Capitalism is Evil - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Capitalism is Evil
in Philosophy

By Glorious_JusticeGlorious_Justice 17 Pts edited February 2018
Capitalism is evil because:
  • It alienates the worker from his work
  • Incentivizes outsourcing, which creates child labor and slavery.
  • It dehumanizes the proletariat by making them nothing more than a means to produce a profit.
  • It creates aggression against progress and other proletariats by creating a fear of unemployment.
  • It demonizes the unfortunate by labeling them as lazy. If you are not working, Capitalism says that you are lazy and deserve to die for it.
Let me hear your thoughts.
joecavalryBaconToesDrCerealPogueyolostideGeorge_HorseAgility_DudeApplesauce
  1. Live Poll

    Is Capitalism evil?

    25 votes
    1. Yes
      32.00%
    2. No
      52.00%
    3. Are you a communist? (No)
      16.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Capitalism is good. It allows the country to be merit based, because people who work will most likely be a higher class.
    AmpersandDrCerealPogueGeorge_HorseNathaniel_B
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • Capitalism is good. It allows the country to be merit based, because people who work will most likely be a higher class.
    The correlation is relatively weak and it is possible to have systems which specifically reward work.
    DrCerealPogue
  • Capitalism is about not fighting evil. It isn't evil in itself. It's sort of like... Well, the truth is that every evil act is good to the winner and Capitalism chooses to accept that as it is.

    Is it nice? Hell no. I am no right wing libertarian sociopath but those that are enjoy the lack of mercy in the system and see it as a 'good' not an 'evil'.


    BaconToes
  • Those who claim “Capitalism” is evil generally considers socialism is good.

    Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

    Capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

    The way I see it, Capitalism is based on freedom, where Socialism is based on State tyranny.

    Relative to freedom, the foundation to capitalism and also, the foundation to the U.S. Constitution, I like Thomas Jefferson’s take on freedom:

    “Of liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

    Those who feel capitalism is bad, is missing their true nemesis being one of moral virtue (aka “rightful liberty”) within a society. Whatever form of governance or economic system one prefers, means little if society’s moral virtue is poor will simply morph into a state of tyranny.     

    DrCerealLibertineStates
  • Invariably the people who declare capitalism is evil end up making tons of money exploiting the masses in some other way, whether it's televangelists raising donations in the name of god, or a communist state functioning through bribes and through forcibly taking value from people.

    Face it, if the capitalists don't fleece you, the people warning you you'll get fleeced are going to find a way to fleece you.
    DrCereal
  • It's not evil. It has flaws, but, it's not evil.
  • Capitalism is neither inherently evil or good. Capitalism is economy acting as function of nature, prescribing victory to those with greater skill and/or progeny. 
  • Capitalism should be used in many countries including the US due to it awarding people who work hard.
  • The real reason why, I think, Capitalism is evil is that it disguises itself as a benevolent economic system that liberates people and promotes individuality. But this can't be further from the truth. Capitalism inevitably leads to an oppressive society wherein corporations tread on people's freedom and a consumerist attitude among people leads to the destruction of individuality. One of the fears people have about Socialism is that it leads to a monopoly of the government over resources, but the truth is that capitalism has the same effect. Due to corporate consolidation, US has effectively become an oligopoly wherein a handful of corporations decide prices and wages for workers. Another fear people have in regards to Socialism/Communism is that it leads to hunger, poverty and death. But, again, this is not unique to socialism either. We all know, how under our current global capitalist system millions of people die every day from starvation or easily preventable diseases. The problem is, when this happens, not many people want to call it capitalism's fault but somehow every death that happened in the Soviet regime or Maoist China is due to the inherent flaws of leftist ideas. This sort of double standard has lead to the Cold War-esque idea that Capitalism leads to liberty and Socialism only leads to hunger, poverty, and death.
    cdog1950
  • A follow up question to this debate would be, we can all hopefully agree that capitalism is flawed. What changes would you input in order to improve a capitalistic society?
    Agility_Dude
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Capitalism as practiced generally appears to cause much grief for many people. Particularly as practiced now in America where labor is subjected to one set of rules, and capital has another (having basically bought the government and provided socialism for themselves).  Just a mention, capitalism sometimes is conflated with the "free market," which is a lie. Socialism without  moderation will most likely fail, probably on the basis of the "fallacy of the commons."  A middle road seems to be the best solution, otherwise you end up in an oligarchy or plutocracy.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1451 Pts
    Capitalism is evil because:
    • It alienates the worker from his work
    • Incentivizes outsourcing, which creates child labor and slavery.
    • It dehumanizes the proletariat by making them nothing more than a means to produce a profit.
    • It creates aggression against progress and other proletariats by creating a fear of unemployment.
    • It demonizes the unfortunate by labeling them as lazy. If you are not working, Capitalism says that you are lazy and deserve to die for it.
    Let me hear your thoughts.
    First of all, let me note that the concept of "evil" depends on the personal moral system: what is evil in the eyes of one person can be heavenly in the eyes of another.

