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

Capitalism is a better system than 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
Askhanar has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 102556
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Hello, in this argument, I will be arguing that capitalism is better, and the person who accepts the debate will be arguing that socialism is better. Here are how the rounds will work:

Round 1) Acceptance
Round 2) Opening arguments
Round 3) Refuting the other person's arguments
Round 4) Final message to voters

There are no rules except for please refrain from insulting the other person and to stay on topic. Good luck!


I accept.

(P.S. I'm not a native english speaker)
Debate Round No. 1


Hello, and thank you for accepting this debate. Now, pleasantries aside, I will get into my argument on why capitalism is a better system.

Firstly, let's look at the ways each system work. Say there was a person who baked two cookies. They had worked for the cookies, so under capitalism, if another person wanted one, they would have to pay for it. However, under socialism, the first person would be required to give the other person a cookie under the name of fairness. The person who makes the cookies will realise no matter what, they will only always have one cookie, and thus see not point in making the cookies anymore if their efforts aren't recognised. Thus, no one gets cookies. This is a metaphor for socialism and industries. Industries collapse because they realise it's not viable to bother creating their goods when they're getting the same amount as the customer does; no point in lawyers working so hard when the person who sweeps the streets outside is getting an equal amount of pay to them. But in capitalism, you have to pay for what you want. Thus the manufacturer is rewarded fairly for their work in creating the goods, and the customer must give them something in order to obtain said goods. To me, capitalism seems like the fairer system by a mile.

Now we'll look at examples of socialism in the past, and why it failed. Firstly, we'll start with a lesser known example, also known as Jonestown. I do realise Jonestown is an extreme example, but still an example nevertheless. A man by the name of Jim Jones began his own town, calling it to be a "socialist's paradise", but it was anything but. Residents were forced to work hours upon hours a day in the heat of the jungle in order to supply everyone with food fairly. Many were left hungry and Jonestown met a bitter end after Mr. Jones ordered a mass suicide after his failures economically had been exposed to the public.

A more well known example would be China under Mao. They followed the example of the soviet model of development through heavy industry with surpluses extracted from peasants. Consumer goods were left to secondary importance. In the sino-soviet split of the 1950's, Mao split from traditional Marxism-Leninism and developed Maoism, the Chinese interpretation of communism. Mao was upset with the Soviet leader Khrushchev's position of peaceful coexistence between the communists and capitalists. The Maoists started a strong communist tradition, instituting the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The Great Leap Forward was instituted to help transform China into a heavy industrialised society. However, this was largely considered to be a failure and many Chinese starved to death. In the cultural revolution, Mao overthrew his enemies and millions of people were killed or persecuted. Toddlers were tortured to death, people froze in mud huts and there was a mass famine.

I look forward to the challenger's opening arguments.


So, what exactly is socialism? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries."
Socialism only works if the society follows the same morals. All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets. Socialism is a movement of both the worker and middle-class, all for a common democratic goal. This is how socialism looks if we put propaganda aside

The more you put in to it, the more you get out from it.
There's no "hoping" in this system, it's either contributing to do your role or not. The more people contributing, the better the outcome it is for the society. It's not communism nor democratic, it's better. That's why it actually works.

Meanwhile, lets take a look at capitalism
- In a society where resources are not evenly distributed, there is always going to be the wealthy who have an excess of resources. While occasionally these resources are given to the poor, often this excess is wasted. Millions of dollars worth of food is wasted by those who have more than they need, while there are many others who desperately need it.

- While every individual has a single vote in a democracy, in a capitalist system, they have very little say in the actions of government. Greater influences on government than ideology or public opinion are the wealthy. Governments will listen to big business and banks because they fund their election campaigns. They will listen to big newspaper barons because they know that they can influence public opinion.

- Many of the wars fought in recent years have been over profit. In Iraq, the war was largely funded by oil barons, and it was private firms who handled most of the security after the initial invasion. In Libya, western forces intervened when the civil war caused oil supplies to be cut off. They only sided with the rebels because they thought they were the most likely to win. In Iran, military intervention is being threatened over the blocking of trading routes to transport oil.

Socialism is clearly better than capitalism. It ensures that people are truly rewarded fairly for the work they perform, and it puts all people at an equal level. Fundamentally, capitalism works to divide humans and forces them to compete amongst each other, leaving only the lucky to survive. Capitalism is thoroughly barbaric. Socialism the opposite. It encourages humans to work together to achieve magnificent things, and to live off of their labor. Socialism is likely to replace capitalism, if humans care for
Debate Round No. 2


"Socialism only works if society follows the same morals." And thus, you have explained why socialist countries have always failed. Socialism ignores the basic principles of humans, and thus it quickly turns from "each according to his need" to "each according to his greed". There's no "A only works if B" in capitalism; the system is designed to work without dependency on the unpredictable natures of others.

Your main three points against capitalism are that it causes war, waste and is undemocratic. I will break these arguments down one by one, starting with war. Socialism has began to harm Venezuela, and has harmed in the past. Shall we forget the siege of Changchun? Stalin's holocaust that was supported by Marx? Holodomor, the famine caused by Stalin to silence Ukraine? The killing fields of Pol Pot? And how about the most well known socialist of them all, the NATIONAL socialist, Adolf Hitler? These may not be wars, but they are equally bad, and caused by socialism. Secondly, you argue that capitalism is undemocratic because of media bias. But was socialism ever democratic? Media bias is better than censored media. If you look beyond the mainstream media you'll find plenty of independent news sources such as blogs and YouTube channels offering a wide range of opinions on a topic. Under socialism, other ideologies have been banned, censored, etc. Lastly you argue about the waste left over due to goods not evenly being distributed, but isn't waste better than shortage? Mao had a famine. Stalin did too. But socialism strives to deliver an equal amount to everyone, right? So why the famines?

Why would socialism replace capitalism? Capitalism has actually replaced socialism in Japan, China and Vietnam. Look at the first world countries of today. USA, UK, Australia. All capitalist, with strong economies. The Middle East is rich because of oil, due to capitalism. Now look at the former socialist countries. Most people in Russia are poor. North Korea is a nightmare mess. China is still developing and is only growing stronger due to a shift to capitalism. Cambodia is very poor. Laos is poor too. There's no perfect economic system, but capitalism is the one that works the best and is the most durable.

"Production may be coordinated through markets." Markets are capitalism.
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
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TallPeopleMatter 3 years ago
Definitely better than Communism, but not better than Fascism, Hail Fascism!
Posted by Political.Questioneer 3 years ago
I will be following this debate
This debate has 2 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.