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

Is capitalism the best economic system?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,146 times Debate No: 100248
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




Capitalism is what makes America the greatest country in the world. It is one of the reasons we are made almost entirely of immigrants, because people, whether fleeing communism, socialism, or other weak economies, want to come to the U.S. because they know we have jobs. We have a solid, open, and opportunistic economy. The American Dream! Capitalism drives us to make money, to make corporations that provide jobs, and to create the goods and services which gives Western society its high quality of life. The only downside to capitalism, competition. There will always be winners and losers, but we all get a fair shot to make money. In socialism, everyone loses, but its equally bad, and just a silver-lined version. There is no incentive! That is what drives us to be great. If you are guaranteed just as much money as anyone else, you aren't going to care about doing well, and everything will be crappy. Just look at the Soviet Union, Vietnam, many parts of China. They have been so impoverished by communism, millions of citizens starve to death, which is harder than you think. Communism and socialism look great on paper, "Everybody will have money, everyone will be happy", but that just isn't the case in the real world, and no mathematics or civics can account for the uncountable number of variables playing a role in this economic system.


The US has a mixed economy, not a capitalist economy.
I would argue that the United States is mostly a mixed economy, and is not fully capitalist. The United States government has many regulations on business, provides certain things via the government, such as social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment subsidies, etc. I would argue we have had a mixed economy ever since FDR. You can read what defines a mixed economy here[1] and determine for yourself whether the United States has one.

Thus, since the United States has had a mixed economy since FDR, we should look at where majority of the United States economic growth occured. Was it back when we were more capitalistic, or when we had a mixed economy? If you look here[2] and click on "max" you'll see that majority of the GDP growth for the United States occurred between 1980 and 2005. This is well after we had a mixed economy. More than 2/3 of our economy came after FDR's policies that turned us to be more of a mixed economy.

Thus, my opponent calling the United States a capitalist nation is not entirely accurate and attributing its success to capitalism is not entirely accurate either.

Problems with capitalism:
1) Capitalism is theft. Under capitalism, it is inherently a system where some people get to make money off of other people's labor: that is what business owners do. Why is this tolerated? Shouldn't people only be given compensation for their own labor and not other people's labor? Is a person not entitled to the product of their labor? If a person is entitled to the product of their labor, then it is stealing for a business owner to take profits based off of what the workers of that company are doing. They should only be given compensation for their own personal work, and it can be argued that a business owner doesn't even do nearly as much for the company as the workers do.
2) Capitalism is undemocratic. I believe democracy is a highly-held value in America. Yet, we don't apply it to economics. Why should a business owner be able to dictate to the workers what to do without consent of those workers? Democracy is important because it gives consent to the governed. Well, a business owner is a position of power and authority. Yet, the workers are not represented at all under capitalism. It is unjust rule.

Rebuttals to opponent's arguments:
Quotes from my opponent will be italicized and the first part of each number.
1) There will always be winners and losers, but we all get a fair shot to make money.
This is not true. It takes capital to make a business, thus it takes capital(money) to be able to make a lot more money. Some person who was born poor can't just make a business right off the bat like Donald Trump could who was given 1 million dollars by his father. We don't all get a fair shot to make money.
2) In socialism, everyone loses, but its equally bad, and just a silver-lined version. There is no incentive! That is what drives us to be great. If you are guaranteed just as much money as anyone else, you aren't going to care about doing well, and everything will be crappy.
Socialism isn't about making the same amount of money as everyone else, it's about properly compensating people for legitimate work. Someone who works hard, longer, needs special skills to perform their job, etc are supposed to be compensated more than someone who doesn't need/do those things. However, someone who doesn't do anything, or hardly any hard work such as a business owner, wouldn't be compensated as much. Actually, there wouldn't be sole business owners in socialism anyways.
3) Just look at the Soviet Union, Vietnam, many parts of China. They have been so impoverished by communism, millions of citizens starve to death, which is harder than you think.
My opponent believes the lies that were told to them that these countries were socialist or communist. Anyone can just look up the definitions of those two words and see that those societies didn't meet the definitions. As anyone will find out by looking to wikipedia, socialism is the democratic control and social ownership of the means of production. The Soviet Union, Vietnam, and China had/have state ownership of the means of production, not democratic control or social ownership. State ownership of the means of production is known as state capitalism, which again, you can look up on wikipedia.