    That said, I will assume that your conclusions are based on the assumption that all people want to be happy in life, and what prevents them from being happy is evil, while what helps them being happy is good. With this presumption in mind, let me point out a different side of every statement you made.

    1. "It alienates the worker from his work"
    For some jobs and individuals this is true, for others it is not. While for some people having to work to be able to survive makes the work itself merely an unpleasant means of survival, for others being rewarded for their work only makes them enjoy the work they do more. This is true in my case: I love my profession, and being well paid for doing what I love only makes me love it more.

    2. Incentivizes outsourcing, which creates child labor and slavery.
    I would argue that child labor and slavery is the problem in the countries into which the outsourcing occurs, rather than of the capitalism itself. In addition, non-capitalist systems also incentivize outsourcing, even if for different reasons: for example, socialist Soviet Union regularly outsourced military orders into third world country under its influence, as the production cost was much lower this way.

    3. It dehumanizes the proletariat by making them nothing more than a means to produce a profit.
    This stems from the human nature: we are selfish creatures and we care much more about our well-being than that of other people, so exploiting others is natural. In capitalism, business owners exploit customers, while customers exploit business owners; in non-capitalist systems, governments exploit citizens, while citizens exploit governments. Capitalism is hardly special in this regard, nor is it responsible for such attitude.

    4. It creates aggression against progress and other proletariats by creating a fear of unemployment.
    At the same time, the fear of unemployment pushes those people who otherwise would sit at home doing nothing to seek paid work they could do, which leads to higher economical activity and speeds up the progress.

    5. It demonizes the unfortunate by labeling them as lazy. If you are not working, Capitalism says that you are lazy and deserve to die for it.
    This is not correct; capitalism gives you opportunities to earn capital and punishes you for wasting those opportunities, but it does not label you lazy if you happen to be unfortunate - people do. In fact, in socialist systems those who are not working are treated much harsher than in capitalist systems: while in capitalist systems not working means you do not receive any income and must seek other means of survival, in socialist systems not working typically is a crime, as you are supposed to contribute to the society, not to be a burden on its shoulders.

    I hope these comments are helpful in letting you see the other side of the issue! As any other system, capitalism has strong and weak sides; in my opinion, history demonstrates its strong sides to be much more abundant than its weak sides, compared to every other system ever attempted. It does not mean that capitalism is the final, ultimate system - however, it is a very effective system, considering that for thousands years a better system was never found.
  • Communism is evil.


    Nathaniel_BDrCereal
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • Capitalism is no where near evil. Capitalism is what lead the world into the 20th century, socialist countries always fail, and capitalist countries always prevailed, which is why China  were smart enough to not have their people be deprived of food, turned to free-market capitalism, because capitalism works, and socialism fails, everytime.
    George_HorseDrCereal
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • MayCaesar said:
    Capitalism is evil because:
    • It alienates the worker from his work
    • Incentivizes outsourcing, which creates child labor and slavery.
    • It dehumanizes the proletariat by making them nothing more than a means to produce a profit.
    • It creates aggression against progress and other proletariats by creating a fear of unemployment.
    • It demonizes the unfortunate by labeling them as lazy. If you are not working, Capitalism says that you are lazy and deserve to die for it.
    Let me hear your thoughts.
    First of all, let me note that the concept of "evil" depends on the personal moral system: what is evil in the eyes of one person can be heavenly in the eyes of another.

