frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Is Socialism Better Than Capitalism?

Debate Information


Not at all.  Here are some of the commonly cited flaws of socialism:
  1. Centralized Control: Socialism advocates for centralized control of the economy and resources, which can lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies, corruption, and lack of accountability.

  2. Incentives: Socialism undermines the individual incentives for innovation, hard work, and productivity, as the rewards are shared equally among all members of society, regardless of their contributions.

  3. Limited Individual Freedoms: Socialism often limits individual freedoms, such as the freedom to own private property, start a business, and choose one's occupation.

  4. Market Distortions: Socialism tends to distort market mechanisms, leading to the misallocation of resources, shortages, and surpluses.

  5. Lack of Innovation: In a socialist system, the government controls the means of production, which may discourage innovation and entrepreneurship, leading to a lack of progress and economic growth.

  6. Inefficient Resource Allocation: In a socialist system, resources are often allocated based on political considerations rather than market forces, leading to inefficient allocation and waste.

  7. Lack of Consumer Choice: Socialism may limit consumer choice, as the government controls the production and distribution of goods and services, leading to a limited range of products and services.

  8. Economic Stagnation: Socialism can lead to economic stagnation, as the lack of incentives and market mechanisms may discourage investment and growth, leading to lower living standards over time.

Basically, socialism stinks.
jackCat
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 809 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Some Failed Socialist Countries

    1. Soviet Union: The Soviet Union was a one-party state that existed from 1922 to 1991. It was officially socialist, with the means of production owned by the state. The Soviet economy experienced chronic shortages, inefficiencies, and corruption, and political repression was widespread. The country ultimately collapsed due to a combination of economic stagnation, political infighting, and popular discontent.

    2. China (during the Cultural Revolution): During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), China underwent a radical socialist experiment in which Mao Zedong sought to purge capitalist and bourgeois elements from society. This led to widespread violence, persecution, and disruption, and the country experienced economic decline and social chaos. Many critics argue that the Cultural Revolution represented a failure of socialist ideology.

    3. Cambodia (under the Khmer Rouge): The Khmer Rouge was a communist revolutionary group that seized power in Cambodia in 1975 and ruled until 1979. During this time, they attempted to transform the country into an agrarian socialist utopia, but their policies led to widespread famine, persecution, and genocide. It is estimated that between 1.7 and 2.2 million people died as a result of Khmer Rouge policies.

    4. Venezuela: Venezuela has been governed by socialist leaders since the late 1990s, but the country has experienced economic decline, political instability, and social unrest in recent years. Critics argue that the socialist policies pursued by the government have contributed to the country's problems.

    jackNomenclatureDeeZeusAres42Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Argument Topic: Typical Rubbish, Mired In Fallacy

    Your question itself is pure nonsense, since what does better even mean? Better for whom? Better in which way?

    Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism work in isolation, and the only functional solution is a hybrid system.

    Capitalism is useful for producing short term economic growth, but since it is fundamentally rooted in the ruthless exploitation of labour then, as time progresses, wealth inequality grows and society becomes divided between haves and have nots. Moreover, social attitudes also become divided, with the haves developing a spoilt, entitled outlook on life as a result of trying to justify that they deserve more than the have nots. This entrenches conflict with the have nots and inevitably results in perpetual class warfare, until such time as the haves take away what few rights the have nots have left, and a dystopia is born. Capitalism is the same system as feudalism, expanded from land ownership into a more general system of exploitation. In short, anybody who says that capitalism works as a long-term economic model is either fundamentally dishonest or they don't understand capitalism. 

    Both capitalism and socialism lead to monopolies of different types. Capitalism to a monopoly of private capital and socialism to a monopoly of state power.

    I'm not running through each and every one of your points, because you and I both know you're deliberately distorting history and economics for selfish, ideological reasons. But I'll address a couple of them:-
    Incentives: Socialism undermines the individual incentives for innovation, hard work, and productivity, as the rewards are shared equally among all members of society, regardless of their contributions.
    Capitalism undermines the exact same incentives. There is no point in working hard because the profits generated by labour are enjoyed not by the workers, but by the private businesses which employ the labour. The workers get the same salary whether they work hard or not. Therefore, why would they bother?

    Moreover, since capitalism is rooted in a fundamental conflict of interest between businesses which want to maximise profits and workers who want to maximise wages, general salaries are not that great in the first place. It is not unusual for people to work two or three jobs just to survive. At least under socialism those types of circumstances can be eliminated and people may have some time to themselves, free from the worry of exploitation and debt.

    Capitalism is the textbook definition of a pyramid system. A person works to make a hundred people above them on the ladder richer, in the hope that one day they themselves can see some of that wealth. It's the economic equivalent of doing press ups with a hundred fat, greedy monkeys sitting on your back.