Cooperative individualism: an alternative to capitalism
Cooperative individualism, which is a system in which worker cooperatives are the majority type of business in a society, would probably be much better than capitalism. Worker coops are more productive, have higher wages for their workers, have no single business owner(since worker coops are owned by the workers of that company) and worker coops are generally more able to survive the first 5 years in business as well as recessions[3]. I am citing my previous debate for all of these facts, so if you want a more detailed version of what I am talking about, click on my third source and read my arguments. Cooperative individualism, by the way, is a form of socialism. There are many various forms of socialism, and it is not fair of my opponent to lump all of them together.

I’ll leave my argument at this for now.

Debate Round No. 1


Though it is true that the United States does not have a complete capitalist economy, it, for the most part, is capitalist. A perfect analogy for this is the United States government. Many believe the US to be a democracy, although it is actually a Democratic Republic, because with the certain traits of our country, like large population, a true democracy like they had in Greece is unfeasible. But what the U.S. does is take the best of both worlds, so we have a capitalist, free market, but also a safety net of sort. In literal sense, the United States is not completely, in its purest sense, capitalist, but in a practical sense, it most certainly is.

Rebuffing my opponent's claim that the economy grew significantly more in FDR's more mixed economic system, this statement is true, but is quite misleading. First off, this spike in GDP growth comes over 40 years after FDR's New Deal, which I assume you are talking about. This gap in data shows that there is little correlation between the new policies of the 1930s and the economic growth of the 1980s. If the two were correlated, this spike would occur much, much sooner. Secondly, there are so many other factors playing into this trend, that even if my first rebuttal were true, there would not be a definite correlation between them. My third point on this is that the increase in GDP you are referencing is most likely due to the deregulation implemented by Ronald Reagan. During the midst of the 1980 recession, Reagan was elected president. In 1981 he created what is now called "Reaganomics" in which he cut corporate tax by 25%. By the end of his presidency, unemployment was under 6%, around a 5% drop, 20 million high-paying jobs were created, 3.8 million people rose above the poverty line, and the GDP grew tremendously. This is what you are referencing to, but shows the exact opposite of your point. That capitalist economic policy has greatly helped our economy, especially when it is in decline.

Problems with capitalism (solved):
1) No, it is not theft. Employment is an agreement between two parties to trade labor in exchange for (usually monetary) compensation. Remember, employees agree to this and can quit whenever they feel like it, one of the pluses of capitalism. Also, do remember that entrepreneurs must have an idea, get it patented, form a business, and get people to buy that product. It is fair that they reap the benefits of good business, and less so the person that just has to come in and sell it. Nevermind the risks of being an entrepreneur. In our system, anyone can make money like this. Anyone can go and start their own business, a plus of capitalism.
2) See, here is where you are even more wrong. In no way, shape, or form is any business owner dictating workers. They are free to leave anytime they want. They have to listen if they want to still get paid money, and that's how it should be. They do give consent, they give consent by signing a contract to work there, by applying for that job. A king builds his kingdom from scratch and starts to gain citizens. He says to those citizens, you can live in my great kingdom, but you have to follow my rules. If you don't or if you don't want to, then leave. its the same with a corporation. He owns that corporation, so he makes the decisions. This is one of the most democratic and American-valued processes I can think of. By these means, and that the owner has absolutely no legal power, especially resembling a dictator's, your claim is false.

Rebuttals to the rebuttals:
1) That is what a bank loan is for, or investors, and is one of the perks of capitalism. In this world, you must work for money and save and invest it wisely. If you can do that, and you have a potentially-successful product, you can take out a bank loan to get the capital you need to invest in your business. Also, you need to be smart with your money, Donald Trump could have easily have let that money go to waste, but he took what he had and turned it into billions. If you have the idea, there is a way to turn that idea into a business, and that is why there is always a fair-shot to make money, because capital isn't worth anything if there is nothing to invest it in.
2) This is where people tend to go amiss. It is not about the work you put in, although that would be the fairest way. It's about what you put out. A programmer and a carpenter may put out the same amount of work. The carpenter makes a couple tables, and the programmer makes a jackpot software development. Obviously the programmer should get paid more because his product has the greatest and most valuable impact on our lives. The people who don't work but make a lot of money did extremely hard and risky work to get to that position, and that is their reward. And without sole business owners, as you mention, there would be no reason for someone to work hard to make a good product that is beneficial to us, because they know they will be compensated just as much as the cashier down the road, that's a waste of the human brain and talents.
3) Quibbling with words doesn't discredit my case. The cause of the Vietnam war was because JFK was concerned with the Domino Theory[1] and thought it was the only way to prevent it. But after the war started to cease, the Domino Theory was not a problem, because the rest of the world saw how communism ruined a country (Soviet Union prime example) and no longer considered it to be a legitimate political or economic system. This is because communism looks good on paper, but does not at all work in real life. (USSR was ruled and controlled by the founding political party Communist Party of the Soviet Union; same with People's Republic of China and also Vietnam, so yes they are communist and socialist)