    That said, I will assume that your conclusions are based on the assumption that all people want to be happy in life, and what prevents them from being happy is evil, while what helps them being happy is good. With this presumption in mind, let me point out a different side of every statement you made.

    1. "It alienates the worker from his work"
    For some jobs and individuals this is true, for others it is not. While for some people having to work to be able to survive makes the work itself merely an unpleasant means of survival, for others being rewarded for their work only makes them enjoy the work they do more. This is true in my case: I love my profession, and being well paid for doing what I love only makes me love it more.
    The alienation of the worker refers to their lack of control over their working life not "are they happy".. People may or may not enjoy work but employees lack overall control of their working life, the product they develop, how they work and are alienated from other workers by the competitive nature of workplaces.

    If you want to understand the point you are tryign to rebutt without understanding you can wiki it or read the relevant section of Marx's manuscripts here.
    2. Incentivizes outsourcing, which creates child labor and slavery.
    I would argue that child labor and slavery is the problem in the countries into which the outsourcing occurs, rather than of the capitalism itself. In addition, non-capitalist systems also incentivize outsourcing, even if for different reasons: for example, socialist Soviet Union regularly outsourced military orders into third world country under its influence, as the production cost was much lower this way.
    This is a very poor excuse. Capitalists are happy to accept the results of Capitalism when they view it as beneficial e.g. "The profit motive drives people to seek efficiency gains!". You can't then push away the negative aspects of the profit motive driving people to make immoral and harmful decisions.

    Also feel free to source evidence for your USSR claim or it can just be disregarded.
    3. It dehumanizes the proletariat by making them nothing more than a means to produce a profit.
    This stems from the human nature: we are selfish creatures and we care much more about our well-being than that of other people, so exploiting others is natural. In capitalism, business owners exploit customers, while customers exploit business owners; in non-capitalist systems, governments exploit citizens, while citizens exploit governments. Capitalism is hardly special in this regard, nor is it responsible for such attitude.
    An absurd simplification that can be instantly dismissed. People are selfish, but we're also caring, generous, thoughtful, prideful, etc. To quote Ha Joon-Chang, professor of Economics at Cambridge from his book 23 Thigns You Didn't Know About Capitalism:

    "The assumption of self-seeking individualism, which is at the heart of free-market economics, has a lot of resonance with our personal experience. We have all been cheated by unscrupulous traders, be it the fruit seller who put some rotten plums at the bottom of the paper bag of the yoghurt company that vastly exaggerated the health benefits of its products. We know too many corrupt politicians and lazy bureaucrats to believe that all public servants are solely serving the public. Most of us, myself included, have goofed off from work ourselves and some of us have been frustrated by junior colleagues and assistants who find all kinds of excuses not to put in serious work. Moreover, what we read in the news media these days tells us that professional managers, even the supposed champions of shareholder interest such as Jack Welch of Ge and Rick Wagoner of GM, have not really been serving the best interests of the shareholders.

    This is true. However, we also have a lot of evidence - not just anecdotes but true systematic evidence - showing that self-interest is not the only human motivation that matters in our economic life. Self-interest, to be sure, is one of the most important, but we have many other motives - honesty, self-respect, altruism, love, sympathy, faith, sense of duty, solidarity, loyalty, public-spiritedness, patriotism, and so on - that are sometimes even more important than self-seeking as the driver of our behaviours.

    Our earlier example of Kobe Steels shows how successful companies are running on trust and loyalty, rather than suspicion and self-seeking. If you think this is a peculiar example from a country of 'worker ants' that suppresses individuality against human nature, pick up any book of business leadership or any autobiography by a successful businessman published in the West and see what they say. Do they say that you have to suspect people and watch them all the time for slacking and cheating? No, they probably talk mostly about how to 'connect' with the employees, change the way they see things, inspire them, and promote team-work among them. Good managers know that people are not tunnel-visioned self-seeking robots. They know that people have good sides and bad sides and that the secret of good management is in magnifying the former and toning down the latter.

