capitialism is better than socialism
Debate Rounds (4)
Before starting the debate I just want to say that "This is my fist debate either". Let"s just enjoy our debate XD
I will be using this first round to give background of my information so my real argument of "why socialism is better than capitalism" will start in the second round.
Definition of Socialism:
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.
Socialism is the solution of Capitalism
I will start with the history that why socialism was started in the past. Socialist model and ideas espousing common have extended since antiquity. There were various arguments in the politics of classical Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle instituted communal possession and advocated the public good. In Britain, Tomas Paine argued the details about to pay tax property owner for the needs of the poor. Then in the 19 century, the industrial revolution has been started in Europe that had lots of problems in economy and authorities of labor. The industrial revolution needed the coals and labors. In fact, they mostly needed labors who can work in the mines for mining the coals. Also, they hired the children to work in the chimney which only children can clean because it is too tight for adults and hard to pay all money. The working conditions, in the 19 century, were too bad for children, and adults. We can see negative effect through the lots of books such as Charles Dickens "Oliver twist".
The Capitalism has been started with the industrial revolution that occur the none-controlled market in 19 century. The socialist saw the disadvantages of capitalism that caused the "income inequality" with labors and capitalists also they saw the financial convergence in the city that consisted of capitalist"s factories. They thought socialism can solve the problems of capitalism that financial convergence in city and monopoly of means of production. The socialism is the solution of Capitalism"s problems.
The Misunderstanding of Socialism
The Socialism"s main point is "common ownership" in the above definition Socialists saying that "This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population". Most people might think socialists argue the "banned-owning", but the real arguments were different. The real arguments are;
In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.
They agree with the personal possession, their purpose is sharing the means of production which has been monopolized by the factory owners. Socialists are caring about labors that hurt from the capitalists and marginalized-class such as children, women, and so on.
In addition, most capitalists claim that socialism is the failure project which has been shown in our history. But, this is wrong. There did not existing any real Socialism in our history. Actually, they are the communist, most famous communist is Stalin who started the Soviet Union with Socialism but when he made "iron curtain" in his countries, he became as a communist (totalitarianism). He just failed the socialism in his country, because he had lots of ambition in his mind. Thus, I argue that there did not existing the real Socialism in our history
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
And we're off.
Here is a quote from your definition of socialism: "This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population."
America's first experiment with a communal system failed. The pilgrims had to pool all that they hunted and grew on their land to be distributed to everyone. Since no one benefited from their own labor, there was no incentive to work and the system failed. Finally the governor of the colony gave a plot of land to every house and the pilgrims suddenly had much more corn then they knew what to do with and they invited the Indians over to celebrate, thus thanksgiving was created.
Here is a quote from worldsocialism.org: "All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness."
As shown in the pilgrims story, voluntary work does not allow society to function. If this were the case people would not get out of bed in the morning to help a "common good", but would do things for their own entertainment or benefit. Even if they were to do this, there are many jobs that are essential to society that people wouldn't do. Everyone would want the "good jobs" and very few people would voluntarily mine for coal or clean the sewers.
Socialism does not reward hard work and promotes laziness. Say that Person A works twice as hard as Person B, surly Person A deserves to be paid twice as much as Person B, right? Yes. He does, but in a socialism they would both receive the same benefits. Soon Person A realizes this and begins to slack off because he can afford to do so and still get the same benefits. Since the hope of a large reward is gone, the populations work ethic will become more and more lazy.
Socialism is stealing. Imagine if a kid were to steal $100 out off someones wallet, and he split it up among his 4 friends. so they each got $20. My guess is that would clearly think that this is stealing, and that its wrong, after all that guy probably worked very had to acquire that money. This is the same premise as socialism only that it is promoted by the government. So why isn't it morally wrong when the government takes all the money that you work for and distributes it among the masses? This Society would be punishing the successful people by stealing the $100 and would be rewarding the unsuccessful people by giving them each $20. This would discourage people from being successful and encourage people to fail.
Is that really the kind of society that you would want to promote?
I"ll start with the refutations of your opinions.
First of all, you give me the information of failure of pilgrims in USA, because they just don"t want to work hard in voluntary workplaces. Of course, who want to work in voluntary workplaces I agree with your opinions. But, this is not a real socialism. This is because, as shown in the "round 1 my argument" the real socialism have to share the way to produce the profits such as, share the lands, factories which can help people to earn money. They don"t have to share the profits that people earn from the land or factories. Um" maybe I think your definition of Socialism is not real socialism. This is because; the main point of socialism is the "common ownership" which I mentioned in the first round.
The "common ownership" is
This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.
So, I want to ask you that you think "all the resources of the world being owned in privacy?" I would like to say the answer is NO, because all the materials from the natural are common resources. The trees in the amazon which does not breed up by human are owned by the major companies. And they just cut down the trees because they bought the ownership from the Brazil. Brazil didn"t breed up all the trees in the amazon but they just sell the ownership to major companies. They just think amazon is privacy goods. The trees are the common resources in the world. And then, the socialist think it is absurdity of capitalism. The materials from the work of labor have to own by the worked-labor. But, materials not from the labor are not privacy profits, it have to be shared.
Secondly, you shared the premise of socialism in the last paragraph (starting with "socialism is stealing"). And I have a question to you. If the worker has a lot of money ($10,000) in his wallet and the kids are starving because society has the uprising trend of unemployment. And the worker does not give the money to the kids who are dying on the street. This is capitalism. The money are focused on 10% of people in the world, they just not care the other 90% because they think it is their fault. They argue that all the 90% are the lazy and stupid, so it is not their fault. Do you agree with this idea? I"m not. There are no big differences between all around the world. The problems are based on capitalism; the starvation in 3 world countries are not there (3 world countries) faults.
We know all the profits of 10% people are not based on all their labors. Thus, they have to share the profits which create from the common resources. (It is hard to say in words, my point is they take too much part of money to labors. They have to share the profits which come from the common resources because it doesn"t have their efforts.)
lakes1126 forfeited this round.
Appel-Yoon forfeited this round.
lakes1126 forfeited this round.
Appel-Yoon forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.