The Instigator
God_is_dead
Pro (for)
The Contender
batman01
Con (against)

capitalism vs. 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
God_is_dead has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 156 times Debate No: 96849
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

God_is_dead

Pro

a political debate over which is better. capitalism or socialism. I as pro will stand on the capitalism side, while my opponent the con will stand on the socialism side. good luck to us all. and may the best wins.
1st round: acceptance of the debate.
2nd round: status quo, problems, and goal.
3rd round: arguments and extensions.
4th round: rebutalls
5th round: conclusion
batman01

Con

Hello, I've accepted your debate of Capitalism vs Socialism. I will be arguing on the side of Socialism. I assume we will be arguing on which is better and I would like to give a definition of better for this debate which I hope my opponent will agree with:

Better- Comparative of good and well. In other words we will be arguing which is the system that works the best not simply in terms of production but also in terms of morality and well-being. We will attempt to determine which is the better overall system when considering all factors.

Thank you and good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
God_is_dead

Pro

I agree W/ the opponent's definition of "better. Now for the status quo, Capitalism and socialism is right now two of the most widespread and used political and economical system in the world.. socialism believes that the production and distribution should be owned and regulated by the nantion as a whole. While capitalism believes that the economy is pwned and regulated by private sector for profits.. the problem with socialism is that due to the regulation of product the society would get an easy access to an economical wealth. At first glance this is great, everyone's rich and provided for. But in another way, this brings all productivity to a halt, thus running the nation itself into the ground. While our goal is to make everyone work and get payments and wealth according to their contributions to the nation, which can ve easily achieved by capitalism.
batman01

Con

Thank you to my opponent, I will now give my rebuttal and arguments of my own.

REBUTTAL:

The only statement which my opponent gave regarding which was the better system was "But in another way, (Socialism) brings all productivity to a halt, thus running the nation itself into the ground." Firstly, this is not necessarily true. There is no reason why Socialism, if done correctly, needs to bring productivity to a halt. Secondly, my opponent does not give any evidence for why this is true. To quote the great Christopher Hitchens "A claim brought forth without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence."

ARGUMENTS OF MY OWN:

ARGUMENT 1: Socialism (when done correctly) gets rid of much of the unfairness

In a Capitalist system, we get huge differences in the amount of money one person has. We get an upper class which controls a hugely disproportional percentage of the money and then a lower class which is either underemployed or unemployed. Since corporations (and therefore jobs and therefore money) are in the hands of the very rich the lower class is at the mercy of the upper class. Because the corporation-owning people (and not the Government) regulate jobs as well as wages they can do whatever they want. The well-being of the lower class is almost entirely at the hands of the upper class (This is a short passage on Marx's views on exploitation of labor https://www.marxists.org...).

Capitalism, aside from giving too much power to too few unregulated people, also favors generational wealth. If Fred Trump is a millionaire, his son Donald is going to be extremely wealthy too (barring poor financial actions). If Bob has to work at a fast food restaurant to provide for his family there is no way for his son to jump out of poverty into the middle or upper class. There is no way for him to go to college (he lacks the money). There is no way for him to start a business (he lacks the money). There is no way for him to get a decent job (he lacks the money to get the qualifications). In other words, Bob's son will be stuck in poverty for the rest of his life. The romantic ideal that Capitalism rewards those who work hard is quite simply not true.

ARGUMENT 2: Socialism can create a fostering of art

If there is a lack of art in this country it is only because of the lack of commercial properties for art. Capitalist logic then decides that because the business of writing serious novels or poetry cannot compete with the business of making magazines that more people should make magazines and less people should try to create art. People will often lean towards cheap entertainment as opposed to higher entertainment and when the only motive for creation is profit it becomes impossible to create things that will not yield high profits. With Socialism we can have state sponsored art (this sounds so propagandic but it doesn't have to be), which would pay people to go into the arts and write poetry or paint.

The idea of state-sponsoring something to make it more appealing is not limited to the idea of art. Take for example the Soviet Union (which I'd like to note is an absolute failure of a Socialist state), which state-sponsored chess. It made it extremely profitable to become a professional chess player whereas in America it was extremely hard to make a living playing chess. This is the main reason why the USSR dominated the world chess scene for much of the 20th century, there were great players living in America but they had more incentive to go into accounting than to try and become professional chess players.

ARGUMENT 3: Government-subsidized services

With Government subsidized-services like health care, welfare, and education we can increase the well-being of all the people in a state. Take for example the country of Denmark which is a sort of pseudo-socialist country (note it is not actually a Socialist country and still suffers from many of the problems which Capitalist countries face). They have free healthcare and free education through college. Every person; regardless of race, gender, or wealth gets the same education and the same health care. Denmark is also a hub for small businesses with 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less (http://blog.peerform.com...). Countries with some socialist ideas have also proved that quality education can be provided for free and the literacy rates of North Korea (100 percent), Cuba (99.8), Russia (99.7), China (96.4) all rank above the USA's lackluster 86 percent (see references 2 and 3). Socialism can provide things to everyone which Capitalist societies cannot.

This concludes my argument. Best of luck to my opponent.

__________
References:
1. https://www.marxists.org...
2. http://www.ditext.com...
3. http://blog.peerform.com...
4. http://world.bymap.org...
5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by batman01 3 weeks ago
batman01
When is this going to update?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.