    Another good example to illustrate the complexity of human motivation is the practice of 'work to rule', where workers slow down output by strictly following the rules that govern their tasks. You may wonder how workers can hurt their employers by working according to the rule. However this semi-strike method also known as 'Italian strike' (and as 'sciopero bianco' or 'white strike', by Italians themselves) - is known to reduce output by 30 - 50%. This is because not everything can be specified in employment contracts (rules) and therefore all production processes rely heavily on the workers goodwill to do extra things that are not required by their contract or exercise initiatives and take shortcuts in order to expedite things when the rules are too cumbersome. The motivations behind such non-selfish behaviours by workers are varied - fondness of their jobs, pride in their workmanship, self-respect, solidarity with their colleagues, trust in their top managers or loyalty to their company. But the bottom line is that companies, and thus our economy, would grind to a halt if people acted in totally selfish ways, as they are assumed to do in free-market economies."

    4. It creates aggression against progress and other proletariats by creating a fear of unemployment.
    At the same time, the fear of unemployment pushes those people who otherwise would sit at home doing nothing to seek paid work they could do, which leads to higher economical activity and speeds up the progress.
    Baseless claim, also missing the issue that Capitalist economies have structural unemployment issues and have more unemployed people than there are jobs. It isn't a case of people will get jobs if they try hard enough

    5. It demonizes the unfortunate by labeling them as lazy. If you are not working, Capitalism says that you are lazy and deserve to die for it.
    This is not correct; capitalism gives you opportunities to earn capital and punishes you for wasting those opportunities, but it does not label you lazy if you happen to be unfortunate - people do. In fact, in socialist systems those who are not working are treated much harsher than in capitalist systems: while in capitalist systems not working means you do not receive any income and must seek other means of survival, in socialist systems not working typically is a crime, as you are supposed to contribute to the society, not to be a burden on its shoulders.

    Just World fallacy. People don't succeed based on grit and determination just because you would like it if they succeeded on grit and determination. Not only that but you proved his point for him, int he prior point you specifically call out unemployed people as people who want to "sit at home doing nothing."

    Capitalism is based around people earning money from their wealth rather than from their work and the profit motive driving people to compete and increase their profit to generate more wealth.It's specifically a system which has no place for the unemployed or no way of handling them 

    Capitalism is no where near evil. Capitalism is what lead the world into the 20th century, socialist countries always fail, and capitalist countries always prevailed, which is why China  were smart enough to not have their people be deprived of food, turned to free-market capitalism, because capitalism works, and socialism fails, everytime.
    Lol this dude thinks China subscribes to "free-market Capitalism".
  • Ampersand said:
    Capitalism is no where near evil. Capitalism is what lead the world into the 20th century, socialist countries always fail, and capitalist countries always prevailed, which is why China  were smart enough to not have their people be deprived of food, turned to free-market capitalism, because capitalism works, and socialism fails, everytime.
    Lol this dude thinks China subscribes to "free-market Capitalism".
    Then what economic system do they have then wise guy? Correct me.
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • Ampersand said:
    Capitalism is no where near evil. Capitalism is what lead the world into the 20th century, socialist countries always fail, and capitalist countries always prevailed, which is why China  were smart enough to not have their people be deprived of food, turned to free-market capitalism, because capitalism works, and socialism fails, everytime.
    Lol this dude thinks China subscribes to "free-market Capitalism".
    Then what economic system do they have then wise guy? Correct me.
    You could classify it in a number of ways: as a mixed market economy, a socialist market economy, a state capitalist economy etc. No-one in their right minds though would describe this heavily regulated and restricted economy to be "free market" which refers to a market situation with little to no government intervention.
    Nathaniel_B
  • Ampersand said:
    Capitalism is good. It allows the country to be merit based, because people who work will most likely be a higher class.
    The correlation is relatively weak and it is possible to have systems which specifically reward work.

    How does paying a worker for his work no specifically reward work?  ROFL

  • Theocrat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Capitalism is good. It allows the country to be merit based, because people who work will most likely be a higher class.
    The correlation is relatively weak and it is possible to have systems which specifically reward work.


    How does paying a worker for his work no specifically reward work?  ROFL
    The line of discussion wasn't about whether people are paid or whether there is a reward at all, which by the by is a very low benchmark that's met even by feudal organisations and even some types of slavery where they paid their workers; but whether it is merit based and "people who work will most likely be a higher class" as per the text in joecavalry's quote.

    Pretty much the defining feature of Capitalism is that control and the ability to extract profits from a business is based on how much money you have invested in it (e.g. how much capital), not how hard you work.
  • Where did you get the idea that "profits from a business is based on how much money you have invested and not how hard you work?  Everyone one of my employees is paid based on his work and they have no capital invested in the company.   
  • Theocrat said:
    Where did you get the idea that "profits from a business is based on how much money you have invested and not how hard you work?  Everyone one of my employees is paid based on his work and they have no capital invested in the company.   
    Don't misquote me, the full statement was:

    "Pretty much the defining feature of Capitalism is that control and the ability to extract profits from a business is based on how much money you have invested in it (e.g. how much capital), not how hard you work."

    Do your workers meet either criteria? No. The investors and owners of the business are able to benefit from the profits that are accrued - that's the basis of Capitalism. ordinary workers will receive a salary and may receive a benefit as profits increase (which may or may not be in line with the increase in turnover) or may not - that not being an critical component of the Capitalist method. Similarly the owners of the business are the ones who call the shots and have control over how it runs.

    Ergo exactly as I stated.
  • You have a mistaken view of capitalism.  All capitalism is is when free people make voluntarily exchanges with other free people concerning their property and labor.  It has nothing to do with how a business is financed.
  • Think free enterprise or free market.
  • A follow up question to this debate would be, we can all hopefully agree that capitalism is flawed. What changes would you input in order to improve a capitalistic society?
    Get the government completely out of the market, other than as a consumer of goods necessary to carry out just government powers approved by the people.
  • Theocrat said:
    You have a mistaken view of capitalism.  All capitalism is is when free people make voluntarily exchanges with other free people concerning their property and labor.  It has nothing to do with how a business is financed.

    Incorrect.

     http://bfy.tw/10Jr

    "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."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

    "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

    Also you're using voluntary exchange wrong, that relates to buyers and sellers - not employers and employees. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_exchange
  • Sorry, dude, I do not concern myself with websites not written by capitalist economists when it comes to definitions of capitalism.

    And employers and employees are buyers and sellers when it comes to labor.  Take Econ 101 and get back to me.


  • Theocrat said:
    Sorry, dude, I do not concern myself with websites not written by capitalist economists when it comes to definitions of capitalism.

    And employers and employees are buyers and sellers when it comes to labor.  Take Econ 101 and get back to me.
    If you'd checked the sources you would have seen they were backed up by sources from Capitalist economists. I'm sorry your belief in your knowledge of economics was false.
  • Tell us your educatiom in economics?  I am waging none.  But that never stop saying fools from running their mouths.
  • ROFL.  Tell us of your education in economics?  I am betting none.  But utter ignorance never stops a fool from running their mouths.  BTW, nice selective use of Google.  IT speaks highly of your intellectual integrity.  
  • Theocrat said:
    Tell us your educatiom in economics?  I am waging none.  But that never stop saying fools from running their mouths.
    Are you insinuating you have a degree in economics but don't even know basic terminology? Please don't bother me with logically fallacious arguments.
  • Naturally, this arrogant fool runs from the Q rather than admit his total ignorance of the subject.  Moving on to less arrogant foolishness.
  • Theocrat said:
    Naturally, this arrogant fool runs from the Q rather than admit his total ignorance of the subject.  Moving on to less arrogant foolishness.
    Fallacious. Arguments are judged based on the merits e.g. the actual evidence and reasoning used, not automatically awarded based on education - which I'm pretty sure I'd win regardless.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch