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

Socialism is the way forward

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: 10/24/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 503 times Debate No: 63871
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance only. DO NOT post arguments in round one.

The debate will start in round two.


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate with you I won't put an argument here until round two correct?
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the challenge.

Let me start by talking a little about socialism. Socialism states that it aims to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. In order to do this, all the assets are to be controlled by the State.

This system of running an economy is, in theory, a perfect ideology. But it is merely an ideology. Socialism stresses on equality. This is morally right. But in the long run, it is a flawed concept that will not be able to sustain itself.

Socialism hampers productivity of the country in various ways.

Under the concept of socialism, a manufacturer can only produce what the state thunks is necessary for the economy. Production takes place on the basis of "necessity" rather than the "purchasing power". As a result, manufacturers tend to be restricted in their production by the State. They cannot expand production unless the state approves it. This leads to a loss of potential production capacity as well as loss of a potentially large consumer base. Expanding internationally is also quite a big problem. Foreign market players also find it difficult to enter such markets. Socialism also tends to tax the rich more heavily than the poor. This too, has its own adverse affects.

Lets see how in today's economic environment, socialism will fail to achieve its goals.

The market has become extremely competitive. Keeping this in mind, we can clearly understand that any country that restricts it's production is inevitably smashing a hammer on its own foot. Restriction of production has two significant impacts:
1. It results in a fall in GDP. A fall in GDP can further lead to inflation or even worse economic indices like 'Stagflation' (as seen in India currently).
2. It deprives the country of an exposure to foreign markets. This will lead to a loss of exports for the country. It was also result in the country losing out on valuable Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Foreign Institutional Investment (FII).

These will take the economy into a dangerous zone and can lead to devaluation of currency and loss of investor confidence.

When the market gets restricted due to socialist policies, foreign companies find it near impossible to enter the market. This causes severe problems within the country. The local manufacturers, seeing the absence of foreign competition tend to take it for granted that people will buy their products. This leads to the production of substandard products which is again harmful for the economy.

Taxing the rich more heavily than the poor has its own drawbacks. When we tax the rich more than the poor, they lose incentive to earn more and make bigger profits. Even if they make profits, they will hide it illegally through window dressing in order to save on tax leading to a loss in Revenue Receipts for the government. This tax is a valuable source of income for the government. Failure to collect this tax can lead to problems like a Fiscal Deficit.

Thus in a competitive environment, the ideals of socialism stand strong in principle but not in practice. Socialism cannot help any country today.The only way a country can grow economically is by adopting a more liberal and industry friendly economic ideology.


I understand what you are trying to say here, and yes I believe this Eco system is harmful but, what would you propose we do you have plans for how much money will be involved how manny small business or bigs ones we have to risk. Manny people rely on this type of system. Now I understand that the government taxation may be abused and people get greedy but do you think people will change they greed if we were to change the system there will be loop holes people will find ways. We can't find the prefect system. But I don't totally disagree with you maybe trying out a system maybe the way to go but i feel like it's to risky.

Yes people are losing jobs as we speak and some aren't getting employed yes right now there are people who are in debt for no reason, there are so manny problems with the government and other things that changing system won't be good enough were so far into the system. Think about it if we were to change the system like yours the liberal and industry friendly economic ideology. What plans would you have? It can be about any problem that you think should be changed.
Debate Round No. 2


The problems that you speak off will continue and probably worsen if we were to implement a system like socialism in today's world.

If the production in a country is being restricted, there will be a fall in the requirement of jobs. People will further become unemployed leading to rise in unemployment rates.
As far as debt goes, those in debt will stay in debt. Socialism only 'AIMS' to provide equality. In practice however, it is near impossible to carry out equitable distribution of wealth.

Socialism is an ideal system only in theory. In practice it is a flawed case. Look at the former USSR. One of the main reasons for the collapse of the USSR was the flawed policy of extreme socialism that it followed. Had it been a more liberal economy like the USA at that time, it would have probably survived.

I agree with you when you say that there is no perfect system, but socialism cannot be considered as the way forward.


Everyone knows the way we are headed is indeed a dark and heavy burden road, but changing the system is even more darker. There are just to manny people living off the system and we in to far I'm sorry but changing the system at this point is no used it would end up as a viscous cycle. Liberal and industry friendly economic ideology is in fact more risky then the system we have today I promise you crime rate will go up people will become more greedy and take advantage of the new "free" ways. This system that you propose can not be done, if we were to do this we would have to trust the people and the people only. There would be no government and we have to rely on eachother but can we really trust the people? Yes there are good people out there but we'd just end up right were we start if we tried this. A group of the people will have all of the money and there will be a poverty line once again. The idea is great just if only people obeyed the law and were trust worthy. But in these dark times no one trusts anyone. I wish there was a perfect system but there just isn't I've been trying to think of one but everytime I do i end up at square one. So to sum it up if we were to try this system we must trust people which there are just to manny corrupted people that it just won't work. But great system idea!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 1 year ago
Do forgive the inconsistent capitalization on my RFD, I neglected to review the comment as my laptop battery was dying.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 1 year ago
The problem with arguments against socialism by economic liberals (what the United States insist on calling conservatives) is that they tend to entirely miss the point. Socialism is a reactionary system which seeks to answer to but ultimately deepens the ills of capitalism.

Con complains that planned economies will reduce GDP and deprive the country of foreign markets. This argument is compelling, but would be stronger if he adressed the issue of the Chinese economy, which while not as closed as the Soviet Unions is unquestionably a planned economy. He goes on to mention the devaluation of currency (which need not happen) and the loss of investor confidence (which is a moot point as investors operate in a capitalistic system, not in a socialist scheme). He then seems to equate higher taxes on the rich with socialism, which leads to a completely sidetracked debate as Pro, who seems to hate punctuation, latches on to it.

The final round of the debate simply goes back to previous themes after a cursory rebuttal to Pro's barely legible non-argument. Pro responds by typing in circles and making such baseless claims as that the crime rate would go up (it very well may, but explaining yourself may make it more believable).

All in all this was a disappointing debate. I particularly cringe at such unnecessary caveats as "in today's world" following claims that socialism has an effect on the GDP and the providing of incentives which does not depend on today's world but rather on the very theory that he then turns around and praises in principle. Con was lucky that his opponent was so incompetent, otherwise he would be hard-pressed to defend such an inconsistent argument.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Like naziism was the way forward with Hilter. And communism was the way forward with Stalin.Dust off the firing squad posts.Thats how these isms always end if brought full circle.Freedom never ends that way.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.