Western European Socialism is best - 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.


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!

Western European Socialism is best
in Politics

By billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts edited April 27
Which Nations have the best quality of life? and what is their system of economy of government , regardless of what you want to call it is the best and better than ours https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings
AlofRI
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2234 Pts
    The last remnants of Western European socialism died out in 1970-s. And since 1991, every single non-post Soviet country in Europe has been capitalist.

    As for what is "best", I imagine you are very young and have not yet been exposed to the fact that individual preference is inherently subjective. 

    I have lived in four First World nations for long periods of time: Australia, the US, Canada and Japan. I love them all, but ultimately prefer the US. I do not care what rankings say; I do care which system better matches my values, however, and it happens to be the US.
    ZeusAres42
  • @MayCaesar 

    Spain's Socialists win election as far-right enters parliament for first time since Franco(CNN)Spain's center-left Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) won Sunday's general election, while a far-right party will enter the country's parliament for the first time since dictator General Franco's rule ended in 1975.

    The far-right Vox party -- which takes a hardline on immigration and gender rights -- won 24 out of a total 350 seats, after bursting onto Spain's political scene last year.
    In an election with 75.8% turnout, the governing PSOE took 123 seats, and will now seek the support of other parties to form a government, having fallen short of an overall majority.
    Spanish politics is fragmenting further, as PSOE's traditional rivals, the conservative People's Party (PP) won 66 seats, down from 137 in 2016's election.
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @MayCaesar 

    Spain's Socialists win election as far-right enters parliament for first time since Franco(CNN)Spain's center-left Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) won Sunday's general election, while a far-right party will enter the country's parliament for the first time since dictator General Franco's rule ended in 1975.

    The far-right Vox party -- which takes a hardline on immigration and gender rights -- won 24 out of a total 350 seats, after bursting onto Spain's political scene last year.
    In an election with 75.8% turnout, the governing PSOE took 123 seats, and will now seek the support of other parties to form a government, having fallen short of an overall majority.

    Spanish politics is fragmenting further, as PSOE's traditional rivals, the conservative People's Party (PP) won 66 seats, down from 137 in 2016's election.
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • AlofRIAlofRI 329 Pts
    I am FOR democratic socialism … to an extent. It cannot be "far right socialism", that's too close to fascism.  We, in the U.S. have a Constitution that is based on freedom. You can't take personal property (including a business) away from anyone. We NEED capitalism, but it must be somewhat controlled to prevent the money (power) it generates from taking control of government and creating an oligarchy, as it has in Russia. 

    Socialism, misused, can do as much damage under an authoritarian government. We need a balance between capitalism and socialism under a government controlled by the people, that's the only way either of these economic systems can work. Both can be dangerous under the wrong government. Both can be advantageous under the right conditions …. that certainly is NOT under FAR right conditions.
  • @AlofRI

    From your above statement, it would be more accurate to say that you support social-democracy (As do I) but certainly not democratic socialism... The former wants to keep capitalism (but temper or "democratize" it), the latter definitely wants to get rid of Capitalism altogether...  They are not interchangeable terms... Just saying... ;) 
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2234 Pts
    edited April 30
    @AlofRI

    What does "a balance between capitalism and socialism" mean? You do not ruin the free market completely and simply damage it some?

    You cannot let the government control the market (i.e. the money) and, at the same time, not let the government be controlled by the money. Democratic socialism is equivalent to establishing institutional oligarchy.

    The only way to prevent the government from exhibiting any traits of oligarchy is to completely cut its ties with economy, let it exist in its own space and never interact with the free market. And that, my friend, is pure capitalism.

    You see, what you want to accomplish begs for expanding capitalism. The mental gymnastics people employ to turn it around and advocate for socialism is truly impressive, but at the end of the day your reap what you sow, and simply believing in something is not going to change how the world works. The problems you have mentioned have been piling up ever since Roosevelt started a harsh expansion of the governmental influence. If you expand it even further, then the problems will only deepen.

    The US already is the country with, by far, the highest number of economical regulations in the developed world. Yet you still are not satisfied. Why?
    AlofRI
  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts
    a rose by any other name @Plaffelvohfen
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • AlofRIAlofRI 329 Pts
    @MayCaesar If you believe that capitalists should have complete freedom with no regulation, how do you intend to control the greed we see everywhere? They are, in this country, allowed to pay lobbyists millions of dollars to go to Washington and create laws that allow them to pollute, allow them to pay little or none of the country's debt, collect the highest prices that the market will bear so that only those with higher education can make enough money to buy whatever they are selling, then they donate to the "higher learning" schools of their choice, like the Koch Bros., and initiate their own curriculum, spend unlimited money to have their own cronies installed in government for, eventually, total control OF the government. If that's what you want, you don't want our Constitution, you don't want government of, by and for the people, you want government control OF the people, you want an oligarchy. I don't. 

    Whatever you choose to call capitalism, whatever you choose to call socialism, whatever you personally want for a government, there must be control. There must be regulation. If it is not BY the people, it will be OF the people. I do not want to be a slave to the ones with the most money. I don't want those with the most money destroying the planet to get more money than they already have the most of. We must have SOME, fair equality, some fair responsibility or, we are slaves.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 329 Pts
    AlofRI said:
    @MayCaesar If you believe that capitalists should have complete freedom with no regulation, how do you intend to control the greed we see everywhere? They are, in this country, allowed to pay lobbyists millions of dollars to go to Washington and create laws that allow them to pollute, allow them to pay little or none of the country's debt, collect the highest prices that the market will bear so that only those with higher education can make enough money to buy whatever they are selling, then they donate to the "higher learning" schools of their choice, like the Koch Bros., and initiate their own curriculum, spend unlimited money to have their own cronies installed in government for, eventually, total control OF the government. If that's what you want, you don't want our Constitution, you don't want government of, by and for the people, you want government control OF the people, you want an oligarchy. I don't. 