    Limited Individual Freedoms: Socialism often limits individual freedoms, such as the freedom to own private property, start a business, and choose one's occupation.
    In which universe exactly does capitalism not limit individual freedom? A person is saddled with debt before they even finish college, they incur more debt to pay for housing and transport, and inevitably they are forced to labour 40-60 hours a week doing something they absolutely hate just in order to be able to afford to survive. Capitalism is a slave system which survives by keeping the general population ignorant and pumping out outrageous propaganda about itself. There is no freedom in capitalism. You work, you go to prison or you die. Those are your three options. The only exceptions are for those with capital, who can afford to be unemployed and enjoy life however they see fit.
    Venezuela: Venezuela has been governed by socialist leaders since the late 1990s

    Like many other parts of South America, Venezuela has been leaning towards socialism since the 1960s-1970s. It was previously an oil rich country which, during the 1970s, began dumping massive investments into social programs for the poor. Many of these programs were a huge success in improving living conditions in the country. By the mid 1970s it was a country on a meteoric rise. Of course, capitalist leaders could never allow this type of system to be a success story, so they conspired to crash the price of oil and dumped Venezuela back into the dark ages. Now they like to pretend socialism is the cause of poverty in Venezuela, despite the fact that in practice the country abandoned its socialist ambitions decades ago and the overwhelming majority of its economy now operates in the private sector. 

    Of course, you have not mentioned any of the many failures of capitalism, which is typical of your familiar brand of sophism. Countries like Zimbabwe, where inflation reached over 8 billion percent, or Guatemala and El Salvador, where roving death squads roamed the streets at night. Or even South Vietnam, where the Americans implemented a corrupt capitalist government to stop the inevitable communist revolution which happened the moment the military withdrew.

    Omission, distortion and revisionism. These are your three tools.

    DeeOakTownACat
  • @JulesKorngold
    1. Soviet Union: The Soviet Union was a one-party state that existed from 1922 to 1991. It was officially socialist, with the means of production owned by the state. The Soviet economy experienced chronic shortages, inefficiencies, and corruption, and political repression was widespread. The country ultimately collapsed due to a combination of economic stagnation, political infighting, and popular discontent.

    WRONG!
    The term U.S.S.R. was the united states held by a state of the union created and held by a group of international witnesses to describe a governing method. To give you a better understanding North Korea is the U.S.K.R.( United, Socialist, Korean, Republic,) we are detail a whole truth that North Korea is united in its threat creating its own state of the union with Chemical Warfare against America.


  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    JulesKorngold said:

    Is Socialism Better Than Capitalism?

    Hello Jules:

    Socialism is a wonderful idea that doesn't work.  It's designed so that EVERYBODY shares in the spoils, and EVERYBODY shares in the work..  There would be no POOR people, and there'd be no RICH people.

    And, that's nice.  But, we know people will STEAL, and SHIRK, thereby making it impossible to work.

    excon
    JulesKorngold
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    Basically, socialism stinks.

    Well everything that's not based on the nonsensical capitalist   fantasy of " the American dream" to them stinks.

    Whatever about the failures of Socialism one only has to look at the rampant model of American capitalism to see how dreadfully inept it is.

    Americans never seem to grasp  that a form of capitalism exists that implements and calls for social policies as in decent minimum wage, affordable healthcare ,education,  social affordable housing etc,etc, but Americans even begrudge that to their own people yet defend furiously the system that fleeces them with heathcare / educational costs and insist that minimum wage laws are highly immoral but an employers "right" to exploit his workers is of course perfectly "moral" . 





















    Cat
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    Dee said:

    Americans even begrudge that to their own people yet defend furiously the system that fleeces them with heathcare / educational costs and insist that minimum wage laws are highly immoral but an employers "right" to exploit his workers is of course perfectly "moral"

    Hello D:

    Those are excellent reasons why you should stay the FU*CK out!

    excon
    NomenclatureDeeCat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @jack

    Hello D

    Hi hater

    Those are excellent reasons why you should stay the FU*CK out



    No worries on that score , I meet enough Americans over here who left on account of the ridiculous healthcare/ educational  costs also what sane individual  thinks it a norm that schools need armed guards to protect their kids ......a nation of loons







    Cat
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 809 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Socialist Propaganda

    1. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
    2. "The workers must own the means of production."
    3. "A society based on social justice and equality."
    4. "The abolition of private property."
    5. "A fair distribution of wealth and resources."
    6. "Equal rights for all citizens regardless of class or status."
    7. "Workers of the world, unite!"
    8. "The government should provide education, healthcare, and housing for all citizens."
    9. "Collective ownership of the economy is the only way to achieve true prosperity."
    10. "The only way to end poverty is to end the capitalist system."
    jackCat
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @JulesKorngold

    In search of the more perfect union......

    A simplified translation to describe what “united-state” socialism economically holds is. Socialism is a method to which who is to do business with who is free from doubt by a influence outside forces of the two or more parties who are in fact doing business.  


  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 809 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Rejection

    Most countries reject socialism because they believe it fails to incentivize people to work hard, undermines individual liberty, and can lead to centralized government control over people's lives. Additionally, many countries worry that socialism will lead to economic stagnation, due to its reliance on government control over production and its lack of incentives for innovation and economic growth.
    NomenclatureDeeCat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    The reason failed socialist experiments keep occurring, and their elements keep getting implemented in largely capitalist economies (with disastrous consequences), is that it speaks to the lowest human urges. Capitalism requires the economical agent to take responsibility for his choices, to take risks and sometimes fail, to stand up to those who try to take advantage of his weaknesses: it is for strong, confident, optimistic and ambitious people. Socialism, on the other hand, is for those whose primal urges run them and who seek to take, to grab, to swallow, to cum, not to create, to produce, to build, to engineer.

    This clearly manifests in how socialists and capitalists look at the world in general. When a capitalist sees a shelf of foods loaded with fat and sugar, he thinks, "Is this good for me? No, it is not, so I refuse to purchase this". Or "No, but I want to enjoy these sweets and will accept the hit on my health". When a socialist sees the same shelf, he thinks, "These horrible greedy billionaires are making us fat." In the latter case, the person forfeits human agency and assumes that other people can control his mind.

    Which one is easier, more comfortable - at least, at the first glance? Being out in the wilds and having to work for your happiness, or laying in a cozy bed and letting your mommy take care of you? The answer is obvious. Which one makes for a better life though? You decide. Many societies decided that comfort is more important than freedom... Good for them! Me, I hate comfort: comfort is stagnation and boredom. I go out there, take massive risks, often fail - and love all of it. I prefer sleeping at the top of a mountain in a snowstorm to sleeping in a cozy hotel bed, a swamp crawl with my date to laying with her on a couch watching Netflix.
    NomenclatureDeeCat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @jack
    Those are excellent reasons why you should stay the FU*CK out!

    No person with even half a functional brain cell wants anything to do with your country and that has been true for at least the last 30 years.

    DeeCat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    Capitalism requires the economical agent to take responsibility for his choices, to take risks and sometimes fail, to stand up to those who try to take advantage of his weaknesses: it is for strong, confident, optimistic and ambitious people

    It's literally a system built on the exploitation of labour for profit. Capitalism is the reason there are kids working in Indian sweat shops making sneakers and in African mines digging for cobalt. Your efforts to romanticise its basic structure are plain daft. It was literally invented by people who traded in human slaves.

    This idiotic propaganda you've been brainwashed with that poor people deserve to be poor, and are poor because of their own decisions, is some of the most dangerously ridiculous ideology I've ever born witness to. It rivals religious fundamentalism in its lunacy.

    CatOakTownA
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    Most countries reject socialism because they believe it fails to incentivize people to work hard,

    Not even remotely true. Most countries reject socialism because they know the history of how the United States has reacted to those countries which have accepted it. 

    Capitalist bubblegum propaganda and the implied threat of homelessness are used to incentivise people to work hard in the United States. It isn't difficult to transfer propaganda and threats to any other system. The fascists managed it, as did many of the ostensibly "communist" systems of the past. 

    Cat
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited February 2023

    Most countries reject socialism because they believe it fails to incentivize people to work hard,

    Not even remotely true. Most countries reject socialism because they know the history of how the United States has reacted to those countries which have accepted it.

    Hello N:

    So, they WOULD adopt socialism if they weren't SCARED of the US, so they adopt systems they're opposed to, and HOPE it works out..

    Do you know how NUTTY that sounds???  Uhh, no you don't..  But, WE do, so keep it up.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha

    excon
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 809 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Capitalism Wins

    Most countries choose capitalism as their economic system because it is the most efficient and effective way to create wealth and promote economic growth. Under capitalism, individuals and businesses are free to pursue their own interests and are incentivized to innovate and produce goods and services that meet the needs and wants of consumers. The profit motive drives businesses to continually improve their products and processes, leading to increased efficiency and productivity.

    Capitalism also allows for a greater degree of personal freedom and choice than other economic systems, such as socialism or communism, where the government controls the means of production and distribution of goods and services. In a capitalist system, individuals have the freedom to choose how they want to earn a living and spend their money, and businesses have the freedom to compete with each other in the marketplace.

    Another reason why many countries choose capitalism is that it has been shown to be effective in promoting economic growth and reducing poverty. Countries that have adopted capitalist economic systems, such as the United States, Japan, and South Korea, have experienced sustained periods of economic growth and prosperity.

    NomenclatureDeeCat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023


    Richest 1% own half the world's wealth, study finds

    https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse

    In world of wealth, 9 million people die every year from hunger

    https://www.wfp.org/news/world-wealth-9-million-people-die-every-year-hunger-wfp-chief-tells-food-system-summit

    Wealth inequality is soaring

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/wealth-inequality-reasons-richest-global-gap

    Anti-Communism and the Hundreds of Millions of Victims of Capitalism

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2021.1875603

    Does Capitalism Mean War?

    https://countercurrents.org/2019/05/does-capitalism-mean-war/

    A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: FACING U.S. WARS OF AGGRESSION

    https://gsgriffin.com/2016/12/08/a-history-of-violence-facing-u-s-wars-of-aggression/

    How British capitalism grew rich through slavery

    https://www.socialist.net/how-british-capitalism-grew-rich-through-slavery.htm

    Slaves: The Capital that Made Capitalism

    https://publicseminar.org/2015/08/slaves-the-capital-that-made-capitalism/

    The World's 85 Richest People Are as Wealthy as the Poorest 3 Billion

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-worlds-85-richest-people-are-as-wealthy-as-the-poorest-3-billion/283206/

    Free to stitch, or starve: capitalism and unfreedom in the global garment industry

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/free-to-stitch-or-starve-capitalism-and-unfreedom-in-global-garmen/

    Capitalism Corrupted: Sweat Shops

    https://lucylit.medium.com/capitalism-corrupted-sweat-shops-cd45f35dd95

    CatOakTownA
  • @JulesKorngold
    Most countries reject socialism because they believe it fails to incentivize people to work hard, undermines individual liberty, and can lead to centralized government control over people's lives. Additionally, many countries worry that socialism will lead to economic stagnation, due to its reliance on government control over production and its lack of incentives for innovation and economic growth.
    I am not picking on you but instead asking isn't it better to say....

    Most countries reject socialism because they believe it fails to incentivize people to work hard, undermines liberty, and can lead to centralized political control over people's lives. Additionally, many countries worry that socialism will lead to economic stagnation, due to its reliance on politics as control over production and its dictates outside approvals over other incentives for innovation and economic growth.

    Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @John_C_87
    Most countries reject socialism because they believe it fails to incentivize people to work hard, undermines liberty, and can lead to centralized political control over people's lives.

    It doesn't have anything to do with that. The United States bullies, harasses and sanctions any country which moves into socialism. It has done the exact same thing for decades. He's spewing out vacuous capitalist propaganda with no regard for factual reality. Capitalism is a centrally controlled system and it has to be because if the government wasn't there to protect the interests of private capital there would be mass revolt. There's no way that poor people would willingly struggle and starve while greedy capitalist parasites in the next street gorge themselves on the teat of other people's hard work and sweat. Without a centralised government to put people in jail, saturate the airwaves and the print media with propaganda, dumb down the education system, smash trade unions and hinder protests, capitalism couldn't survive. 

    Cat
  • @Nomenclature

    It's literally a system built on the exploitation of labour for profit. Capitalism is the reason there are kids working in Indian sweat shops making sneakers and in African mines digging for cobalt. Your efforts to romanticise its basic structure are plain daft. 

    I do not think you understand Capitalism as an economic issue, a problem created by Capitalism itself would be that workers in India own their own sewing machines in India. You are speaking of ethical issues out of context created by structural guidance events that are caused by people not the ownership of Capital itself.

    It was literally invented by people who traded in human slaves.

    No, capitalism was invented by expansion of economic politics not forced human labor, capitalism is an alibi used not hold all United States as Constitutional Right. We do agree this includes people both in America and outside United States of America.


    jackCat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @John_C_87
    I do not think you understand Capitalism as an economic issue

    Capitalism is a system built on the exploitation of labour for profit. That's objectively what it is, and the reason you don't understand that is because you're American, and Americans live inside the most extreme and ridiculous propaganda state this world has ever witnessed. 

    No

    Yes. Capitalism was invented by people who bought and sold human slaves. That's objectively true, whether you like it or not.

    Cat
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Nomenclature

    It doesn't have anything to do with that. The United States bullies, harasses and sanctions any country which moves into socialism. It has done the exact same thing for decades. He's spewing out vacuous capitalist propaganda with no regard for factual reality. Capitalism is a "centrally controlled system" and it has to be because if the government wasn't there to protect the interests of private capital there would be mass revolt. 

    Socialism is the political control of Capital. Whereas public revolt and public insurrection are cycles of politics. The argument you make is over the buying or the purchase of liberty over the holding of liberty by Untied State Constitutional Right. As compared to the ownership of economic Capital or not the economic ownership of Capital. 

    There's no way that poor people would willingly struggle and starve while greedy capitalist parasites in the next street gorge themselves on the teat of other people's hard work and sweat. Without a centralised government to put people in jail, saturate the airwaves and the print media with propaganda, dumb down the education system, smash trade unions and hinder protests, capitalism wouldn't survive. 

    Like JulesKorngold I have to ask isn't it better to write what you had written like this.

    "There's no way that poor people would willingly struggle and starve while greedy people act as parasites in the next street gorge themselves on the teat of other people's hard work and sweat. Without a centralised polotics to put people in jail, saturate the airwaves and the print media with propaganda, dumb down the education system, smash trade unions and hinder protests, capitalism wouldn't survive."

    A person who does not want others to own Capital cannot be called a Capitalis in whole truth.

    It is Centralized governing, which is otherwise call communism, whereas centralized politics is a method to link governing to such facts as untied states such as unions made to established justice.

    Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Socialism is the political control of Capital.

    Socialism doesn't have anything to do with whether or not capitalism is centrally controlled. 

    It is Centralized governing, which is otherwise call communism

    Same fallacy. 

    DeeCat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    One important difference you're missing here is this.

    Socialism necessitates central control to protect fair division of wealth.

    Capitalism necessitates central control to protect unfair division of wealth.
    CatOakTownA
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Nomenclature

    That's objectively what it is, A person can support Capitalism with only their own labor they cannot ever support socialism with only their own labor. So, it is the person who makes exploitation and not Capitalism.

