The Instigator
js248
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
idisagreewithyou
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Socialism is evil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/18/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 119951
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

js248

Pro

Taking from someone only to give it to someone else is stealing. Socialism by definition will not work without the redistribution of wealth by way of taxes. That being said we have to make sure we the citizens, Which really means the government are using tax money in the most efficient way possible.
Students today want free college, And the tax payers should be the ones paying for it. So lets say college, Health care, All societal resources are free to the public. But wait now we have to decide who gets to go to college. We can't afford to pay for people who won't take there education seriously. So the government has to make a decision should you be allowed to go to college? What are your qualifications? What makes you a better investment than other people applying for college?
Now lets not forget about health care. The United States has a huge health problem obesity, Diabetes, And a myriad of other health concerns that run rampant across our citizens. While some people take rigorous care of there bodies, Others have horrible diets, Addictions, And lack of exercise. How do we make sure people are not abusing our health care system at expense of others. Should we fine them for bad health? Tell them what they can or can't eat? Do we ration food to make sure no one goes without?
Obviously these are extreme examples. We have to remember that in socialism the government has to play a huge role in the day to day life of a citizen. There is a reason why socialism quickly turns to communism. If the U. S was to turn into a socialized state we would quickly lose the rights and freedoms that we take for granted.
Round 1 State your argument
Round 2 prove it
Round 3 rebuttal and closing
idisagreewithyou

Con

From what I can see you believe wealth redistribution is immoral, My counter would be (assuming your a capitalist) capitalism also redistributes wealth, It's just less obvious in it's practices. Lets start with labor, Let's say you make $108 AUD a day, And on average your place of work made $2700 AUD worth of goods daily, I'll be generous and estimate only half of that is profit so that's $1350 AUD worth of goods in a day, Now let's say there are three of you working each day, So dividing the three with 1350 then you would individually have made $450 AUD worth of goods but only get 24 percent of those earnings while the rest goes to whoever owns the means of production, This amount of wealth redistribution pales in comparison to any amounts of taxation that would come from a socialist country and, Unlike in socialism, It concentrates most of the wealth to the people who are already very well off. There are also much less obvious forms of wealth redistribution like immigration. Economists agree immigration is redistributing wealth from low skilled workers to the majority (not to say I'm anti-immigration I'm very much for it). Https://www. Politico. Com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216.

So in conclusion, My argument would be if socialism is evil for wealth redistribution, Capitalism is as well, The conversation should be which one is more pragmatic and effective. Also I just wanted to mention when you said communism means more government control, Most communists don't want a centralized government, You were conflating communism with Stalinism/Maoism, While technically they are types of communism, You probably won't find any communists arguing for Stalinism.
Debate Round No. 1
js248

Pro

So in response I will address your last point. You’re absolutely right when you say we need to focus on which economic model will produce the most success.
Now on the topic of redistribution of wealth, Going off the definition given by businessdictionary. Com(http://www. Businessdictionary. Com/definition/redistribution-of-wealth. Html)
“Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, From those who have more to those below a certain income level, Through taxes that pay for welfare benefits. ” The example you gave is not an example of redistribution of wealth. So let’s say you agree to work for $10per hour, (ph) mean while the company is making $20ph. You are selling a service your time, Skills, Knowledge. You have agreed to sell your services for a price, Your customer will use your services to benefit them in the most efficient way possible. If I sell you a semi-truck, Then you use it haul goods for people that pay you a profit. Is that redistribution of wealth or are you allocating resources that you paid for to make more money for yourself. That’s gaining wealth, Not forced redistribution.
Now one thing I would like to point out about my last post, Is I failed to present socialism as a complete economic system. That being said let's focus on your final point or which system most efficiently will allocate resources to build the strongest economy possibile. The definition of socialism as stated by Merriam Webster is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” (https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/socialism)
Can you name a socialized country in history that has worked? While many socialist point to the nordic countries, These are not examples of socialism, But welfare states.
The biggest knock on socialism as proven by history, It cannot account for human nature and provide proper incentives. Capitalism is based on incentive and bringing value to the community. Mark J. Perry in his article Why Socialism Failed https://fee. Org/articles/why-socialism-failed/ talks about the importantce of incentives. If all resources and or businesses are owned by the people (government) what incentive do inventors have to create new technology or products.
The whole point of capitalism is efficiency as measured by profit and loss. In other words you know the value of your labor based on the market price or supply and demand of good or service. In a socialist country you are paid based on the work you put into the community. Who decides the value of your labor? In capitalism the market decides your value. In socialism you would have to basically create a false market. That is why in actual socialist countries you see a lack of resources and a failure to create more of the goods that are needed.
I honestly can’t think of a socialist country that thrived throughout history and had any kind of longevity with prosperity.
idisagreewithyou

