The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

If true Socialism can be implemented properly throughout the world, it is better than Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,783 times Debate No: 45870
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)




Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Capitalism -an economic and political system in which a country"s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state:

These definitions are as per oxford dictionary.

Just to clarify some common misconceptions:
Socialism does not always mean dictatorship rule.
Capitalism does not always mean democratic rule.

Rebuttals allowed in Round 1
No new arguments in Round 5

Also, I ask that my opponent does not focus only on one country(for example only debating that Socialism will cause ruin for Canada) but rather to focus on the world.

As implied in the Resolution, this is assuming that socialism is implemented properly, in the cold war era, there were communist states who were not really socialist. They were totalitarian regimes and brought suffering to many people (in many cases).

In this debate, it is Democratic Capitalism vs Democratic Socialism hence political systems are not taken into account, only the economic systems of Socialism and Capitalism are taken into account.

Now on to the debate

Socialism as an ideology is excellent, all citizens of the nation are equal in terms of wealth and rights. Every citizen is equal regardless of whether his/her parents were rich or poor. In capitalism, children born to rich parents will give them better opportunities as compared to children born to poor parents, even if the poor child is intelligent.
Capitalism is comparable to the caste system in India. Basically, in a caste system your position in society depends upon your family's position in society. If you are born into a road sweeper family, you will stay a road sweeper even if you are extremely intelligent. If you are born into a wealthy business family, you will stay a wealthy businessperson, even if you are very stupid. I do not see how this is any different than Capitalism. Well, sure you can go up and down the ladder of success, but your starting position in life depends on your parents and most people will not move up or down the ladder. The rich will keep draining the planet's resources and the poor will suffer tremendously. Inequality gaps will, not be a problem in a socialist country since all people work and are in the same wealth class. A drawback is that there can be no rich people, but there is no poverty either, a huge benefit.


Before we get started I need to take issue with the title of our debate and what it implies. This is because is leaves Pro with some trap doors to escape out of no matter what historical evidence I point out about the failure of socialism. "If true Socialism can be implemented properly throughout the world, it is better than Capitalism" I take issue with the words "Properly" and "Throughout". The first word implies that the failures of the past have been because those other socialist experiments were not "True socialism" or were not properly "Implemented". You can defend almost anything this way. The word "Throughout" troubles me because that implies that the only way to make socialism work is if the entire world adopts it and if the world doesn't adopt it then it is the fault of all other countries that aren't socialist when socialism fails.
I want to address the history of socialism as it has been applied to real governments. Contrary to what Pro has stated Socialism is not ultimately compatible with Democracy (or better put, human freedom). I'm going to go into why shortly. The Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nazi Germany and more. All of these governments have a few things in common. They all committed serious human rights violations, they all cost millions of people their lives as a direct consequence of their policies, they all failed or are failing and they all were or are socialist.
Socialism does lead necessarily to oppression by the government. In the so called "Equalization process" wealth is ripped from the hands of those who earned it or inherited it from those who earned it who willed it to them. It is then handed out to everyone else that the state determines is deserving of those resources. John Locke defined fundamental liberty this way "Life, Liberty, and Property". Socialist governments deprive a large number of people of their property without befit of due process of law. How is it just to take away what one person worked hard for and earned and give it to another who didn't. It is known that a great deal of what makes and keeps people poor is self imposed. A list could be made such as, chemical dependency, teen pregnancy, fatherless homes, etc. Wealthy people are known to have habits that contribute to their wealth. They tend to be self disciplined, more moral, intact families, saving, inheritance (which helps build wealth).
Socialism is imposed on people from the outside and requires a great deal of government interference in their lives. Capitalism isn't a system at all. It is a the natural result of economic interaction anywhere people gather. The problems start and have always started when powerful entities interfere with the natural economic behavior of an environment. Our recent problems in the US weren't cause by Capitalism they were caused by government interference in the banking industry. Massive government programs called Fannie May and Freddie Mack were at the heart of the problem. Before that it was the Community Reinvestment Act imposed on the banks by Bill Clinton. It forced banks to make unsafe loans on the basis that to deny the loans was discrimination. These two government debacles worked together to sabotage our banking industry and cause a disastrous crash of the housing market in 2008. Socialists have always pointed to these troubles and then declared them as evidence of the failure of capitalism but the truth is they are evidence of the failure of socialism.
Debate Round No. 1


Socialism and Democracy:
"Socialism is not ultimately compatible with Democracy"
Why not? A country where all land is public land and all people are in the same socio-economic class can have a system where the people elect their leader. Democracy and Socialism are from two VERY different topics. One is a form of government and the other is an economic system.
My opponent also implied that Socialism is incompatible with Human freedom.
I strongly disagree. There have been capitalist countries which denied/limited human freedoms, such as South Africa under the apartheid, or the US prior to the black civil rights movements. There are capitalist countries even practiced slavery. The best examples would be the European colonial empires and the US.
Socialism or capitalism has nothing to do with human freedom. They are completely different topics.