Like other forms of socialism, cooperative individualism will not work in the real world. Who will make these companies? I certainly would not work day and night, take all the risk, and then have my idea given to people who just have to show up and work. Again, there is no incentive! No one will care if their product is great because when there is no one to strive to make things better, or good in the first place, products will be of low quality. No innovation goes on, nobody works hard to earn their money. That is how America will lose its hard earned prosperity, by getting rid of the thing that made us great, capitalism.



Well, as I pointed out, the United States would still have a mixed economy according to the definition of a mixed economy.

As for FDR's new deal and the economic growth we experienced, it is still true that most of his policies stayed in place and are still in place in America today. Thus, this economic growth I talked about occured while those policies were still in place. Reagan was not able to get rid of everything such as social security, unemployment subsidies, medicare, medicaid, etc. Also, the economic growth essentially started before 1980, before Reagan was in office. Again, if you look at the graph the growth starts before Reagan was in office, and it continues beyond that at around the same rate until the mid 2000s. Or, if you want we can say the growth started in the 1980s, depending on how you look at it. It would still be difficult to say this is a result of Reagan's policies since it would take a while for those policies to really affect the economy.

Problems with capitalism
1) This argument my opponent would work, if there were other options for people. It's either work for someone, have people work under you, or die of starvation under capitalism. While my opponent says a person "can quit whenever they feel like it" that's not easy when the money you make at that job is necessary to survive and provide for your family. Business owners are the ones who decide whether you get to eat at night or have your situation improved. I argue they shouldn't have that power, and this power should be shared democratically among people.
2) again, a person can't just leave a business without risking not being able to provide for themselves and a family. Also, you compared a business owner to a monarch, which is exactly what I would have done. They are monarchs. Monarchies are illegitimate forms of government, so why isn't capitalism an illegitimate form of economy? We all agree democracy is a better form of government, so democracy should be the default economic system. Well, here's news for you: socialism is democracy applied to an economic system. It literally means the democratic control/ownership of the means of production. So I contend that since capitalism puts majority of people in the situation of "work under someone or else risk not being able to provide for yourselves and a family" it is inherently not democratic. That is de facto force. Capitalism forces people to put up with someone who has control over a portion of their lives. It is not freedom. It is not democracy.

Defense of my rebuttals:
1) What bank is going to loan to someone without collateral? Again, you're living in a fantasy world. You can't just create a business when you're in poverty. Banks won't loan to someone with no collateral, and you don't have the money yourself to build a business. Also, it should be noted that working hard won't just be able to get you to the point to be able to get rich. There are people who work full time who still live in poverty. There are even more people working part-time who live in poverty. There are people who are physically unable to work. There are people who are inelligable to be hired because of the ridiculous standards of employers. Capitalism doesn't give everyone a fair shot at making money.
2) Indeed, I suppose someone who produces something that is more valuable to people would also be compensated more. As for this quote by my opponent: "And without sole business owners, as you mention, there would be no reason for someone to work hard to make a good product that is beneficial to us, because they know they will be compensated just as much as the cashier down the road, that's a waste of the human brain and talents." This is a bare assertion though. I would argue worker cooperatives are just as good as traditional businesses, if not better, at creating products that are beneficial to us. As you can read about in my other debate, worker coops surive the first 5 years at a 80% rate, in comparison to traditional businesses which survive at a 41% rate. If worker coops were terrible at providing products beneficial to us, then why do they survive more often than traditional businesses?
3) Words do matter because if you make an argument that doesn't actually apply to socialism because you used an argument that would apply to a misunderstanding of socialism or communism, then that argument doesn't actually apply. To claim we should discard an entire theory, because a country failed due to having a dictator rise to power instead of achieving socialism would be like saying capitalism should be discarded for the same reason. What if dictators rose to power when capitalism was tried? The events may be competely unrelated. To prove communism fails, you need to show that dictatorship is a natural result of communism. Just having correlation, where one or a few nations fell to dictatorship when they tried communism, doesn't prove causation. I can provide many leftist regimes which didn't result in a dictatorship, such as revolutionary catalonia, the free territory of Ukraine, and the modern day Rojava. None of these nations resulted in a totalitarian dictatorship like the attempts of communism in the USSR, Vietnam, and other places did.

