CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:37
Arguments:27
Total Votes:41
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 143255435345 (27)

Debate Creator

socratic4(102) pic



143255435345

capitalism was forcefully implemented by a select few, Why would the many wilfully consent to a system which rewards only the few? You might as well demand "proof" that monarchies were forcefully implemented by a select few. Certain truths are rendered self-evident by the law of reason.
Add New Argument
5 points

You've presented your version, or someone else's perception of capitalism, okay.

The tone of the article seems to suggest that you and/or the original author of the topic are averse to this form of economic and political system in which trade and industry are controlled by free/private enterprise as opposed to government.

If indeed you and/or the originator of the topic is/are opposed to capitalism it would be interesting to have sight of your detailed proposals for it's replacement.

I would guess, perhaps wrongly, that it wouldn't be communism which didn't enjoy a record of success in most countries where it existed for varying but limited periods of time.

The submission of your recommended alternative to capitalism would be genuinely fascinating.

In capitalist/democratic societies almost everyone has the right to formulate their political ideology and economic precepts, publish their manifesto and then stand for election.

Would you ever consider availing of this freedom?

2 points

"capitalism was forcefully implemented by a select few"

Such a claim requires evidence. After all, capitalism is supposed to be about private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. In other words, the natural state of affairs when respecting the right to private property.

"You might as well demand "proof" that monarchies were forcefully implemented by a select few."

We can prove this quite easily, monarchies used force to subjugate their citizenry and maintain power. In capitalist societies, however, people are free to pool resources and form their own means of production, distribution and exchange that are held in common.

1 point

Hello s:

Nahhh... Trade is as natural as sex... If you have beads, and somebody else has a rabbit, and you're hungry, trade happens..

If you're horny and a girl............ Well, you can imagine the rest..

excon

Antrim(997) Disputed
2 points

As a declared white hating, ex gaol bird Bongo racist you would know all about trading with beads and molesting females.

I've asked you before, when did filth like you start thinking that you could enter into serious debate with decent folk?

Take you beads, rabbits and thoughts of rape back from whence you came.

Quantumhead(850) Disputed
1 point

Hello s:

Nahhh... Trade is as natural as sex...

Hi Con,

You are displaying the textbook symptoms of ideological indoctrination. Capitalism and evolution are not the same thing, capitalism and technology are not the same thing, capitalism and civilisation are not the same thing and capitalism and trade are not the same thing.

Capitalism poisoned and corrupted the concept of free trade, which for millennia had been about satisfying individual need/desire. But capitalism maliciously inserted the profit incentive into the trade equation, which had the effect of causing people to trade unnecessarily, purely as a way to accumulate personal power. This eventually has led us into consumerism. From the moment capitalism (i.e. the profit incentive) was introduced to trade, the natural result was that the price of everything became artificially inflated so that the trader could make a profit. Trade was no longer about getting a fair deal. It was about exploiting the person you were trading with. Trade became an act of competition rather than cooperation. The two parties in a trade compete to see who will win and who will lose. If the buyer wins (rare) he gets what he wants cheaper than cost. If the seller wins (usual) he overcharges for the product and hence makes a profit.

Amarel(2350) Disputed
1 point

But capitalism maliciously inserted the profit incentive into the trade equation

How do you suppose Capitalism made people want to profit?

Why do you suppose anyone ever traded before, if there was no desire to profit?

It is economics that recognized the profit motive in human action. Capitalism didn't insert it. That's fucking absurd. One of the many problems with communism is that if fails to recognize the profit motive, which is why communists must force people do do things without profit. Another word for that is slavery.

I can't speak lowly enough of your ignorance to insult you properly.

socratic4(102) Disputed
1 point

Quantumhead,

who defines what anything is worth? how can the seller overcharge? the buyer gets what he wants cheaper than the cost of what?

1 point

capitalism was forcefully implemented by a select few,

No, it wasn't.

Why would the many wilfully consent to a system which rewards only the few?

Everyone who works in a capitalist society is rewarded, not the select few.

You might as well demand "proof" that monarchies were forcefully implemented by a select few.

That's ridiculous.

Certain truths are rendered self-evident by the law of reason.

That's clearly not true.

Quantumhead(850) Disputed
1 point

No, it wasn't.

Yes it was. Military force is not the only type of force.

Everyone who works in a capitalist society is rewarded, not the select few.

That is demonstrably false. In fact, Marx disproved it in the mid 19th century, so your beliefs are a couple of centuries out of date. As I argued above, your mind has been nurtured to think false things as a direct result of the aggressive capitalist propaganda you have been subjected to since infancy.