    Objectivly in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions: No, that is not objectivly what that is, ! Be it intentinal or made.

    and the reason you don't understand that is because you're American, and Americans live inside the most extreme and ridiculous propaganda state this world has ever witnessed. 

    The correction here is that i do understand and I hear you. Yet here I am, "Home of the Bave"... The United States of America had been created by the world the true understanding of the United States of America is that the states of law are the states of union made on established justice by all outside influence on America or the states of the union made for or against United States Constitutional Right often supported by outside influence and America's. Most of all land in Europe was obtained by War whereas America as majority was purchased after the colonies obtained independence from English and European law.

    As always Nomenclature it has been a pleasure and I am going to break for lunch. Good after noon.




    NomenclatureCat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @John_C_87
     A person can support Capitalism with only their own labor they cannot ever support socialism with only their own labor.

    Completely false. Nobody works to support capitalism. They work to survive and to acquire disposable income for themselves. They generally do so without understanding that their labour is always worth a lot more than they are getting paid for it, and that the deficit is what creates capital for the business class. Conversely, socialists work to support the community rather than themselves, because socialism doesn't incentivise people with greed, materialism or self-indulgence. The characteristics which capitalism nurtures in the human race are disgusting characteristics which make us a hostile species. 


    Cat
  • @Nomenclature

    Completely false. Nobody works to support capitalism. Capitalism is supported by the owner of the independently owned business and its Capital in question. The use of external labor or internal labor by the owner is by open economic practices political or legal incentive. An attempt is being made to avoid the political use of malpractice of law.

    They work to survive and to acquire disposable income for themselves. You are describing a person's political gain not capitalism. as it is political gain that is the use of others in aquirig of self-intrests not limited to capital.

    They generally do so without understanding that their labour is always worth a lot more than they are getting paid for it, and that the deficit is what creates capital for the business class.

     You are speaking of equity not capital, equity being the common sock of corporation.

    Equity Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster


    Conversely, socialists work to support the community rather than themselves, Socialist work to suport the political process rather then Capital it uses. Again you argument on a basic economic level of conser is correct in many ways the pinpoit of cause and effect are not on target and are politcal.

    because socialism doesn't incentivise people with greed, materialism or self-indulgence.  Again, as you demonstrate the inability to observe and understanding what it is you see, understand it or not, we are talking about  "political gain" and it has nothing to do with "Capitalism."  as you say. I will not argue with your political gain creates greed. materialism, and self-indulgence as it is fact, the only process which makes a person feel they may possibly own it all is political gain. 

    The characteristics which capitalism nurtures in the human race are disgusting characteristics which make us a hostile species.

    For some people, yes. I cannot argue this point as the fact here is Capitalism is simple a state of the union to establish justice. Socialism always only means many people are guilty of greed when it takes by political gain it is never the one person. You are hovering over many of the grievances held and demonstrated by Executive officer Trump. Again he has never been a Capitalist but rather a man driven by "Political Gain" in the business community. The other argument being little understanding of United States Constitutional Right as let’s make America Great Again is code word for saying let's do away with the United States Constitutional fact a contest exists to establish the more perfect union and it is an endurance race not simple a race of speed or power.

    A very small business does nothing but support Capitalism without subsidized labor. Again, you are demonstrating the observation introduced by me is true that Socialism is nothing more than "Political Gain" a wolf that is then placed in the sheep’s skin of a lighter economic title. 


    Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    You are describing a person's political gain not capitalism.

    No John, I didn't mention political gain. I was describing why people work in a capitalist society. For a brief moment there you made enough sense for me to argue with you, but since that moment is clearly over I'll be resigning from this conversation. Have a nice night.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Nomenclature

    No John, I didn't mention political gain. I was describing why people work in a capitalist society. 

     No, you are describing how people exploit economies and it is by what I would describe as an economic agenda called by lack of better words " E.P.G. Elitism" it has nothing to do with Capitalism or being a Capitalist. Unless you are allowed to lie you do not informally debate?

    For a brief moment there you made enough sense for me to argue with you, but since that moment is clearly over I'll be resigning from this conversation. Have a nice night. 

    No, the issue is your connection to United States of law is just very poor link to justice. All that is taking place is you do not recognize that the principle of “Political Gain" goes past what the law or the dictionaries meaning suggests. Capitalism is not an Elitism. Of course, you cannot understand as it is the base argument made in civil discriminations of both gender and race. It would dictate a legal compromise that constitutes the malpractice of law I argue about.

    Elite the best of a class

    Elite Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

    I will remind you America's Liberty of speech is based on a person's abilities to make a connection to established justice, the best connection. By not saying anything you are conceding to being able to make that connection. do you understand this negligent claim as it has been explained to you?


    Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Elitism" it has nothing to do with Capitalism or being a Capitalist.

    Of course it does. The exploitation of labour for profit is the foundation of capitalism, and hence wealth inequality is a natural by-product of the system. What other result do you think capitalism is going to bring? Over time, wealth becomes increasingly concentrated into fewer hands as bigger capital gobbles up smaller capital. 

    Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    No, the issue is your connection to United States of law is just very poor link to justice. 

    Look John, it's very simple. The United States employs a constitutional right to derive from the alternative functions of a democratic government that which mathematically must be contrary to the abbreviation of pi. Are we on the same page?

    DeeCat
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature said:
    Of course it does. The exploitation of labour for profit is the foundation of capitalism, and hence wealth inequality is a natural by-product of the system. What other result do you think capitalism is going to bring? Over time, wealth becomes increasingly concentrated into fewer hands as bigger capital gobbles up smaller capital. 

    Capitalism has lifted another billion people out extreme poverty since 1980.  See Forbes:

    In 1820, 94% of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. By 1910, this figure had fallen to 82%, and by 1950 the rate had dropped yet further, to 72%. However, the largest and fastest decline occurred between 1981 (44.3%) and 2015 (9.6%). Reading these figures, which were compiled by Johan Norberg for his book Progress, is enough to make anyone rub their eyes in disbelief. For according to leftist anti-capitalists, these were the very decades in which so much went so wrong in the world. In his book Capital in the 21st Century, the left-wing French economist Thomas Piketty writes that it is precisely this period that is allegedly so problematic. He bemoans a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor in terms of income and wealth in the period from 1990 to 2010. But what is more important to these hundreds of millions of people—that they are no longer starving, or that the wealth of multi-millionaires and billionaires may have increased to an even greater extent than their own standard of living?

    Now, maybe you paid $200 to hear Bernie Sanders tell you how bad capitalism is and missed the irony of that, who knows.  The fact is capitalism has lifted many out of poverty.  Socialism keeps people in poverty.  Take a look at North and South Korea.  Both were about in the same place before the war.  Now the capitalist country thrives, while the socialist one is literally starving to death.  Take a look at Cuba. It was one of he wealthiest Caribbean countries before the revolution, today it is one of the poorest.  

    There is saying in Cuba - "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."  That sums up socialism.  In Cuba, a medical doctor will make about $50 a month American money, while the doorman at the tourist hotel in Havana will make that in a week in tips.  In fact, the most coveted jobs in Cuba are in tourism.  The reason is, even a socialist knows that the closer you can get to a capitalist, the better off you will be.

    Capitalism is a system of voluntary transactions.  Do you have an iPhone or Samsung phone?  If so, that bad ole capitalist didn't force you to give him your money.  You gladly gave it to him.  You felt that the gadget he offered was worth the price.  If you didn't, then you didn't buy one.  So, Apple got richer off of you.  But, they did do so fairly, and you gladly gave them your money.  You didn't have to do so.  it was a voluntary transaction.  In socialism, those voluntary transactions go away.  In Canada, you have to pay the government for your healthcare.  Yet, it is so crappy, a majority of Canadians also pay for private health insurance.  In the UK, even though you are forced to pay for health care, you can be denied health care and surgeries if you smoke or are deemed too overweight.  The system is so bad that a few years ago the Red Cross declared it a national health crisis because people were waiting for days for emergency health care and to be admitted to a hospital.

    Do you have brain damage?  Well, if you do, know that in Canada it will take you almost a year before you can see a specialist in that field.  And if you live in one of the lesser populated areas, that time fame can be much, much longer.  They literally have a lottery just so people can try and get a family doctor.  No wonder that the Canadian equivalent of the Supreme Court ruled that Canadian health care had failed the public because as they put it "the promise of free health care is not the same as access to health care".

    So as you sit drinking your mix of Honey Blend and Frappuccino Roast coffees, with half soy creamer, with extra caramel drizzle, whipped cream, caramel crunch and ice, while typing about the evils of capitalism on your $1,200 iPhone you just got, cause you have to have the latest, know that there are socialists in North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba who are hoping that they will come across a capitalist today, with the hope that he will give them $1 so they can feed their family.

    NomenclatureCat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @just_sayin
    Capitalism has lifted another billion people out extreme poverty since 1980

    Don't talk utter rubbish. 9 million people starve to death every year in capitalist economies. Another 3 million die of thirst and/or lack of proper sanitation. In that good old bastion of capitalist economic progress, Zimbabwe, inflation hit 8 billion percent. A loaf of bread cost 10 million dollars. 

     See Forbes:

    Oh, you want me to consult a capitalist propaganda puff piece to get the facts about capitalism? That's fantastic. Should I consult Der Sturmer for the "facts" about Nazism while I'm at it? How about I read Bednota for the "facts" about communism?

    The sheer naivety of Americans just honestly makes me shake my head in disbelief. Your system of greed, envy and materialistic worship is literally killing the planet. Aren't you supposed to be a Christian? Given the fact that even Jesus hated greed and materialism, how do you cope with your own cognitive dissonance?

    In 1820, 94% of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. By 1910, this figure had fallen to 82%, and by 1950 the rate had dropped yet further, to 72%.

    Capitalism is 500 years old, so somebody probably needs to ask this brainwashed Forbes journalist why, after three centuries of capitalism, 94 percent of the world was still poor. 

    It truly irritates me how you (and he) can just invent your own facts based on absolutely nothing except your own ideological bias. Capitalism isn't what lifted people out of poverty. Industrialisation is what lifted them out of poverty. The natural progression of technology.