Human Rights violations:
Con stated that "socialist" countries commit human rights violations. I have two points to say here
1) Socialism as a theory does not demand killings or genocide, the countries mentioned by my opponent followed deviations from Socialism such as Maosim and Stalinism. I am talking purely about the economic ideology of Socialism and Capitalism as defined in my opening statement .
2) Capitalist countries have committed human rights violence as well. The only country in history to use nuclear weapons on fellow human beings is the United States, the supposed 'leader of the free world', also a capitalist democracy. They also used chemical weapons in Vietnam and Korea, and the list goes on and on. This is just the United States, there are other countries such as the UK, which is a capitalist democracy, that have committed human rights violence as well.

Economic Fairness:
Con asked "How is it just to take away what one person worked hard for and earned and give it to another who didn't."
Well, is it fair that someone lazy was born into a rich family and had a better life than someone who is hard working but was born into a poor family and had a hard life with little content?
Even if a rich person, say a CEO, does work harder than an average person, they surely do not work 1000 times as harder as an average worker, yet they make a 1000 times as much. Preposterous, is it not?

I understand my opponent's point that socialist governments taking away people's hard earned fortune is wrong, but it certainly is better than having millions of people in poverty suffering throughout their lives. This proves that socialism is a much fairer system than capitalism. After all, socialism is based on equality whereas capitalism is based on 'winner takes all' (the 'winners' are mostly born into a rich family, while those unlucky enough to be born poor, suffer).

Poor vs Rich:
Con stated that "Wealthy people are known to have habits that contribute to their wealth. They tend to be self disciplined, more moral, intact families, saving, inheritance (which helps build wealth)."
It is true that wealthier people have better morals, but this is because they were raised in a secure environment (I mean with all their wealth, they are more likely to have a better environment). They also tend to have better education than poor people. Better education obviously trains them better for real life, hence their habits to contribute to their wealth. The people born poor however do not have the same opportunity that people born rich had and therefore they cannot help themselves really. Under socialism, such inequality will not occur.

Government Interference:
My opponent argued that "Socialism is imposed on people from the outside and requires a great deal of government interference in their lives. "
Why does the government need to interfere? The statement is very blunt. I ask my opponent to be specific about what socialist governments would do to interfere with people's lives to maintain socialism. Thank you in advance.

US house market crash:
"...disastrous crash of the housing market in 2008. Socialists have always pointed to these troubles and then declared them as evidence of the failure of capitalism but the truth is they are evidence of the failure of socialism."
Again, please specify how this is a failure of socialism.


I already explained why the housing market crash was due to a socialist related program. Let me define socialism properly rather than how pro has defined it. Socialism is: The means of production are controlled by the state. This can be applied to varying degrees; from programs to the entire economy. Socialism causes a loss of freedom because the government ends up in control of the supply of food, housing, clothing, and also medicine. Taking resources from one person in an excessive manner with out due process of law is the same as theft. The government becomes no different than a thug sanctioned by a portion of the population to mug another portion of the population. It's based on petty jealousy and conspiratorial thinking. If you read some of what pro says; socialism is based on thinking the worst of our neighbors all in the name of justifying our theft of their property by means of the government.

Socialism doesn't work because it circumvents the mechanism of price. Price serves as a natural mechanism to coordinate and balance all the sectors of the market and supply and demand. Price fixing throws this balance off and is usually a disaster. The fixing of the price of gas in the 1970's by President Nixon is an excellent example of this. Central planning doesn't work because it's impossible for people to have sufficient knowledge to properly coordinate the economy's supply and demand and to know just what the producers can and can't actually do. The farmer knows best what grows in his field and what doesn't. When a socialist planner tells him what to grow in order to fix an imbalance in the market it might not work because the farmers land or knowledge might night support the order.

Profit motive is what drives a market. People don't do things for the benefit of everyone else. They do it for themselves and their family. The more a person stands to gain the better his performance is likely to be.

While in theory socialism might be possible without tyranny in reality it comes out as a tyranny. It requires government interference because socialism is by definition control of the economy by the government. I wonder if pro fully understands what socialism is? As far as the negative things pro mentioned about the US for instance; we ended up bombing Japan because it was a tyranny not because we were. It would have cost vastly more lives to not use the bombs and we dropped leaflets on the areas and tried to warn people ahead of time what was coming. Further more, by way of comparison, capitalist societies will not have anywhere near the record of atrocities that socialist countries have. One of the reasons is simple. The capitalist countries can't. The people control much of the wealth and means of production. In socialism the government controls much of wealth and means of production which makes it easy for it to commit atrocities. It's easy, just take away the peoples food.
Debate Round No. 2


Con stated that socialism has killed far more people than capitalism:
1) The atrocities that the 'socialist' countries committed were communist, an extreme form of socialism.
2) Even if con would want to talk about extremes, Nazi Germany was Fascist which is an extreme form of Capitalism (Fascism is the extreme right wing by definition), contrary to what my opponent has stated. This point is further proved by the fact that Nazi Germany's main ideological enemy was the USSR. And we all know the human rights violations committed by Nazi Germany. WW2 which lead to the death of 60 million was started by Nazi Germany, which was supported by the Fascist regimes of Italy, Bulgaria, Romania etc.

US bombs Japan:
Con argued that "It would have cost vastly more lives to not use the [atomic] bombs"
Dead wrong, in my source it states that Japan was trying to negotiate peace talks in April and May 1945 THRICE, the emperor of japan kept trying to get a peace treaty signed. But the US ambassador showed no interest in signing a peace treaty. The US wanted to test their bombs on a populated city before they signed a peace treaty.
The bombing of Tokyo (which took place before Hiroshima) by the US was more devastating than the bombing of Hiroshima. But in Tokyo, nuclear weapons were not deployed.
Also it would not have been costly to invade Japan because their navy and air force was destroyed, the people were starving and their resource supply was all but diminished.

I ask con to move away from the topic of how socialist governments are allegedly more cruel and genocidal than capitalist governments since I have proved this wrong and it is but a sidetrack of the debate.

Government Ownership:
Con stated that the government can do anything since they control the food, land and pretty much own everything.
This is true and it does have the cons that my opponent mentions. But if a socialist country is democratic (which is very much possible), then people do have a voice indeed. They can protest, riot and even overthrow the government which is so corrupt that they starve the people. The only reason this did not happen in communist countries of the Cold War era is because they were not democratic and had no freedom of the press, so there was no way they could get together or be allowed free speech.
Also, things like providing universal healthcare and free education are the agendas of a socialist.
Is it bad for everyone to get free healthcare and education?

Practicality of Socialism:
As a theory socialism is excellent. But as con mentioned, it is near impossible for this economic system to actually work due to the selfishness of people. In socialism the only profit motive is the advancement of your country and possibly the human race. Self-advancement is not present in socialism. I will concede that as long as humans are selfish, socialism can never really work on a country wide scale (we are talking about millions, some cases billions of people). But tribal societies consist of only a few hundred people at most and in that situation socialism does work. The tribes-people share the food and water equally. Technically, their society is socialist since all the ownership is collectivized within the tribe. A man in the tribe has the incentive to work hard because his actions benefit the tribe, which is like an extended family.
The only places socialist agendas can work on a country wide scale as of now is providing free healthcare and education, which it does in many countries. High taxes on the rich can also be considered a socialist agenda, which is good because that tax is used for improvement and maintenance of infrastructure. In a way, many countries in the world are in fact socialist to some extent.

Economic Fairness:
My opponent completely IGNORED my arguments on this topic. I will paste the very same words below and I ask con to reply to this argument.

Well, is it fair that someone lazy was born into a rich family and had a better life than someone who is hard working but was born into a poor family and had a hard life with little content?
Even if a rich person, say a CEO, does work harder than an average person, they surely do not work 1000 times as harder as an average worker, yet they make a 1000 times as much. Preposterous, is it not?


