I guess this is a speed debate, so I will be pressed for time and therefore will be forced to be terse in my response.
Socialism as model is deeply flawed by its idealistic nature. It depends on several suppositions that are false. Firstly, it seems convinced that mankind will share resources and power. It will not, and never has, epically in a large, nationalistic context. Redistribution will inevitably be corrupted, as we saw with the perverted son of socialism, that is, Communist Russia, during the starvation of the Ukraine, in which farmers toiled only to have their crops sent away to Russia.
Socialism discourages innovation and exceptionalism – it takes incentive away from those who would otherwise be working harder to get richer. Entrepreneurship and competitiveness is damaged in this way. Businesses that might be weeded out through Capitalistic choice are allowed to flounder onwards, even if the product is subpar.
A brief glance at history will show that it never lasts. Socialism gives birth to Communism when Socialism inevitably fails. The individual is nothing – it’s all about the state. The state determines, character, thoughts, businesses, etc.
There are only four Marxist-Lenist states left; China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. China has flourished not because of Socialist polices, but because of widespread reforms, under Xi Jinping, for example, his introduction of the “Chinese Dream”. These attempts to ‘modernize’ socialism are in reality attempts to inject Socialism with Capitalism so that Socialism doesn’t breed chaos and violence, although, in China, it still does on occasion.
So I ask Pro to look at the long history of Nations who went full Socialist and tell me which ones continue to find success in pure Socialism.
Free healthcare and free schooling are ideas with socialistic roots perhaps, but that is not what Socialism is. Socialism definition: “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.”
A Socialist government controls everything in the economy and the idea is that the wealth made from this production is then spread around a community. Communism is a little different: “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, 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.”
Communism can be a brutal, evil way to run a government; for example, Communist Russia under Stalin, who slaughtered 56-62 million people.
Socialism was where Communism came from. Under Lenin it was more Socialist, but as any historian will tell you, any nation that went pure Socialist fell apart or went to a brutal totalitarian system.
Capitalism fused with some Socialist polices seems to be the modern way to go, however, pure Socialist states hardly exist anymore.
“copying and pasting what you found online” – if you meant the dictionary definitions, well, yes, I copied them online – I haven’t actually written my own dictionary, so it would have been difficult to draw from it. As I pointed out, China is a Communist-Capitalist fusion, certainly not a Socialist state. That is what the ‘Chinese Dream’ proposes – individualism, Capitalistic notions, etc.
If you want to check out the great history of Chinese freedoms, check out the genocides in Tibet, as the Dalia Lama put it, “Tibetans were not only shot, but also were beaten to death, crucified, burned alive, drowned, mutilated, starved, strangled, hanged, boiled alive, buried alive, drawn and quartered, and beheaded.”
Or check out the time when it was legitimately Communist – back when Mao Zedong led the nation through the ‘Great Leap Forward’, his attempt to modernize Communism, in which over a period of three years some 30-40 Million Chinese starved to death. The villages starved, some 50% of the village population just died of hunger. Famine absolutely ravaged China, meanwhile, the Japanese, who went Capitalistic instead of Communist, experienced decade after decade of growth and a place in the top echelon of the international community.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|