Con

I agree I did miss word my thesis, I should have phrased my argument as "if wealth redistribution via taxes is immoral, What makes exploited labor any better" but I'd prefer to attack your second argument because I doubt we will find any agreement with the first one. I don't believe capitalism gives any incentive for inventors to create new technology or ground braking discoveries, Yet I believe the competitive nature of capitalism incentivizes bad practices and poor worker treatment. Companies find any way possible to use scummy tactics if it will grow profits, Housing companies buy out their own properties to drive demand up leaving people homeless and others unable to leave ghettos, Private prisons find any reason to keep prisoners under their custody, Companies like Wilmar use child workers etc. The only way companies hold back from using more blatant tactics is because the government won't allow more outrageous violations like slavery etc. But if these companies were left to their own devices they would go to those extremes. Also college should be free because schooling (college included) is an equalizer making sure everyone has equal opportunities, If college costs (like it does now) people who are well off will have a massive advantage over lower class people, This is also why schooling districts are harmful.
Debate Round No. 2
js248

Pro

js248 forfeited this round.
idisagreewithyou

Con

idisagreewithyou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by idisagreewithyou 3 years ago
idisagreewithyou
@Surgeon
If you want we can debate on this. Your pretending like capitalism isn't inherently violent as well, Under any economic system (unless your an anarchist) you would need state enforced violence, The question is what state enforced violence is legitimate, Also under socialism land is socialized, So my parents will still have there house, Just poor people can have theirs as well. Also when socialists say private property they mean land, The means of production etc. Not retirement plans, Houses and cars, That's personal property, And the state won't steal it from you. Eradicating private property would entail abolishing the ownership of workers, Land, The distribution of healthcare and medicine, The distribution of electricity etc.

Your welcome to debate me on this if you want.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
@idisagreewith you.

Of crucial importance to the question of morality is the standard you hold to. The moral standard here is findividual freedom and not individual wealth. This is exactly the point you"re glossing over. Laissez fire capitalism applies no force or co-ercion to free economic actors. Socialism does. That is the immoral part of it. Even if Socialism ushered in a utopian paradise of more wealth and a happier society (which it doesn"t), It would still be immoral as it applies force against freedom. Robert Nozick demonstrated this years ago when refuting the ideas of Rawls.

What peaceful or even mildly successful Socialist governments. They have all been rampant failures?

"It"s just the abolition of private property". Do you know what that means? How it sounds? Yes it includes stealing money, Wealth and capital from everyone in society. Taxes are just the start of it. Your parents house they struggled for 20 years to pay for - gone to the state, Your grandparents retirement plans - think again, That car you want - stand in a 20 year queue for something that won"t be yours anyway. No my problem is not only with the high tax element of it!
Posted by yardyknow 3 years ago
yardyknow
js248's opening comment is also just an argument against government, Though I don't think this is his intent. "Taking from someone only to give it to someone else" is what all forms of compulsory taxation are.
Posted by idisagreewithyou 3 years ago
idisagreewithyou
Surgeon, I'd like to make it clear I wasn't claiming the unfair wealth redistribution was created from a malevolent system colluding to screw over the working class, I understand the wealth redistribution I was commenting on is entirely natural within capitalism and isn't from any 'system', I was just arguing that if you think socialism is evil for wealth redistribution you should believe capitalism is as well.

Commenting on your next paragraph, Stalin and Mao aren't the only examples of socialist government in the past, You don't consider many of the more peaceful socialist governments that were implemented during that time. Also socialism doesn't entail stealing rich peoples income, It's just the abolition of privately owned property like land, Factories etc. Now I'm not saying there won't be any taxes, There most likely will be, I'm saying every successful nation would have some level of taxation, If that's the only problem you have with socialism I think your gripe is more with taxes and not much with socialism.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
Whilst a better case for the morality of Capitalism can be made by Pro. Cons arguments are nonsense. Con repeats the Marxist lie about there being a "system" of wealth distribution in Capitalism. There is no "system" only trade between free individuals and incorporated bodies. Where is this mythical "system"? There is only multiple sets of single trades, Freely entered into for Labour, Goods and services. The net effect of such trades (as in all free, Natural or creative endeavors) is an 80:20 distribution of wealth. But this is a spontaneous effect of human action not of a sinister malevolent "system". You might as well complain that 80% of pop music played only comes from 20% of the artists because all radio stations secretly collude, And advocate that we should force radio stations and people to listen to stuff they don"t want to hear on the grounds of fairness.

Now speaking of malevolence, Socialism is infact a "system" of force. It is applied to free economic actors to remove part of their income and/or wealth and give them to others based on arbitrary criteria of either: "do-gooders" who only want to do good with other people"s money (but not their own); or envious intellectuals (who have the hubris to think they can make better decisions for people than themselves); or (what always happens in these regimes) psychopaths who assume power because people want a "strong man" to manage the economic chaos wrought by Socialism (which always happens). Stalin and Mao are just the logical result of such systems and not the exception. Force under Socialism is immoral, Freedom under Capitalism is moral if you apply a standard related to a human life being the unit of morality. If you do not do this then you have a different standard which can justify killing large swathes of your population, And equally have no moral standard.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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