Re: Cooperative individualism
"Who will make these companies?"
There are three ways in which cooperatives are made: one is a group of middle class people coming together and each pitching in some capital for the creation of a jointly-owned democratic business. The second way is through a rich person creating a traditional company, then transitions it to a worker cooperative(this is actually the most common current way worker coops are made). Some people are selfless like this and decide to not be selfish like other business owners. The third way is the group of people go to a bank and get a loan, this is the most rare way since banks tend not to loan out to worker coops.
"I certainly would not work day and night, take all the risk, and then have my idea given to people who just have to show up and work."
This is said out of selfishness of course. Not everyone is selfish. There are actually people out there who will create a traditional business, and then transition it to a worker coop. This is actually what I have plans to do. I have plans to become a psychiatrist, make my own psychiatric firm, and then give my secretaries, and any other psychiatrists who work there joint-ownership of the company as well as higher wages that will result from having joint-ownership of the company.
" Again, there is no incentive!"
How about just a desire to be a decent human being? I think most people want to be moral and good, selfless people. The incentive is that you want to be a good person. There are many rich people who are philanthropists, such as Bill Gates and John Hunstman. I contend the reason they wouldn't turn their businesses into cooperatives is that they likely don't even know what a worker coop is! I'm sure these selfless people would do so otherwise. We aren't even taught about worker coops in economics classes, so how are people supposed to know about them? Additionally, if you go to my previous debate I linked to, you'll see a source showing that 89% of people don't even know what a coop is, I bet the pecent who know what specifically a worker coop is would be even lower.
"That is how America will lose its hard earned prosperity, by getting rid of the thing that made us great, capitalism."
America is not great because of capitalism. It is held back because of it. What is great about exploiting people for their labor in order make a profit off of them?
Debate Round No. 2


Though I disagree with him, I would first like to thank my opponent for his civility and for debating me in this topic.

Yes, it is true that his policies stayed in place, but it is not true that they were the causes of the GDP growth of the 1980s, which you have claimed. Your statement that "the economic growth essentially started before 1980" is false. Reagan was elected in the midst of a recession. His deregulation ended the recession, decreased inflation, and drastically helped the economy. He stimulated our economy by major tax cuts, which increased consumer demand. This is also beneficial for your "capitalist slaves" who got to keep more of their money because of the lessened income tax. Also, you mentioned a graph, though you never cited one or provided any evidence that your claims about it are true.

Problems with capitalism (resolved)
1) Your argument is being a little closed-minded of reality. First off, many of the working class have people working below them while working for someone. You are saying that if a person quits they will starve to death. That is in no way true. There are many other jobs out there and saying you must work for someone is not the case. In most inherently capitalist societies (or slightly mixed as you have noted), there are social welfare programs. A majority of conservatives (who mostly side for increased capitalism) want certain facets of these changed, but still existent. In your stated case, the government provides not only food stamps (so you WILL NOT starve), but also welfare checks, if necessary public housing, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, Medicaid and Medicare, etc. No, business owners do not decide whether you get to eat tonight. They have to pay you a set paycheck that you agreed to when you accepted the job. They can not deny you the money if you work, and you are also guaranteed a minimum wage. What you are saying is slavery, labor without pay. That is false. Ownership should not "be shared democratically among people" because he worked to make that business and he should get to own it, that is a primitive value for all people, you own what you make. If you took that business and shared it with other people against his will, THAT is stealing.
2) Yes, but they are free to do so and that is their choice. I think you are taking my analogy too literally. Your king (or dictator if it would please the socialists) makes his kingdom. He says you can come and live here, with protection, rights, and your needs taken care of. But, you must work, and you must do what I say, or you will be kicked out (or fired). In a monarchy, you would be imprisoned or killed, that is where your logic has fallacies. It is ignorant of you to compare a political system to an economic system and compare them equivalents. They have nothing in common and can not be related to each other. That is besides the fact that your comparison is extremely backwards. Democracy represents freedom. In capitalism, you are free to have whatever job you want, start whatever company you want, earn whatever money you want. In socialism, you are told what to do, and how much money you can earn, you can not start your own business, only the government can. Again, democratic control over means of production is false. The government owns it, its no better, its worse. The final claim is so false it frustrates me to explain this again. Capitalism, in no way, shape, or form, forces anyone to do anything. They can do whatever they like, but they must live with the consequences! It is not democracy, neither is the U.S., but it is the most free system there is.

