The Instigator
Samuel60
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheDebateMaster1
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
TheDebateMaster1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 745 times Debate No: 59981
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Samuel60

Pro

As pro I will be arguing that socialism is better than capitalism. Con will be arguing that capitalism is better than socialism. You may use various reasons why one is better than the other. For instance, social, political or economical issues.

1st round: acceptance
2nd round: argument
3rd round: rebuttals
4th round: conclusion/summary
TheDebateMaster1

Con

I accept the challenge. As con and being a capitalist myself I will argue why capitalism is better then socialism. I am excited for the debate to begin
Debate Round No. 1
Samuel60

Pro

-I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope both of us finish this debate as winners.

Definition:

Socialism: According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary Socialism is " any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Socialism could also mean "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property."

Socialism could also be defined as "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state."

[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Capitalism: According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary Capitalism is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

[2]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Arguments:

I won't necessarily say that capitalism is weaker than socialism. No, what I am trying to say is that if the United States gains good socialism (not a Marxist type) than we could live much better and freer.

Capitalism is not a political system:

According to Jude: "The distinction is extremely important, for it frees supporters of capitalism from having to defend it as a caring or compassionate institution, which it is not. It is coldly mechanical (3)."

People who support the market consider capitalism to be a political system. Well, capitalism is not a political system; it is more of an economical one. Jude says, "What must any system accomplish? At the core, it must provide a method by which its smallest constituent unit, a household, can save the surplus of its day’s work for the day when it cannot work (3)."

Capitalism does not help society by giving away their money. Even if it does, Capitalism will not be enough to rebuild a town after a cataclysm or support and scientific research. Yes, Capitalism does that, but it does not support the whole unit. Capitalism puts money at risk. And when we deal with money, their will always be thievery.

[3]: http://www.forbes.com...

Socialism is much more sensitive towards wealth and civil wealth equality (don't know how else to put it):

With socialism it will be possible to raise the minimal wage and provide a better health-care system; it will always be about sharing and supporting each other. Jude says,"a breakdown in the system of financial intermediation — the ability of the market to finance the exchange of relatively simple tasks, because of the risks attached to a floating currency and almost confiscatory taxation of capital (3)."

[3]: http://www.forbes.com...

Capitalism is all about power while Socialism is all about personal and public freedom:

Jude once described, "Capitalism did not fail in the Great Depression because profit was burdened with social concerns. It failed because the capitalist ruling class saw an opportunity to increase its profits by an increase in the protective tariff— using its political muscle to push Smoot-Hawley through the Republican Congress and persuade President Hoover to sign the legislation. This was a blatant intervention in the market, not for the usual purpose of increasing government revenues, but to engineer a social outcome desired by Big Business (3)."

It has been proved that Wall Street is the main problem in the market. Money is continuously rising and falling, and the people who lose it are middle class family investors.






TheDebateMaster1

Con

Definition:

Socialism is according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary " any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Socialism could also mean "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property."

Socialism could also be defined as "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state."

"a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Capitalism is "according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary Capitalism is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

[2]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Arguments:

While Capitalism isn't the perfect system either and has flaws, that socialism has more flaws and will always fail to achieve it's ideal

Prices:

Mark. J Perry wrote an article in Freeman and wrote about how socialism fails since, "the only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed(3)." This example shows how when a government tries to control the gas pipes of a nation and make them artificially low which is the ideal behind socialism.

If it were a capitalist system on the other hand, then "the information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.(3)" This happened for example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s.

This show that even though the ideal of letting everyone have it is good, in practice it never works.

[3]: http://www.fee.org...

Profits and Losses:

"A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.(3)"The profit system and incentives, are the whole ideal behind free-market and capitalism. Incentives and the profit system are of the utmost importance in capitalism, but don't exist in socialism. as said later.

"Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated. Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery(3). " So instead of getting better by competitiveness, incentives and the profit system, because of it's ideology to have nothing to do with the free market, economy grinds to a halt, businesses collapse and socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

So because they deny incentives the whole economy crashes.

[3]: http://www.fee.org...

Private Property Rights:

Another horrible flaw with socialism is the cornerstone of socialism itself. The 'Tragedy of the commons.' The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource. This will always happen, because it's in human nature, as "When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement(3)." Since socialism is by definition a system whose ideology is “common ownership of the means of production,". the failure and stagnation of the economy can be traced back to it's ideology.

[3]: http://www.fee.org...

So by it's own ideology, socialism is flawed and even though it sounds nice will never work in practice, as was proved multiple times in history, because of human corruption.





Debate Round No. 2
Samuel60

Pro

-Thank you for such a well written, organized response.

Furthermore:

You may have noticed this before, in fact, it is quite conspicuous that people are rebelling against this economical/corporate system that we describe as Capitalism.

My opponent states that Capitalism has more flaws than Socialism. Well, there is no way to disagree with the current system. The house itself prefers Capitalism over Socialism. Well, it is obvious, Capitalism does profit the government, but it does not reduce poverty rates, support tariffs, increase the job market, etc. etc. you are living in an illusion.

The phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is true. People who are able to live under Capitalism are only the rich, they use the middle class to complete all their hard work. Capitalism in my opinion is unjustly.

Imagine a pie which is divided. Now, you may start thinking that the pie is meant for everyone. No, you have this illusion that you have a freedom of choice, you don't. The people who are able to take a piece of this pie are the people who run corporations. Their is a place for every corporation. To decipher this metaphorically, every corporation owns something, and profits off it much greatly than small business. Corporations abolish the opting for you to create a business.

Quote:

"... Corporations are a special breed of people, motivated solely by self-interest. Corporations seek to maximize return on capital by leveraging productivity and paying the least possible amount for taxes and labor. Corporate executives pledge allegiance to their directors and shareholders. The dominant corporate perspective is short term, the current financial quarter, and the dominant corporate ethic is greed, doing whatever it takes to maximize profit (1)."

Corporations are our main problem these days. Nowadays, it seems like these corporations hold/manipulate our government. Corporations literally defile our society. In order to work for a corporation you are supposed to become its serf. Workers now pledge allegiances in every corporation (1).

[1]: http://www.alternet.org...

Rebuttals:

My opponent obviously chooses not to include the fact that corporations violate human rights. For instance, child labor, global damage, and decreasing the minimal wage (2).

It has also been coming to the attention that many multi-national corporations mange to avoid taxation. By avoiding taxes their is no way corporation could profit society other then what they already do. Here is information on this particular section ( “Tax Avoidance and Tax Havens; Undermining Democracy”).

[2]: http://www.globalissues.org...
TheDebateMaster1

Con

-Thank you for your well organised and written 1st response

Furthermore:

Voters may have noticed that it is frankly quite obvious how socialism leads into communism and never works. "My opponent states that he wwon't necessarily say that capitalism is weaker than socialism. No, what he is trying to say is that if the United States gains good socialism (not a Marxist type) than we could live much better and freer. He also states it benefits the poor and middle income. I will prove that wrong[1]".

Rebuttals:

My opponent obviously avoids talking about the socialist economic system failing, because of the communal ideal. He also says "socialism is all about personal and public freedom", which is the ideology behind socialism, but so far in all it's history, in practice it always banned personal and public freedom, I should know, my parents lived in a communist country. He also states that I his opponent state that capitalism have more flaws than socialism, when I state the opposite[1]. As Winston Churchill once said "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed for Ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery[2]." This quote by Winston Churchill shows that socialism, doesn't benefit anyone, because it's not the equal sharing of benefits, but the equal sharing of misery, so it doesn't benefit the poor, or the middle class, or certainly not the wealthy. Also the original socialist ideology was created by Karl Marx, so socialism is always Marxist. Like I said for my statement capitalism has flaws, but socialism has more.

[1]: http://www.debate.org...

[2]:http://www.brainyquote.com...


It has also been coming to the attention that socialism takes forcibly from the rich and gives to the poor, while this is a good thing for the poor, it's horrible for the rich and most rich today worked their entire life for their money, like Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates. So isn't it kind of unfair to take from people, when they worked as hard or even harder then the poor. I mean you give money to the homeless so that everyone is equal, but then who would want to work, because it's human nature to be lazy, and why would one want to work more to become rich, only to have their money stolen. Here's the problem if none works, then the country becomes bankrupt. So socialist economies will always fail. Also socialism will always derail into communism, because people will always become corrupt.[4]

[4] http://www.wisegeek.org...


Debate Round No. 3
Samuel60

Pro

Summary:

Overall, my opponent still refuses to admit the fact that corporations are gobbling every penny that the lower middle class makes. Yes, socialism may lead to communism, but was it really that bad living in a communism state. From my personal experience living in the former communism state I could say it was great. People were paid for doing literally nothing. People did not have to know the dangers that occurred in the outside of the state. Yes, I understand that communism leads other nations to war or blainly it just might have been the USSR. Look at the U.S. it brings it democracy and kills multiple of people while doing it. But what I am really supporting here are the people, the people were safe, this is true. Don't try to argue with me because the only sources that you will find are the ones written by American democrats and republicans. China is not a communist state; it says it is while it is controlled by corporations that violate all human rights.

The reason I said "not the Marxist type" is because Americans are afraid. For there whole lives they lived under the rule of politicians who did not care about them. The corporations that tried to help them but took away every penny they made. And yes con, I know what I said so would you please stop restating everything that I wrote. The problem with this country is people refuse to dig deeper into situations, people stopped caring.

I am not telling you to abolish Capitalism or to start Socialism. It does not matter what you and I want. I am trying to persuade the people to see that it was not bad to live in socialist states. Capitalism is already located in socialist states, the reason is it is not a political system. Look at Russia and China, they are probably the most corporate countries. Russia produces gas while produces everything you have in your house.
TheDebateMaster1

Con

-Good Debate, Opponent

Summary:

My opponent didn't answer my last point about it being unfair to take forcibly from the rich and give to the poor and that the entire economic system is in pieces. Sure, some corporations violate human rights, but those corporations are mainly in Africa and Asia and southern America (the 3rd world continents), not in Northern America, Europe or Australia (the 1st world continents), but the flaws of capitalism in the US are nonexistent comapred to the flaws of socialism. Look at the US and the USSR in the 60's. Big difference, one had a capitalist system, the other a socialist system, one system survived, the other failed. Also why did people flee from socialist Cuba, to capitalist US, from socialist eastern Germany to capitalist western Germany, from socialist eastern Europe to western capitalist Europe from Asia to America. Why not to the apparently 'safer and better' socialist zones, instead of to the 'horrible paradise' capitalist zones? Why?

I'll tell you why, because no matter how good the ideal was, the USSR and all the influenced states, led to communist totaliaran states, because power corrupted them, so they spread propaganda about how they were better than the capitalists states, but while some parts were true, like they earned money when they didn't do work, other parts weren't true, like they have more freedom, when freedom and wealth was nearly nonexistent, unless you were part of the dominant party. Also buisneeses failed and the economic system failed, because some one needs to work, for the economic system, but if you don't work and have the same amount of money, why do you want to work (farming, inventing technologies, building buisneeses), so no one works and the economic system completely fails.

True some democracies today are slightly socialist, like most of Scandinavia, but they're not pure socialist, they're also capitalist, the only pure socialist derailed into a communist totaliaran state like the USSR and is today known as North Korea, even China isn't pure communist, eventhough it used to be. Another point about socialism, is all the socialist countries from the USSR, revolted against the USSR, and that's why the USSR collapsed, because it needed it's millitary to quell rebelilions. Does anyone think that Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and so on would have rebbelled against the USSR and became capitalist after the end of USSR if they liked being socialist countries, no of course not.

I am not telling you to abolish socialism, and start capitalism, I am trying to persuade them, that at least have a percentage of capitalism, like scandinavia and not have pure socialism, like North Korea as that hasn't yet ever worked and also to abolish communism as communism is just an insanity.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheDebateMaster1 2 years ago
TheDebateMaster1
me too
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
Samuel60
I think this will be a tie
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
Samuel60
wow! that's pretty cool, do you have me as a friend yet?
Posted by TheDebateMaster1 2 years ago
TheDebateMaster1
I didn't, I just have a simmilar formatting style
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
Samuel60
I'm not offended, I'm actually kind of glad that you have used my idea.
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
Samuel60
The only thing you did is you used my formatting ideas and made the entries longer.
Posted by TheDebateMaster1 2 years ago
TheDebateMaster1
Now' it's up to the voters to decide
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
Samuel60
Yeah, this was an interesting debate
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
Samuel60
yep, i have made a grammatical error.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Samuel60TheDebateMaster1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters pushed back and forth and seemed to equally match each other. However, I never saw the private property argument really refuted, so that's one argument in favor of con.