism is a morally superior economic system than Capitalism (Yes\Pro)
Debate Rounds (3)
My opening argument: Socialism as a concept enforces the ideas of the French Revolution. These ideas of Liberty, Equality, and Camaraderie have become major influences in shaping modern views of government and economy. Capitalism, by tying the value of the person to what they are able to produce, and setting these "numbers" against each other, violate all of these tenets. Moreso, if you can find moral justification from Leviathan (By Thomas Hobbs), you find that as nothing is morally wrong with murder in order to perpetuate ones existence, then Socalisim, by offering an alternative to this "dog eat dog" world, has the moral high ground.
I will however, continue on my points. Capitalism, in it's "competition", enables there to be such inequality that classes begin to supersede each other. The point is this, if you love democracy (which I am assuming my opponent to find the most morally acceptable), you can not love capitalism, because the two are incompatible. On this I will explain. In a completely free market, those with the favorable talents will quickly rise to the top of the market. Whereas in a feudal society, it was land that gave men power, in the capitalistic, its money. The land gave the kings and lords their dominion over the serfs much like money does in capitalism. The money buys the loyalty of lobbyists to protect private interests much in the way the knight was bought with land to protect feudal interests. This disenfranchises those without the preferred talents that are not at the top, and puts them to the point where they are nothing more than serfs in a society proclaiming their freedom. So IF democracy is the most moral of government types, (Due to the EQUALITY of people in the ability to decide their fate), then Socialism is preferable to capitalism as it avoids the class problem. (And yes, there is such a thing as social democracy. Do not compare the failed Soviet States to the modern theory of Socialism. I will not stoop to replying.)
People may not be equal, yet many (Even conservatives) agree people are deserving some basis of living. Socalisim as a concept has been introduced into every free market in the world for the sole point that capitalism offends the moral sensibilities enough that in its undiluted form is incapable of persistence. From the New Deal in the US to English Labour Laws, no society has been untouched by socialism because of its moral impact. All of this has happened because people have an aversion to seeing inequality. The reason no society exists with serfdom today is because people hate being serfs. There won't ever be a society that is purely liberal because the disenfranchised will not permit such a society to continue. They will rebel, and when they do, there is no moral problem. When a hungry man steals food to keep himself alive, he hasn't done anything wrong. You can't condemn survival.
I completely agree that no country has ever been untouched by socialism but I believe that to much socialism just disenfranchises the people who do work hard.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued morality well. The con was too focus on productivity/work ethic arguments, which were not the focus of the debate. Socialism is about valuing the society and its individuals, while capitalism is about production and wealth. From a moral standpoint, valuing humans over the economy wins.
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.