Defense of the rebuttals (rebutted):
1) You're right, no bank would. Your collateral has to be what you own. And that is why when you see a rich entrepreneur that doesn't have to work, you know he deserves it. You are risking everything you own to start that business, so you deserve to earn that much if it works. Hey, life isn't fair. If you were to risk your own financial well being making a business, you would not be concerned if you hired someone who is impoverished. You want someone to get the job done, and that life isn't fair makes it more fair in a sense. The playing field is not leveled, you use what you got. That is a fair shot.
2) Where are your statistics from, you have provided no citations whatsoever. But in all seriousness, who would want to work to make something good if he knew it would just be split with everyone else. They survive so well (I'm guessing because there is no factual evidence) because there is no competition. Low supply with regular demand makes a lot of money. That is actually a bad thing though. You see, the 41% statistic shows that there is survival of the fittest, which means that the successful have to have a good product to do well. The 80% shows us that even lower-quality products will survive because there is nothing better that is driving them out of business. This is bad for the consumer. This is exactly why they survive longer.
3) In this case, the argument does apply to socialism, but you tried to discredit my argument by saying they weren't truly socialist, though they were. You can not have capitalism and dictatorship in the real world, it just doesn't work like that. The failure of socialism in those countries though, was not single-handedly that they fell to a dictatorship, it was that people were ACTUALLY starving, the economies were absolutely horrendous, the 99% were living in poverty. That is why they were failures. Dictatorship came because of the outrage about the poor conditions.

Re: Re: Cooperative Individualism
Firstly, the second and third ways would never happen. Not a single person would use their money to start a business and then just give it to people. And as you said, "banks tend not to loan to worker coops", this is for a certain reason. If they were so good, the banks would love to loan to them, but obviously there are reasons the bank would not want to do that, even if they might for a traditional business. But a change in economic system for solely the first method is unnecessary. This can be achieved in a capitalist society. Each person owns a share of the company, and they are a board of directors for the company. They discuss and decide on company actions. You are proving that capitalism is superior to other economic systems, because cooperative ownership is possible in capitalism. Unfortunately, there is no right-minded person out there who is willing to give up their hard-earned business to someone. We all are selfish at some point. I can consider this happening a handful of times, but nowhere near the amount you are talking about. If that is your plan, I respect that and applaud you selflessness, but I question it as a business decision. It is not sustainable to set your economy off the basis that people will think up businesses and give them away. Its idealistic and just won't happen. America is the greatest country of all time. Period. It is unquestionable if you look at the advances this country has made in every field. If you look at our powerful military. If you look at our functioning, democratic government. All these things were achieved because of how great our economy was made by capitalism. Everything relies on the economy. And everything has proven the US as the greatest nation in history. Why mess with what's working. What's so great about that (your final claim) is that it ultimately benefits everyone. The consumer gets a product in demand. The laborer gets paid money. The owner gets money. If the worker agrees to provide the labor, which is always the case in capitalism, what is wrong with exploiting (to make full use of) what they have given you. They are exploiting the monetary compensation in return. That is how they make money and they worked to be able to do that. I would again like to thank my opponent for this interesting and civil debate.


The graph I mentioned is from my round 1 arguments, I'll cite it again here[4] it was originally my second source I listed. As you can see, we had an increase in GDP that looks pretty significant before 1980.

Problems with capitalism:
1) But there is nothing capitalistic about the social safety nets. Again, you have to mix together a socialist idea with capitalism in order for this not to happen. One really only needs to look at the 1800s to see what pure capitalism does to people. It should be common knowledge that working conditions were terrible in the 1800s, and most people were poor. This is something that should have been taught in history classes. And while you say that there are social safety nets, those people will still live in poverty even with those safety nets. So it's either work under a person, or be in poverty. And when I said a business owner decides whether you get to eat at night, I mean they get to decide whether you work for them or not. If no one is willing to hire you, then you have no choice but to be in poverty.