The word Nazi was short for the German word Nazional. Which is the first word in the longer title Nazional Socialist Deutschland arbeiter partei. Translated to English it would be the Nationalist Socialist German Worker's Party. The short hand for this was of course the Nazi Party. Notice that the second word in the title was Socialist not capitalist. Hitler complained that capitalism was an evil conspiracy by the Jews to take over the world along with communism. Hitler said in 1927, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Toland, John (1976). Adolf Hitler. Doubleday. pp. 224"225. * Hitler said to Benito Mussolini that "Capitalism had run its course" Overy, R.J., The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004. p. 399 * Hitler also said that the business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them." Overy, R.J., The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004. p. 230.* Hitler's book Mein Kampf prescribed force by the state and war as a means to promote economic prosperity and survival rather than capitalism.
Pro's evidence for his opinion on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was taken from the notorious holocaust denier's organization Institute For Historical Review. The theory pro espouses to the best of my knowledge is one that was last held to by the mainstream perhaps in the 1970's. That theory has long since been abandoned. My original explanation for the bombings is the most widely excepted. Further I personally listened to an interview with the Late Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf where he also shared this same view.
Pro says that people can remedy their problems in Socialist governments with protests (free speech) even riots or overthrowing the government. This is extremely difficult to do because when you're starving you don't have the strength to do much fighting and most people are worrying about their children and families. They are afraid to confront the government in the first place. Once the government controls food, clothing, and shelter they are in control of the peoples physical survival. Socialist governments usually disarm the public so they don't have anything to fight with. Even if they did they can't buy anything because the government controls all the industries. Universal healthcare is a disaster everywhere it's being tried. We here in the US are paying for the world's health care and don't even know it. I asked a pharmacist where the cost of a brand name medication comes from. He told me #1 is advertising and #2 was socialized medicine in foreign countries. The other countries tell our companies that they will pay what they want to pay and if the company doesn't like it the country will just steal their patent and make generics. The rest of the cost gets passed on to us. So I ask you, what universal health care? We already have free education unless you mean college and that's going to come crashing down too with the idiotic loan forgiveness stupidity. That's going to collapse the banks or bankrupt the government. So I ask you, what free education? Someone has to pay for it.
I got news for Pro. LIFE ISN'T FAIR!!! But personally there's allot more unfairness toward the earners and the wealthy than there is toward the lower economic classes. Progressive taxation is just one example. A wealthy person will end up paying about 70 cents off every dollar he earns in taxes when he's all done with it. Income taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and so on. That's not fair. It's not fair that Black Americans who are 14% of the American population are getting about 46 or 47% of all AFDC dollars. That's outrageously unfair to other groups of people in this country. AFDC is an excellent example of a socialist program. Some people will say it was owed. I thought we made a big down payment with the 660,000 lives given in the civil war almost all of which were white. Why wasn't that taken into account? That's unfair. We are the only society that's ever done anything to set things right for oppressed people in our society like that. But we're talked about like we're the most evil country that ever existed. That's unfair. Pro asked about CEO's making allot of money. Well when a laborer screws up it costs a couple of bucks to replace a part. When a CEO screws up millions of dollars are lost and hundreds of people are thrown out of work. The CEO's job is allot more skilled and allot more stressful. There are allot less of them out there too. That drives the price way up. That's why it's not ridiculous. Also, if the laborer is an idiot you replace the laborer no harm done. If the CEO is an idiot you might end up losing the entire company.
* represents things taken from a fuller article in Wikipedia on Nazism
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent says that Hitler was a National Socialist. I agree that towards his fellow Germans, he was a socialist. He did great things to the German society, such as defying the treaty of Versailles, the treaty which basically left Germany under foreign domination.

Hitler practically removed Germany from the great depression in three short years, bringing unemployment to 0%. The source given below states that Nazi Germany dealt with the depression far better than the US, a capitalist nation. Thus, it is fair to conclude that the socialist economy of Germany was superior to the Capitalist economy of the US in dealing with the great depression. In fact no country in Europe could have dreamed of bringing unemployment to 0% in the great depression era, but the socialist Nazis did, and in only three years.

My opponent has himself/herself proved that capitalism is bad by his own quote of Hitler's statements, which is given below:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance"
Perfect reasons why capitalism is not good.
-Exploitation of the economically weak (poor)
-Unfair salaries (I explained in earlier rounds how the CEO earns a 1000 times more than an avg worker)
-Evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance (hardworking farmers who feed the population are looked down upon but the CEO who practically loots the poor has a high status)

When Hitler would commit genocide or something of the sort, he is not being a socialist. What part of the economic ideology of socialism (or even extreme communism for that matter) dictates that you must kill people? None, if anything Hitler was being a Fascist which I explained earlier is the extreme right wing policy. Capitalism is right wing as well (proved by the source below). I leave this at that.

Con said that since a CEO's job is more skillful and more stressful than a laborer's job since a company depends on them and their failure could result in a company losing millions of dollars. At least the CEO can eat clean food thrice a day (or more) and sleep on a comfortable bed. Many laborer class people do not have that. I hardly believe that the arguments con has given is reason enough to give CEOs a THOUSAND times more money as the avg worker (this is just the ratio between the CEO and the avg worker, if you take a CEO and the lowest class worker then the ratio will be even more astounding). Without workers, you cannot have a CEO. Without farmers, you cannot have a CEO.
In a capitalist society, the ones who do the actual work and feed the population make far less money than those who simply oversee the work and give out orders. This is why capitalism is ridiculous.

Con claimed that in the US a socialist program which is the AFDC dollars which is government aid was unfair:
"Black Americans who are 14% of the American population are getting about 46 or 47% of all AFDC dollars. "
This is because the average black American is much poorer than the average white American. Hence they receive more aid. Which is good because the wealth gap reduces which means that black and white kids will have an equal chance to succeed in life.
Socialism is all about equality, what can possibly be wrong with this? Granted this does not work perfectly in real life, and the government can be corrupt and take the food away from the people. But if a comparison was to be made between a capitalist government (with no free schools, no free hospital etc) and a socialist government (with all people being equal in wealth), considering that both governments are not corrupt, the socialist government is bound to be superior.
Look at Norway, Sweden and Canada. Those countries are categorized as socialist to some extent and they are not very corrupt but they are one of the happiest countries on earth (is that not the point of living, to achieve happiness?)

Con made this remark:
" But personally there's allot more unfairness toward the earners and the wealthy than there is toward the lower economic classes"
How can con say such a thing? Is con even aware of the life of a lower class person? I will not even begin to go on about the lives of the millions in poverty. Con is basically saying that of all the people in the world that the ones living in the big mansions and eating gourmet food everyday are the ones without fairness in this world while the starving and the unemployed are treated relatively fairly.
Let me ask con a question: Would you rather be a super rich person with a big mansion and the gourmet food etc. but pay 70% of your income in taxes or would you be a unemployed person with a terrible run down slum hut but pay nothing to the government and receive nothing from them as well? (if they received something that would be a socialist government).


I don't care.
Debate Round No. 4


Well, there we have it folks. The debate comes to an unfortunate end. All my opponent had to say to my CONVINCING ARGUMENTS was "I don't care". This is rightfully interpreted as a forfeiture of the debate, which is a severe lack of CONDUCT. I have nothing really to say to this other than the fact that I am not pleased with my opponent's participation in round 4 at all.
I leave the rest to the voters.
If my opponent actually debates in round 5, then that is wrong because con's arguments should have been in round 4 and I would have had an opportunity to rebut it in round 5. But if con's argument for round 4 is posted in round 5, I will not have an opportunity to rebut it.

A sad end to a good debate.
Vote for pro.


I'll tell you why I didn't bother with the rest of the debate. It was the experience I had with one of the notes. I realized that it doesn't matter how carefully I explain my position, some people are just so deliberately stupid around here that I'm probably going to lose despite that fact that every sane and educated person with the exception of a few nut cases in universities know that socialism doesn't work and never will. I got accused of being a racist for pointing out that 14% of our countries population is collecting 47% of it's federal AFDC assistance dollars. These debates aren't about intelligent and thoughtful people discussing ideas; their about knee jerk emotional liberals making god like declarations and anyone who disagrees gets ritually sh!t on. Having to explain for two rounds to Pro that Hitler was a socialist just to have him once again try to make him a capitalist was the last straw. I did my part. If he had just looked up fascism he'd know that it's a derivative of socialism. One source described fascism as "Socialism with a capitalist veneer". He got caught up on the right wing crap and insisted that meant capitalist. If he'd done just a tiny bit of homework he wouldn't have repeated that nonsense. What's worse is there is so much intentional stupidity on this website that people will believe his nonsense so I have to do all that running around. It's not worth my valuable time just so a bunch of left wing pricks can vote me down anyway.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Theunkown 3 years ago
Oh how much a person can change in 3 years. I denounce 90% of what I argued in this debate as rubbish.