    Don't bother talking to me unless you have something intelligent to say

    Cat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    I grew up in the Post-Soviet world. In Belarus where I was born we had only one kind of ice-cream: those ugly white balls in cones. An "ice-cream store" was not a thing, as there was no point having a store selling literally one item.

    Some time later, in Moscow, my aunt took me out for a treat: a new American restaurant mall, with an ice-cream cafe. What I saw there blew my mind: over 50 flavors of ice-cream to choose from, some looking very flashy. I remember as if it was today: I got the mint chocolate, the chocolate chip cookie, and the vanilla ice-cream. To this day the mint chocolate ice-cream is my favorite and it always takes me back to that awesome day. :)

    Socialism is never about choice: it is about serving the "common good", the collective, and if your role is that of a servant, then who cares what you personally want? What, you are unhappy that there is only one ice cream flavor available? Be glad that you have any at all: you are already privileged to live in a socialist paradise, so be silent and promote the glorious revolution.
    Cat
  • @Nomenclature

    I’m arguing otherwise what kind of a debate would it be if I just agreed with all you say, write, and think without ..............? :)

    Of course it does. The exploitation of labour for profit is the foundation of capitalism, and hence wealth inequality is a natural by-product of the system. What other result do you think capitalism is going to bring? Over time, wealth becomes increasingly concentrated into fewer hands as bigger capital gobbles up smaller capital. No it is only outline of the argument you make and nothing more.

    Capitalism is over ownership of Capital. Whereas Elitism is over the political ruling of Capital often without owning it. This principle of Elitism which includes both ownership and non-ownership of Capital is what is in fact being questioned of cause not ownership of Capital in my rebuttal to your comments. The argument to be made here is how overall the conditions of economies help people then politically create the two types of Elitism. I will be making an argument much more complicated than your as you are simple assuming that though some person owns Capital, they are not a Political Elitist while doing so. If you wish to decline the more complex and harder forms of debate due to lack of understanding it is a Constitutional Right admitting failure to hold a more perfect sate of the union up for consideration to be ratified before the United states of law, guided by the House of Representatives…  Constitution’s being that something both personal and public America had taken with it when leaving “Europe” and that form of law as United State, then to apply states of the union to a united state of right that was used as the foundation to form a guide as republic.

    Look John, it's very simple. The United States employs a constitutional right to derive from the alternative functions of a democratic government that which mathematically must be contrary to the abbreviation of pi. Are we on the same page? 

    Lost again and need someone to hold your hand? No Nomeclature, A United State is a collection of Basic principle complex or basic and it is the method of collection which is very simple as it is based off perfection judge by its state of the union formed. The “Republic” as a “united state”, which includes both well-regulated, or the ill regulated Democracy” as principle, is governed the term “United States of “ is only one of many self-evident truth we are to hold inside the American United States Constitution as a self-evident truth. On its way to be established as a whole truth for the people by the people.re holding or are required to hold these states of the union before the public for ratification as a Untied States Consitutional Right. 

    As for Pi the only argument you make with A.I or not is all numbers are divisible and we should all know that is simply not true by now. All numbers being indivisible is not a thousand of year-old math principle waiting to be solved.

    Cat
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature engaged in ad hominem attacks again and said:
    Oh, you want me to consult a capitalist propaganda puff piece to get the facts about capitalism?

    Even the ultra-ultra-ultra-liberal Brookings Institute said that in the US "About 61 percent of young adults in the bottom quintile in their late twenties have climbed to a higher quintile ten years later. "  Showing that there is great mobility.  Most people who grew up in poverty in the US move out of it and to a higher income bracket.  As the ultra-left Brookings Institute further pointed out that if you do 3 things that "only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year)."  That means there is a 98 percent chance that if you do just 3 things you can rise out of poverty in the US:

    1) finish high school - the more school the better

    2) Don't have kids until you are at least 21

    3) Get a job - any job to start

    Even left-wing extremists recognize that poverty can be escaped in the US - unlike in socialist countries like North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba.  You would think that that if socialism works, then North Koreans would be wealthier than their South Korean counterparts.  But the reality is that socialism can't create wealth, it only destroys it.

    I noticed you ignored the real life examples of socialist countries failing while their equivalent capitalist counterparts thrived.  I get it, if the facts are against you, you can't talk about them.  Instead, people waging losing arguments turn to ad hominem attacks and deflection.  They will attack the credibility of the source, even if a wide range of people are making the same observation. 

    If socialism works, then tell me why there is so much poverty in Cuba?  Why is it only high level communist government officials are rich?  Why isn't Cuba doing as well as other Caribbean countries that it was ahead of economically in the 1950's now?  if socialism is so great, why does Cuba try to kill anyone who flees the country?  And if socialism is so great, why are so many Cubans willing to risk everything to leave there?


    Cat
  • @just_sayin

    If socialism works, then tell me why there is so much poverty in Cuba?  

    "The world has created a new economic state called Political Elitism."

    Why is it only high level communist government officials are rich?  

    "They are not rich but are in  regulated for of political control over all Capital."

     Why isn't Cuba doing as well as other Caribbean countries that it was ahead of economically in the 1950's now?

    " It is a geater threat to Americn National Security."

     if socialism is so great, why does Cuba try to kill anyone who flees the country?  They say it is a matter of their national security. Is it true? Is it false? Is the better connection to established justice?

    And if socialism is so great, why are so many Cubans willing to risk everything to leave there? 

    Liberty is a greater inheritance than some forms of organized public unification.


    1) finish high school - the more school the better

    The above is a socialist claim. Where there is nothing unconstitutionally wrong in raising and advancing understanding the danger of united state education is the coaching of witness of public crimes not yet tested at criminal trial. Do not be afraid to learn even if it means a person must leave "school" to do so from time to time, be it temporary or permanently. Example Why: a person will decide as themselves who wants to live life with certain liberties and should in advance not chase a degree and carrier that is the cause of the loss of liberty. Capitalism owning property was never the cause of the loss of liberty.


    Cat
  • Socialism describes both the people’s abilities for organized crime and social solution. It is this self-evident truth describing why Socialism is the less then perfect choice to make as a connection to established justice under Capitalism. Who owns what can be broken?

    Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @just_sayin
    Even the ultra-ultra-ultra-liberal Brookings Institute said

    Liberalism is the original form of capitalism. Your ignorance precludes all forms of intelligent conversation. 

    John_C_87Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @MayCaesar
    I grew up in the Post-Soviet world. In Belarus where I was born we had only one kind of ice-cream: those ugly white balls in cones. An "ice-cream store" was not a thing, as there was no point having a store selling literally one item.

    Your fallacy is this: "X is bad, therefore Y is good."
    DeeCat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    May is always good for a laugh "there was no point having a store selling  literally one item"  funny that as I looked at a long line of customers outside the mobile phone shop only  yesterday 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @just_sayin
    If socialism works, then tell me why there is so much poverty in Cuba?

    There are almost four times as many people in extreme poverty in your own country than the entire population of Cuba. 

    You're a victim of propaganda and trying to educate you is like trying to have a conversation with someone who was raised at the Waco compound.

    Cat
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Nomenclature
    Said at MayCaesar your fallacy is this: "X is bad, therefore Y is good."

    No, his fallacy if he had been mistaken in idea would be the connection to established justice by socialism is less perfect than the connection made by capitalism to established justice. Therefore, socialism is bad because it has not connection to an idea. Break it, you buy it.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    No, his fallacy if he had a mistaken idea would be the connection to established justice by socialism is less perfect than the connection made by capitalism to established justice. Therefore, socialism is bad because it has not connection to an idea. Break it, you buy it.

    No, your fallacy is the United States constitutional protections in large scale domestic production offer no clear context with which to justify any a priori establishment of the rule of pi. Therefore, capitalism is bad because it has slightly less than zero point five probability of impregnating a donkey. Look before you leap.


    John_C_87DeeCat
  • @Nomenclature

    I am not talking about Constitution and United State in the same context, we are simple talking about as a united state of law where Socialism is in competition against capitalism to establish the best connection to established justice and you need to be able to describe how that is to take place. Though I will also argue with you in debate that socialism is economically evolved into political elitism.


    Cat
  • @Nomenclature
    I will not bother you again.........
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    You're welcome to disagree with anything I write, but your counterarguments at least need to be legible brother. They don't need to be true or honest (although I'd much prefer it if they were), but they absolutely must be legible. 
    Cat
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023

    Honor compels me though however insulating it might sound to you and all others to say, I do not disagree with you, got you have already admitted to being incompetent by your own ambitions to connect with established justices. Choosing a path of less value and honor. I find the view to be untenable in its state of the union made towards filed grievance (especially of a position or view) not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection:

    Any book can only at some time describe what was a human connection to established justice. It is the burden and right of “the people” to hold a United State Constitutional Right as a truth that is to be then found self-evident, the perfect way to bind laws and established justice as one. The documentation of the United States Constitutional right describes a person must describe the more perfect union. 

    Illegible......or not..........

    Unreadable to me are the words between the quotations, "                                                                                                              " not = d kdk gndk jfan;sdikndkv ifiafo kiofiedfm ksie, k dsot. To be perfectly clear can you read code can you read the gibberish?


    Cat
  • OakTownAOakTownA 442 Pts   -  
    I'm willing to bet the majority of people on here utilize socialism or have benefited from socialism without realizing it, as all modern countries use some form of socialism. Drive on public roads? Socialism. Went to a public or state school? Socialism. Ever gone to a public library? Socialism. Enjoyed a national park? That's right; you can thank socialism. What seems to be the most successful is a blend of capitalism and socialism, aka democratic socialism. Scandinavian countries are a great example of this.
    NomenclatureJohn_C_87Cat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @OakTownA

    Your argument assumes those things wouldn't be available under a private ownership system.

    Additionally although those things are available to the public I'd argue because of  the wealth generated from embracing a free market system.  Embracing socialism entirely would have most likely made these things garbage.

    In principle if public schools, healthcare, ect was so great there would be no need for private alternatives which people often pay more for because they are better.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch