socialism will hurt the U.S. economy
Debate Rounds (4)
I define socialism as social democracy.
Social Democracy - A moderately socialist form of government achieved by democratic means. Social Democracies typically have regulations, and strong welfare states. Now, at the same time, they still have free markets.
Many services like healthcare and education would be provided to everybody. One misconseption about socialism is that it is always centralized and statist. The idea of the proletariat owning the means of production would not be, under this definition of socialism, the nationalization of industries. Industries (other than the health insurance industry) wouldn't be socialized by the state, but directly by the workers. Factories would become cooperatives. They'd be owned by working people; business decisions would either be made by vote or by the elected representatives of workers. There'd be no management, though in some cases there would be elected management.
There is one last point which I would like to clarify before this debate.
My opponent says that forcing money from the working people to the non-working people will hurt the U.S. economy. He is right about that. I do not deny it, in fact I will be arguing that Capitalism enriches the investor class at great expense to the working class, and that this process is ultimately very harmful to the economy.
Now that the definitions and ground for the debate have been laid out, I'll refrain from making any contentions, so that my oponent can make the first contentions in this debate. I look forward to seeing his arguments.
socialism would hurt the economy.
it is when the rich are forced to give to the poor basically.
now who is the poor?
of course there are many poor people out there that are hard working, but there are also many who dont care to work and live off the rich's money.
why would this hurt the economy?
imagine being a business owner. it takes a lot of work. if you own a business you are making the money yourself and you deserve that money. now imagine having to give a lot of that money to the people who dont feel like working. do you think everyone who is forced to help them will care to work as hard knowing that they wont be getting as much as they deserve?
it may work well at first, but in the long run it would hurt us.
people would start to realize that it is easier to live off the government and dont have to work.
people will slowly get lazier and lazier.
this means business owners who provide jobs will start making cuts.
why are the hardworking being punished so that the lazy can have money?
it would help the economy if we dont give them free money which forces them to work.
But first, "Socialism is a socioeconomic philosophy which has failed everywhere it has been tried."
Socialism, under my definition of social democracy, has been very successful in most places where it has been tried. Some of the largest economies in the world are in Western Europe and Scandinavia, and almost all of these countries have features of social democracy. Most "high income" countries, including the United States, have mixed market economies and some form of welfare state. Mixed market countries which are more socially democratic than the United States tend to have greater social mobility and overall happiness.
http://www.forbes.com... You will find, when clicking on the above link, that every country that outranks the U.S.has, at the very least, universal healthcare. Even once Obamacare is completely implemented, healthcare will not be universal. Furthermore, Sweden, Germany and Canada all recovered from the recession faster than we did, and all of these countries are more socialist than the U.S., because they all have Universal Healthcare.
Second, "Socialism is bad for America because it relies on large,intrusive and controlling governemtn and diminishes the role and value of individual citizens."
It can rely on a larger government, but it doesn't have to rely on a larger government. The whole idea of having the "proletariat own the means of production" has been completely misconstrued by the Soviet Union. This doesn't mean government control over the means of production, it means that workers directly control and own the factories they work in.
Third, "of course there are many poor people out there that are hard working, but there are also many who dont care to work and live off." Well actually, the working poor have the most physically demanding jobs. These are people who would be helped by a socialist system. Some poor people are lazy, some poor people are single mothers trying to raise young children (this has often been the case with welfare recipients) but most work as maids, janitors, factory workers, farm laborers etc. These people work the hardest and are paid the least. Now some rich people work hard, but many inherited their wealth, and many get a great deal of their money from investments. Capital gains are not earned with hard work. Speculation can help the economy, but overspeculation has often put the economy at risk. Our recent recession was caused by overspeculation. The issue is, Capitalism takes money from hard working people and puts it into the pockets of a small investor class. Socialism does the opposite.
Fourth, the reason why socialist countries tend to have larger public sectors is that larger public sectors reduce unemployment. One policy proposal which mixed market social democracies might adopt is the idea of an ELR, or Employer of Last Resort. The idea is that all people who are involuntarily unemployed due to the lack of available jobs in the private sector would be given a job by the government. Snap crackle pop, there'd be little if any poverty and unemployment. The size of the government would fluctuate with the business cycle; government spending would always be at the right level to stimulate the economy and quickly end economic downturns, and it will also always decrease when the private sector begins to hire more people. All recipients will receive certain benefits, including job training, sick leave and healthcare. Not only is this a good anti-poverty measure, but it would also be countercyclical and it would prevent inflation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
So in short, Social Democracies have worked, and currently work throughout the world. Socialism does not have to mean state control - it can be direct control used by working people. And finally, on the issue of work, socialism can provide jobs to everyone who doesn't have one, and ensure that everyone who has a job gets certain benefits for the hard work they do. Capitalism, on the other hand, helps investors get rich while median income flatline, and while productivity skyrocket. Unfettered Capitalism can never provide full employment, and Socialism can. In other words, Capitalism hurts hard working people, and Socialism helps them. For all of these reasons I urge you to negate.
Judges, I woudn't be surprised if most of you agree with the Affirmation. Even if that is the case, an Affirmative ballot is woefully unwaranted when you consider the following:
1. The Affirmation never fullfilled it's burden to provide definitions.
2. The Affirmation never challenged my definitions, and in debate, this is equivalent to accepting my definitons.
3. The Affirmation's arguments ignore the very definitions which the Affirmation has accepted.
4. The Affimation never adressed my arguments. Like a broken record, the Affirmation makes the same point about taking money from working people, a point which has been rendered irrelevant by my definitions and arguments. The Affirmation never came close to fullfilling its burden. Vote for the negation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MichaelGonzales 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: I know it seems like I'm vote bombing, but Pro gave absolutely no sources, had terrible conduct, and resorted to strawmans and ad hominems.
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.