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

should we remove capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
shivambam has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 893 times Debate No: 111622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




in our current economic system rich gets richer poor gets poorer ,the big man who receives all the profits never thinks to help poor people,even such as basic needs like food ,cloth ,shelter. in country like India having many billionaire condition remains the same over the period should we replace it with another system in which there should have some equality so we all can live in harmony.i know people wont change their value system but hope for good.


In relation to the question of whether we ought to 'remove capitalism', I'd argue that would be one of the most damaging things you could possibly do. Your opening statement concludes that through such a system, the 'rich gets richer', whilst the 'poor gets poorer'; this is an unfounded assumption. For the past two hundred years, rates of extreme poverty ( have been on a sharp global decline, and life expectancy ( has greatly increased throughout all regions of the world. In all of the data, these improvements pick up particularly during the post-war period and latter part of the 20th century, where globalisation and capitalist values spread rapidly.

If we take India as an example, whilst it's certainly true the rich are getting richer, the poor are too ( Since adopting free-market Capitalism, India's poverty rate has shot down, and continues to decrease. By 2030 (, the World Bank has estimated that we shall have near eliminated extreme [global] poverty. Perhaps the best comparison between Capitalism and left-wing alternatives is with East and Western Germany, where East Germany is still unable to catch up nearly 30 years after reunification - with GDP per head being 67% of that in the West. Also, there are countries such as Zimbabwe, which abandoned Capitalism for Socialism, and, as a result of being unable to pay for the excessive government expenses, printed money and increased inflation 80bn times over between 1996 and 2008 (

The only alternative to Capitalism is Socialism and Communism. Throughout the 20th century, the latter two ideologies pitted the world into states of dire poverty and hardship; many of those countries have been rescued by the benefits of global Capitalism. If we were to scrap such a successful system now, it would destroy all the progress that's been made.
Debate Round No. 1


don't you think profiteer's who has billions of dollars due to capitalism should restrict themselves to theirs needs, any how they are using poor peoples for their benefits I'm just saying we should educate people about resources and their conversations , we humans have already eaten to much from this planet ,I'm just saying if peoples take as much as their need their will be some chance of harmony . we humans have to think such system in which at least all of us gets
basic needs.present day capitalism is wearing out this planet and common man who is walking on the street and is a reason of his misery.


Whilst I'd agree with your assertion that excessive individual wealth/greed can be harmful, especially concerning the exploitation of third-world nations, I'd counter that this is not an example of Capitalism, but its anti-thesis: Corporatism.

When defining Capitalist values, the concept of individualism is certainly a must, but so are the ideas of a meritocracy and personal freedom; corporatism defies those cornerstones. Corporatism, I'd argue, is far more to do with statism than the free market. Countries like China, for example, are Corporatist because the state lowers the living standards of its workers so they can be exploited by corporations who take this chance to decrease costs. The wealth the corporations bring is then pumped back into the state for its own programs. This has arrived from the state interfering with the free market and disrupting its impartiality for its own favour - this isn't Capitalism. Statism isn't individualist, it isn't meritocratic and there's no personal freedom; it takes away individual autonomy so citizens can remain oppressed for its own betterment.

In relation to your point concerning the damage Capitalism is doing to the planet, I do share that worry. However, it's also the solution to its own problem. The idea of the 'Green Economy' is one of the hottest words in the business world right now; companies everywhere are out-competing each other in terms of 'green' innovation. The car industry is an obvious example in this, but there are also more obscure instances such as 'Memphis Meats', a company which has spotted a gap in the market for 'clean meat', and has developed a proven system where animal DNA is cloned into fresh, edible produce that's identical to a fresh kill.

In relation to your last point concerning Capitalism being the reason the 'common man' is miserable, I'd simply refer you to the links in my original answer; whilst he may not think it, the 'common man' is better off now than ever before.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by LSEpolitics 3 years ago
+1 for the CON's
Posted by CunningPotato 3 years ago
I have yet to see a superior system other than capitalism. If the con can point one out to me, and it passes my examination, then the con has my vote. If not, then the pro gets the vote.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
You cannot remove Capitalism only remove the liberty of its ownership"""""..
The law calls that process theft.
Posted by rowey2000 3 years ago
Con forced a dichotomy. Pro, you need to call con's bluff in the next round or you concede that the only economic systems in existence are socialism and capitalism. Con is incorrect in saying that. Pro, if you use an example that is not socialism as your alternative you could throw con off enough to win this debate.

You don't have to take my advice just commenting is all xx
Posted by BoomBox21 3 years ago
There is always socialism.
Posted by shivambam 3 years ago
i think its not possible for human mind to create equality in existence
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
well the opposite is communism, n that's bad for innovation. what do u suggest?, something in btwn perhaps?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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