The reason a business should be shared democratically among the workers is because a worker is the reason why the business grows. The business owner is not responsible for all of the growth of the business. If we are entitled to the product of our labor, then workers should get to jointly own the business since their work is responsible for the business to grow.

2) I believe I can compare an economic system with a political system because both have positions of power. The business owner is a position of power and authority, so it needs to be a legitimate position of power or authority. Now, my opponent claims under capitalism you're free to have whatever job you want, but that's not true at all. There are requirements to have certain jobs, such as education, skills, etc. Money makes it more easy to obtain education and skills, so naturally those who already have money will be able to obtain those skills and education while those who do not have as much money, cannot. Why should it be dependent upon how much money a person has for whether they get to improve their lot in life? So, no one can just start whatever company they want, they need money to do so.

Now, in regards to " In socialism, you are told what to do, and how much money you can earn, you can not start your own business, only the government can. Again, democratic control over means of production is false. The government owns it, its no better, its worse.", this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism is. State capitalism, which is defined as "an economic system in which commercial (i.e., for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor, and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business management practices) or publicly listed corporations of which the state has controlling shares."[5] As you can see, state capitalism is when the government has control over businesses. Socialism is not that, and is defined as "a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production"[6]. Socialism has nothing to do with the government only creating businesses, or how much money you can make.

Defense against rebuttals:
1) The rich person doesn't even risk all that much when you think about it. They likely have even more capital to begin with, so it doesn't hurt them that much to risk something. At any rate, it seems you conceded that rich people are at an unfair advantage to begin with, and not everyone is able to become richer,
2) Again, I'm referring to the previous debate I had which I cited in round 1. I said "as you can read in my other debate..." I'm referring to the debate I linked to previously. The citations are in there. It's in my third source in the first round. If you want, I'll provide the direct link to the statistics though, even though you can look at it in my previous debate, here it is[7], it's on page 8. As for your argument that "The 80% shows us that even lower-quality products will survive because there is nothing better that is driving them out of business. This is bad for the consumer. This is exactly why they survive longer." I would actually argue the worker coops provide higher quality products, in fact, if you look at my previous debate, that is exactly what I argue and that is what studies show: worker coops provide higher quality products. I'll directly link to the study that shows this though: [8]. So the reason they survive is not because they provide lower quality products, as you claimed, but because they do provide higher quality products.
3) You're not providing any evidence on how these countries were socialist though. Anyone knows that they had state-control of the economy, and as my definitions show, this is state capitalism, not socialism. I provided definitions of the terms, and you're not providing anything other than your own claim that these countries were socialist.

Cooperative individualism
But, you see, this does happen in reality. People do give up their company for their workers, listen to Richard Wolff here, he cites a business in Vermont that did this very thing, and I stated, this is actually the most common way worker coops are created[9]. Now, I have no idea why banks tend not to loan to worker coops, but again, if you look at my previous debate, worker coops are much more successful in many ways than traditional businesses. Again, you need to look at my previous debate for this, but worker coops survive the first 5 years more than traditional businesses, they provide higher quality products, the employment in worker coops as well as the average wage in them remain higher than traditional businesses, etc. I literally know no reason why banks refuse to loan to worker coops other than they are part of the capitalist system and don't want to help out a socialist business. A lot of people have a huge bias against socialism, and so they likely let this bias get in the way. Bank coops do loan to worker coops though. Traditional banks are the ones who choose not to loan to worker coops.

Now, as for "You are proving that capitalism is superior to other economic systems, because cooperative ownership is possible in capitalism"
Cooperatives are inherently socialistic. As soon as you have more cooperatives in an economy, that economy becomes less capitalistic. Please note that private property is necessary for capitalism, and "Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities"[10] Please note that private property is necessary for capitalism[11] and thus cooperative property is not capitalistic, and you can't have cooperative property under a pure capitalist society. Cooperatives can exist simultaneously with capitalist businesses, but when they do, they make the economy a little less capitalistic.

As for you claiming you don't think people would give up their business, I think more people would do it if they knew about worker coops. Sure, not everyone will, but this would certainly help with bringing more worker coops.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Trump27 3 years ago
Sounds good. Hope he can learn something!
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Since Mharman freely announced that this is a training vote, I can confirm that it indeed is. CapitalistSlave astutely picked up on some of the errors of this vote, which I am currently working together with Mharman to improve. I appreciate you guys being so supportive of this effort and am pretty confident that a solid vote will be placed on this before the voting period is up by Mharman.
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
And I did try to follow the example he gave me.


1) Arguments.

For this all you really need to do is reference the key arguments from both sides of the debate and then explain how or why those arguments swayed you to one side or the other. So, let's say there is a debate titled "All dogs are bad!" Pro says that he was bit by a dog once so they are obviously bad. Con rebuts this by saying that that was only one dog, and that just because one dog bit Pro doesn't mean that ALL dogs are bad.

If you were gonna vote on this debate correctly you'd say something like this:

"Pro argued that because he was bit by a dog, all dogs are bad. Con then explained in the following round how being bit by one dog doesn't necessarily mean ALL dogs are bad. Con is correct too, one dog doesn't represent every dog on the planet. Since pro never responded to this point, Con's rebuttal was left standing unchallenged, and therefore wins arguments."

See how easy that was? That vote highlights key arguments from both sides of the debate, and also explains *why* Con's argument beat Pro's in your opinion. This would be a sufficient vote since it covers the two things we look for when awarding arguments. It's that simple :)


I may or may not need some tweaking of my RFD though, what I did make did seem a little like a rebuttal of the vote. I was trying to follow the example when it said "Con is correct too, one dog doesn't represent every dog on the planet." but I may have overdone it. Again, we'll just have to see what he thinks.
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
We'll just see what he has to say.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
Mharman: I'm pretty familiar with the voting guidelines on here. Your rfd seems fine, but there is one issue that blade-of-truth may also see. You claim that some of my arguments are half-truths, which is making an argument yourself. The voters aren't supposed to make arguments in the RFD, that is supposed to be between I and the debator. The person who should have pointed out that my argument was a half-truth was Trump27, not you. So, you can't vote based on that because you're making your own argument there, which shows a little bias in your vote. What you should do is just compare Trump27's arguments to mine and state which seems more compelling.

I could be wrong about this assessment of your vote myself, but I don't think I am. I've seen the moderators say stuff like this before when taking down a vote.
Posted by Trump27 3 years ago
But other than that your judgement of the debate seems very fair and accurate. Thank you
Posted by Trump27 3 years ago
Was your claim that there was a tiny hint of bias in my argument an insinuation that I favor capitalism because I have reaped the benefits. Just to clarify I don't and never had a job, you can prove it by looking at my age on my account...
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
If this vote is approved by Blade-of-Truth, it is legit and I have completed my coaching. Blade, please tell me if you approve of this vote being proper and legit in this comments section. This will be proof that I have completed coaching.
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
Conduct is tied; S&G is also tied. Both sides were excellent in these categories.

Sources: Con wins arguments for the following reasons:
Pro used one source, and that was Wikipedia, an often criticized source that has a history of inaccuracy. Although con also used Wikipedia, he used more than just that to back up his claims, using more sources, such as Thus, con had superior sources.
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
Arguments: Pro wins Arguments for the following reasons:
Both sides were excellent and a specific argument from pro was that 80% of co-ops survives because of a lack of competition, making a lower quality product, hurting the consumer (Round 3), which is in general, true. Con rebutted by saying that he had already proven they produce higher quality products, and link us to a previous debate of his. Upon looking at this debate his, one can find his argument. His argument is that since workers know more of what's going on, they can make decisions quicker, thus making them more efficient (Round 2 of that debate); this is more of a half-truth, because in general people tend to argue, and more people involved in the decision means more time arguing, and one can look no further than our govt. for proof of this. One specific example that stood out from con was his argument that banks will not give loans to someone who has not generated enough money for their business, and who can't even start that business because they don't have enough money to get a loan to start that either (Round 2). This is mostly true, but could use a little more truth. For one, this is little bit of circular reasoning, a huge logical fallacy; for two, there are plenty of banks that will still give smaller amounts based on what entrepreneurs have, and entrepreneurs can access more loans by making more progress, until it gets to a point in which they don't need loans anymore, and they start to pay it back. Pro rebutted by saying that an individual's collateral has to be his own, and that if it works he deserves the huge pay he gets, making capitalism a fair system because everyone can make based on what they got. This is very, very true in general, and there are lots of example to back this up, for example, Robert Herjavec; however, it did seem a teeny, tiny bit opinionated. Thus, through all this, pro wins arguments by a squeak.

*****More of RFD in next comment.*****
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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