The Instigator
JackFritschy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Socialism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 598 times Debate No: 41248
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

JackFritschy

Con

I challange citrakayah to a debate on socialism with myself oppising it.
Citrakayah

Pro

Sure why not.

I will be defending a range of policies that are considered to be, in the collequial sense, socialistic. For example, public transit, universal health insurance, heavy welfare policies, redistribution, et cetera. If my opponent desires, I will defend public owership of the means of production.
Debate Round No. 1
JackFritschy

Con

The two main reasons for rejecting socialism in my opinion is the tragedy of the commons and the inefficiancy of central planning. The tragedy of the commons is a theory that States that people will work with less motavation if everything is shared. This leads to people not working as hard because they wont keep what they create. The problem is central planning. Socialism is a central planned economy. The problem is there is simply to much information to to manage a whole economy. Individual interprises function better because they each manage a small amount of information. If all imformation is used by one source no effective plan can he made. Their is to much information for a few smart citizens to manage a whole economy. All socialist countries have had this problem. Farming collectives in the Soviet union barely produced enough to keep the country going. There was no incentives for workers to work harder. The economic planners of the Soviet union could not make effective descisions for the massive country. This caused the collapse of the Soviet state and will lead to the economic deppression of any socialist state.
Citrakayah

Pro

1. That is not an argument against socialism, as socialism is simply public control of the means of production. For instance, in a socialist factory, the workers control the operations of the factory. In a socialist mine, the miners control the operations of the mine. Money still exists, and while in a socialist society someone who doesn't work certainly won't die, or suffer unduly, they will have a lower quality of life than someone who does work.

Indeed, this is an argument for socialism. In more economically equal countries, as there is greater social mobility, there is a greater incentive to work: You are more likely to advance[1].

2. Con provides no support for why we should believe him--the farming collectives in the Soviet Union did fail, but given that they were imposed by a dictator of questionable stability without popular support behind the initiative, were met with actual violence, tried to enforce atheism, and were not voluntary, we might suspect that, perhaps, the failure was at least in part due to those factors.

Moreover, collectively owned farms can be run by a very small number of people. Is Con suggesting that it is impossible for a group of people to collectively run an economic enterprise?

1. http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
JackFritschy

Con

Yes I am segusting that it is immpossible for a central elite to plan a economy. There is no logical reason they could. Central planning is a small elite planning the economy of a whole nation. There is simply to much information to say that this small elite can make wise choices for a whole economy. People make good descions with local information about local issues. People cant use information for a whole economy. That's impossible and leads to the economic faluries of socialism. An while in some systems of socialism people who work more get more rewards, without compatition between bussinissis, there would be little improvement or innovation. Businesses will improve themslevses to beat competitors. In a system were all production is under government control, people have no need because it gains nothing for them. This has happened in all socialist countries. You cant argue that the failure of Soviet socialism on Stalin's unpopularety. The Soviet stare continued to struggle even Russia's less tyrannical later leaders. The government couldn't manage a whole economy effectively. American bussinesses also had far better technology then the soviets due to the lack of incentive for Soviet factories to immprove. The government also has trouble predicting economic fortunes. Major trends are just combiened local trends. A local bussiness can see local signs and make forecast. A government will not see local trends until its to late. They cant change policy in time to react and this leads to econimic hardship.
http://www.breitbart.com...
Citrakayah

Pro

In case it isn't obvious, Con is strawmanning based on the American conservative definition of socialism, which is anything they don't like. Socialism could work in the form of individual city-states, for instance. A co-op is socialist.

Moreover, socialism by definition is not a small elite planning the economy of a whole nation. It is the entire population deciding the economy.

Con gives no reason why we should think it impossible for people ot use information for a whole economy. It's complicated, sure, but is it so complicated that we can't think about it rationally at all?

There is competition between businesses in socialism. Evidently Con has never heard of market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Again, in socialism means of production are collectively owned (though not all of them, people can own hammers and whatnot)--not the finished products. That means I can't own a mine privately, but I can own something that sells mining machinery privately.

1. It's not unpopularity, it is his cruelty. Big difference.
2. Of course they did, they were dealing with the fact that they were recovering from World War 2, were still pretty tyrannical, and had the aftershocks of tyrannical leaders. Also most of Russia was dirt-poor and they really couldn't manage it effectively--not because of socialism, but because of the faults of the leaders themselves (not to mention that Russia is flat-out huge; socialism becomes less effective when applied to larger and larger areas).
3. See point regarding market socialism.
4. Indeed they are combined local trends, so who better to analyze them than an entity with the ability to get the trends from local places? Economic trends aren't something that some old dude says, "Why, in my day this only cost a nickel!"
5. Which is why individual details are not left to the fedreal bureacracy, but smaller bureacracies. The government sets things like minimum wage, environmental standards, et cetera. The workers in the factory decide how much to produce and most of the business decisions.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.