When you work a job, you put in labour. But the product of your labour (i.e. profit) is not enjoyed by you. It is taken by the next person up in the pyramid. Rather, you are given back an extremely small percentage of the product of your labour in the form of a wage. The apparent reasoning for this is that the people above you in the pyramid "own" the tools you labour with (i.e. "means of production"). But they will always "own" the tools you labour with because they are making far more profit from your labour than you are. At its core, there is little difference between capitalism and monarchism, in as much that, under monarchism, the king declares everything is his, and any benefit you produce from anything owned by him makes him richer. Capitalism is simply a system whereby different monarchs compete with one another, and behind every monarch the same servants sit. A system which rewards the many must necessarily not steal the sweat from a man's brow, and that is precisely what capitalism does.

That's ridiculous.

Calling something ridiculous is not an argument. If you can't explain why something is ridiculous then you don't have any right to make the conclusion that it is ridiculous. A conclusion such as this needs to follow a process of experiment or reason. Conclusions come first only in minds which have been infected by ideology.

That's clearly not true.

It is clearly and demonstrably true. If I claim the Moon is not made of green cheese then that is a truth rendered self-evident by the law of reason.

You still are not supporting anything you say with any argument, but at least you haven't spent 20 minutes calling me names, so your attitude is definitely improving, if not your intellect.

2 points

That is demonstrably false.

If you work in America, you get paid. The ass clown is strong in this one.

In fact, Marx disproved it in the mid 19th century, so your beliefs are a couple of centuries out of date.

Marx was a sociopathic psychopath. Get your head out of his ass. You are being the tail of the donkey, rather than the head. Denouncing religion, then following a mindless cult down the rabbit trail, makes you a helmet wearing, banana gobbling chimpanzee. Admit you're a monkey. Do it now.

Calling something ridiculous is not an argument.

Sure it is. You use the same argument towards Christianity.

When you work a job, you put in labour. But the product of your labour (i.e. profit) is not enjoyed by you.

Yes it is. Do your paychecks say $0.00? No. So you're a liar and a baboon.

Rather, you are given back an extremely small percentage of the product of your labour in the form of a wage.

1)This contradicts what you said.

2)You don't put in any risk, and the owner does, thus they get more profit for their investments and risks that you didn't take. If the company takes a loss, you still get paid. They might not.

3)The same Marxist clowns making this claim have I-pads, internet, cable tv, vehicles that run, heat and air, clean water, a roof over their head, and food. You have it better than 99% of the planet and 99.999999999% of people in human history. You're problem is that you are an ungrateful, whiney little snatch.

But they will always "own" the tools you labour with because they are making far more profit from your labour than you are. At its core, there is little difference between capitalism and monarchism, in as much that, under monarchism, the king declares everything is his, and any benefit you produce from anything owned by him makes him richer. Capitalism is simply a system where different monarchs compete with one another, and behind every monarch the same servants sit

So how do we keep getting new rich people who started out with shit?

http://www.businessinsider.com/rags-to-riches-story-of-oprah-winfrey-2015-5

http://nymag.com/news/features/zuckerberg-family-2012-5/index1.html

https://www.sneakerfiles.com/michael-jordan-childhood-years/

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/ celeb/media-mogul/oprah-winfrey-net-worth/

Conclusions come first only in minds which have been infected by ideology.

Exactly. That's how we know you are a far left liberal before you utter a single word.

but at least you haven't spent 20 minutes calling me names, so your attitude is definitely improving, if not your intellect.

You spend hours calling me names, never concluding with basic logic and reason that I don't give a shit, that I'm laughing at you, and that it is you who is the mindless, brainwashed ideologue. Any questions you brainless twit?

Cartman(18205) Disputed
2 points

In have been rewarded for my labor with my pay check. Your entire argument is defeated.

Calling something ridiculous is not an argument.

A ridiculous statement saying you can't ask for proof for s completely unrelated system isn't an argument either, but you probably thought it was.

It is clearly and demonstrably true. If I claim the Moon is not made of green cheese then that is a truth rendered self-evident by the law of reason.

I was under the impression he meant all of the time.

You still are not supporting anything you say with any argument, but at least you haven't spent 20 minutes calling me names, so your attitude is definitely improving, if not your intellect.

You didn't create this debate. Did you create another fake account?

socratic4(102) Disputed
1 point

Quantumhead,

what are the means of production? factories? the raw materials that are required in order to create factories already exist in abundance all around you, your incapability of creating factories yourself doesn't mean people that were able to create factories owe you anything.