Hitler's still not a socialist though.
Posted by Theunkown 6 years ago
JonathanDJ, I have a few things to say to you,

- you saw one guy who misinterpreted your argument and called you racist, you stop a good debate just because of one small issue. More than that, you started insulting EVERYBODY in DDO. ("knee jerk liberals").
- I said that Nazi Germany was socialist but I also said they were fascist. BUT SOCIALISM IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM FASCISM. You did not explain the similarities, you simply copy pasted from a source a mere statement. My first source states that "Unlike communism, fascism is opposed to state ownership of capital and economic equality is not a principle or goal"
My second source states that "apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative,"
I am welcome to criticism about any bias in my sources.
You my friend, are the mistaken one here. And you accuse me of being stupid wow...
- It seems to me that you are being a knee jerk emotional conservative (hypocritical). You let your emotion about the comment get to you and you just stop the debate then and there.
- BTW EVERY historian is biased. If you are going to flatly believe what any historian tells you, then you are the stupid one here.
- You know what, I think that you just quit debating because you knew if you were going to lose (if you were actually sick and tired of debating with me, WHY WERE YOU DEBATING ABOUT THE SOCIALIST AND FASCIST THING IN THE COMMENTS?)
Posted by JonathanDJ 6 years ago
You see, I told you this was a f@cking joke.
Posted by JonathanDJ 6 years ago
I see, so you're going to flatly deny what any historian or economist will tell you. Nazi Germany was a socialist state. So basically no matter how much evidence is shown to you, you're right and I'm wrong. That's what I was talking about when I said people choose to be stupid around here.
Posted by Theunkown 6 years ago
@JonathanDJ - The source you gave is very biased against socialism. I looked up the definition of socialism and all biased negative opinions came.
P.S I encourage people to vote on this debate (i do not like ties), even if you vote against me do so.
Posted by JonathanDJ 6 years ago
Sebo, it's cool about the racist thing, and I'm sorry about calling any one stupid although I didn't say anyone was stupid. I said people get or act stupid or choose to be stupid. It's a harsh way of saying that people are voting for debates, not on the basis of critical thinking, but on emotionalism and knee jerk reaction. An example is a debate I had on homosexuality. I had debated it was wrong. The other guys conduct and participation were so bad that anyone, including a gay person, who cares about debating at all would have awarded the debate to me. On one of his turns he put a link to an another website as his argument for that turn. That's how bad his conduct was. That guy won by a number of votes. Why, because people have the heads up their butts with being progay to the point where they're willing to be dishonest in their voting or just plain stupid in their voting. That's where all that frustration came from. Plus for some reason I was tired that night.
Posted by JonathanDJ 6 years ago
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism""blood and soil""for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Posted by Sebo 6 years ago
actually I was considering giving con the vote at the end, simply because I thought he made sturdier points than pro. and sorry for calling you a racist. Personally I think it came out like that a bit.

does it really matter whether the nazis were socialist or not? ( they were socialist (although socialist is a broad term), they controlled their economy, and had privately owned corporations, and businesses. but as the war came closer and closer they went over to fascism. and they didn't represent the will of the workers as they started of)

as for your debate guys, I would like to express my opinion on what I consider would be best. I would choose a middle way of some sort. have a democratically elected government, (and having them for more than 4 years. the president having to guard their position by explain every action and plan they are considering to take, every year, a debate of some sort, with normal citizens. if they he can't guard their position, a new government is elected.) with socialist policies. Having huge corporations in government hands, and those corporations competing against each other for a larger percentage of the income.( being that if the income rises workers wage rises by percentage, or by having the collective vote for the best workers, who deserve it.) thus the competitive economy of capitalism can be for some extent kept, but instead of the millions going to a private bank accounts and sitting there not used at all, the money would go to the countries budget and implemented for the benefit of all. Having variable wages but not as big as they are today in capitalist economies, a bit closer and more rational. oh and not having thousands of politicians, living of of the taxpayers money for nothing. two to three parties maybe. with the opposition to have a say only once a year in the ruling parties moves, during that guarding/debating period.)
Posted by Theunkown 6 years ago
Con, how about you give YOUR definitions of socialism and fascism. Let's compare the 2 shall we?
Posted by Theunkown 6 years ago

Fascism = Authoritarian Nationalism
Please enlighten me on how this is socialism.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, CON gave up, attacked the DDO community, and made outright false statements (Fascism is the opposite of communism on the left-right scale, thus it is not socialism, and Nazi Germany is widely recognised as fascist despite the name). Because of CON's bad form at the end, as well as his refusal to address the rest of PRO's arguments, I grant arguments and conduct to PRO.

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