    Whatever you choose to call capitalism, whatever you choose to call socialism, whatever you personally want for a government, there must be control. There must be regulation. If it is not BY the people, it will be OF the people. I do not want to be a slave to the ones with the most money. I don't want those with the most money destroying the planet to get more money than they already have the most of. We must have SOME, fair equality, some fair responsibility or, we are slaves.

    "A nation who values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." D.D. Eisenhower
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2234 Pts
    edited May 2
    @AlofRI

    They are allowed to do these things because the governmental influence on the economy was allowed to grow to such an extent. Like I said, that influence should be minimised, so such lobbying becomes unviable. Your solution, on the other hand, is to further expand the influence of the government... to combat lobbying. This does not make much sense, unless you subscribe to the socialist mindset that goes against every reasonable form of logic.

    Free market controls itself just fine through competition and supply/demand balance. Controlling free market means imposing monopoly on it, because there is no one to compete against the controllers. By controlling free market, you create the very effects you want to combat.

    It is bizarre how these basic things are so difficult to understand to many. And how much people like to fight a problem by extending the problem.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • @MayCaesar
    Free market controls itself just fine through competition and supply/demand balance.
    "Free market", as in 100% unregulated market, is a myth that only exist in theory... Unregulated markets breeds private monopolies... More accurate to talk about planned or unplanned economy IMO...  
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2234 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Monopolies never arise on a free market. You are welcome to try to find a single example of a modern monopoly anywhere in the world the interests of which are not secured by the government through lobbying, patent/copyright laws or even, ironically, the anti-trust laws.

    Of course it only exists in theory, because statists have never let it thrive, and always took control of it as soon as it started producing enough money for them to want to take it all for themselves.

    Your argument is like a medieval member of clergy saying, "A secular state is a myth that only exists in theory. Non-theocratic states breed perversion and collapse." Of course something does not exist, when you try your best to suppress that something.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • piloteerpiloteer 500 Pts
    edited May 2
    @AlofRI

    Sorry to interject in this conversation between you and my man May, but it seems like most of your argument is based on emotional rationale rather than logical or objective rationale. Yes, there are probably instances where big business tycoons are able to get the feds to turn the other cheek when it comes to shady business practices, but it would be nice if you could come up with actual circumstances where that's happening, not just rhetorical generalizations. I will be next in line right behind you in railing against the injustice that is happening to our environment from pollution. However, I will not stand behind you when you claim that big businesses should not be allowed to be represented in Congress, because if they cannot, or should not have representation, who should? If they lose their right to be represented, we all could lose our right to be represented.

    As far as the "country's debt" that you think big business should pay off, or pay more of, perhaps it would be a little more proactive to realize where and why this debt has come to be. The US is in the second highest debt it's ever been in, and much of the cause of the debt is very questionable. Obviously debt will come from maintenance of the infrastructure, but huge debt because of costly, seemingly never ending wars is egregious, but why should "big business" be on the hook for the bulk of that debt? If they were, or are a direct benefactor of those wars, then I would totally agree that those businesses should pay a more substantial amount of that debt, but not all of big business as a whole should. Much of that debt that we're discussing comes from federal programs to help middle-class families buy houses that they wouldn't be able to get otherwise. These programs lead to more urban sprawl, which is another form of pollution, but I don't hear any grievances from YOU on that matter. Why should "big business", or anybody other than the benefactors of such programs be on the hook for the debt that comes from those programs? Perhaps one way to be considered a slave is by being responsible for other people's debts.

    After your rant about the pollution and debt, you went off on a barely coherent tangent about high prices and influence of the curriculum of higher education, and you also threw in something about the superior spending power of those with higher educations. You even managed to throw in something about the Koch brothers, which seems to be a clique catch phrase among conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers. I have to hand it to you here, you've made it very difficult to properly refute any of your arguments here, but not because of sound reasoning, more so because of sheer incoherence. 

    Thank You for your time.




    AlofRI
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2234 Pts
    @piloteer

    I think the argument was not that big businesses should not be represented in the Congress, but that they should not be able to lobby their monopolist interests by effectively paying their way into the lawmaking process.

    Which is a perfectly reasonable desire. Only the means its advocates typically choose happen to be counter-productive and lead to a reverse result. The more expanded the government is, the more opportunities big businesses have to execute such practices, and the more effect such practices will have on the market.

    The whole idea of employing the government to try to prevent governmental malpractices from happening is so utterly illogical, it takes a special amount of mental gymnastics to see it as functional. It is like seeing a criminal shoot someone, and giving them two more guns with the hopes that they will choose to shoot themselves and rid us of the problem. Has such an approach ever worked? No, but it does not prevent people from trying it again and again, to the same end.

    People do not seem to understand how the European systems actually work. Swedish and Swiss systems, for example, work through the extreme decentralisation of the government. Lobbying is impossible in a highly diffused state, because lobbying on a localised level is ineffective, and lobbying on a nation-wide level is too complicated and expensive.
    If we give a lot of power to states and municipalities, and take away a lot of power from the Federals, then we will approach the European system, with all its strengths and flaws. But if we just give the federal government more power, then we will get to the same point at which Europe was in 70-s, when the economies were stagnating and rapid free market reforms were being made.
  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen a rose by any other name Image result for socialist rose
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

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