Debate Info

Yes No
Debate Score:52
Total Votes:59
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes (12)
 No (15)

Debate Creator

CreatDebate(57) pic

Capitalism does more good than harm


Side Score: 24


Side Score: 28
2 points

Depends on your perspective.

In the next evolutionary steps of man, Capitalism will be seen as the superior system of economics. But, we are not at that step, so many see Capitalism as a chance for the greedy to exploit the needy. Possibly, but the needy get their needs from the greedy either way. Socialism says "just give the needy their needs" while Capitalism says "make them work for it". It's a left vs. right brain war. It's very possible that the next step in human evolution would be to create a human who can use the left brain much more sufficiently and the right brain only when in the arts and for self satisfaction. Only then will Capitalism be seen as the "perfect system" and no one will bitch about how they suck at life and want some big brother government to do everything for them.

Side: yes
HGrey87(750) Disputed
2 points

Just-World Fallacy for the lose! Go Pyg, go!

So what's making people starve? They're too stupid to scrape out a living in the places they've occupied for millennia? Probably. Couldn't be St. Neocolonialism.

Side: No
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
4 points

That's not really an appropriate response.

Did you rebut anything?

Won't down vote you though, that's just a form of whining (why i never down vote).

Side: yes
garry77777(1794) Disputed
0 points

Im sorry i know this is post is ancient but that has to be the biggest load of bull i have ever heard, capitalism is going to be the superior system economics when man evolves further, how in the hell can you beleive that, the only way i can see that happening is if man evolution reverses and we degenerate back into hominids. Im going to pretend to be able to predict what human evolution has in store but i can with some confidence that capitalism will be thrown on the dust heap along with communism as another failed system, it has the same inherent internal contradictions, you need to face facts, it has failed the world and now its even failing the people who desinged it to benefit them, im not even going to go into it, let me close by saying i couldn't possibly disagree more with what you posted.

Side: No
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
1 point

what evidence is there that capitalism has failed the world or the people who have designed it?

I'm curious...

Side: yes
2 points

Once again, depends on view point.

What are the alternatives to capitalism?

I only see two

Communism, a system that has proved itself not to work for long periods of time. USSR, lasted 50 years. North Korea, lowly populated, Vietnam, lowly populated AND poor. I think China is only benefiting from the lack of world security with their money, meaning that the USA and other countries spent money like wild. Amounting to huge debts. Also, Communism often comes with censorship, as we have seen on China, NK, and Vietnam.

And Constitutional Monarchy. Which has worked decently, but has had issues lately, especially in the UK with HealthCare issues. Not many other countries use it though.

Due to the fact of a lack of a alternative(that everyone agrees on, and WORKS) to Capitalism, it is for the better. Only for the time being, I'm sure someone will find and alternative that works and that people like.

Side: yes
HGrey87(750) Disputed
1 point

Constitutional Monarchy is a form of government. It has little bearing on economic structure. X|

And "You see only two?" Do a little bit of research before you post, it doesn't take more than a few minutes. The responses you get on your arguments will reflect the amount of effort you put into them. If you write more like this one, all you're gonna get are flippant responses from assholes like me :P

Side: No
2 points

"If you write more like this one, all you're gonna get are flippant responses from assholes like me :P" YAY! Another troll!

"And "You see only two?" "- Name some please.

Side: No
1 point

And Constitutional Monarchy. Which has worked decently, but has had issues lately, especially in the UK with HealthCare issues.

Sir, the two are entirely unrelated. The maintenance of a monarchy is not an economic system as communism, which is impossible to attain and capitalism, which is impossible to maintain.

Due to the fact of a lack of a alternative(that everyone agrees on, and WORKS) to Capitalism

Agreement is irrelevant. Capitalism, or perhaps more accurately, a system based on certain capitalistic principles, such as material motivation and currency, is the natural state of mankind towards which our societies in their myriad forms invariably tend.

Side: yes
1 point

Just know, that the USSR, North Korea and Vietnam are not communist. They only have a FEW aspects of it but they are very far from Communism. Communism has never existed. and Communism call for collective rule. 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto:1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Side: No

Capitalism is the sole reason why I can eat, sleep, drink and play golf.

Side: yes
1 point

Capitalism does not harm anyone, You reap what you sow. Capitalism works for those who work, Socialism works for those who don't.

Side: yes
1 point

Capitalism provides environment in which anyone has an opportunity to succeed. There are certain individuals who would attempt to abuse that, but legal guidelines in truly capitalist countries discourage that.

Side: yes
2 points

Okay, so rapid unemployment rates is a way of showing how Capitalism gives us all a chance. Even though Socialist countries have lower unemployment rates.

Side: No
1 point


But definitely closer to Capitalism than Socialism

In the USA we are not capitalist, we are free market. We have anti Trust laws that break up monopolies.

Sometimes, especially in our current environment, there is an unfair over correction that is harmful to a business owner. They aren’t big enough to sustain it, but are forced into loosing their businesses because of “a war on capitalism” Like the raisin farmer in California. I believe he won in the Supreme Court, but he didn’t deserve the cost he incurred to stay alive.

These are the people that need protection from this society we are becoming!

I hate to say, I’m not name calling. But that’s just stupid!But if we think its true then it must be. Regardless of history of facts and even the blatant manipulations in our society today.

But keep in mind, without these businesses we'd be far behind in the progress we know and enjoy today. And also they employed much of the population of the day. Although, we did need corrections to improve working conditions, increase safety, and pay higher wages. But the beauty of America isn’t that we were perfect. But the systems we have to correct greed when greed doesn’t correct itself!

We are a land of equal opportunity

Anyone can take an idea and create a successful business, and charge "what the market will bare" and make a living and/or gain wealth.

Many have overcome obstacles for the successes they achieve, with risk.

And as far as inheritance and the hand me down wealth - inheritance tax is probably the highest proportional tax in our society. So if you consider "fair share" we accumulate wealth to provide a better life for our families and to pass to our children.

The starting point, or tipping point varies of both failure and success in over generations. And sometimes it continues as it is for generations without change.

American success is built on ideas, enterprise, risk, and the wants and perceived needs of the general market.

An Informative History Lesson on Capitalism

Many through our history are "capitalist" but not many did so without loss, even bankruptcy.

Here is a Capitalist Parade – And while your at it look at the giving back some of these people did. Do you think that would happen in the USSR or Denmark or Turkey?

Milton Hershey – Drooped out of school, he was a poor student. Apprenticed for 4 years then - after two failed attempts, he set up the Lancaster Caramel Co. sold it then made the worlds largest Choc factory – then built a community and a home and school for children.

Walt Disney - fired by a newspaper editor because, "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas, started a number of businesses that didn't last too long and ended with bankruptcy and failure

Henry Ford – businesses failed and left him broke five times

R H Macy - Macy started seven failed business before finally hitting big with his store in New York City

F W Woolworth - Before starting his own business, young Woolworth worked at a dry goods store and was not allowed to wait on customers because his boss said he lacked the sense needed to do so. I guess he said F... YOU, and opened his own store, followed by successful chains of stores!

Good ole Colonel Sanders and his Fried Chicken - rejected 1,009 times before a restaurant accepted it

Albert Einstein - teachers and parents to think he was mentally handicapped

Thomas Edison - teachers told Edison he was "too stupid to learn anything

Sidney Poitier brutally rejected by American Negro Theater for his heavy Bohamian accent

Others with similar stories - H J Heinz - Emily Dickinson - Lucille Ball - P T Barnum - Fred Astaire - Jerry Seinfeld 50-famously-successful-people-who-failed-at-first/

And African Americans – Successful in the face of adversity businesshistoryanentrepreneurialtimeline.html

Like anything in the social front, with twisting, and media led head hunting, and the public's eagerness to follow without knowledge. Capitalism is redefined, then accepted for whatever they want.

Like the urban racial legends believed with a fury, that Democrats and Republicans switched places. So those Republicans who believed in Civil rights and paid for it putting their money and their lives where their heart was on the matter, are NOW called White Supremacists, while Democrats who were always white supremacists (and also some Black slave owners also) are hailed as civil rights heroes!

Teddy Roosevelt broke up the capitalist in the early 1900's. And it needed to be broken. They built great industry. We are where we are because of them. It was corrected, they kept the wealth they made, but the monopoly was broken and out of 1 came many oil and gas companies, for competitive free market competition. .

Supporting Evidence: Capitalism in History (
Side: Yes
5 points

Even though this argument is tagged as a "No" vote for the debate, I actually just wish to make the debate more elaborated as I think the oversimplification of the topic does some harm to knowledge.

First, I think that "capitalism" should be thought of as a general economic framework, but not necessarily as a complete economic system. It is impossible (go try) to find a discrete example of a within-nation case of pure capitalism. All nations adapt capitalism to some extent and tweak various elements (general freedom of consumers v freedom of businesses; state v private rights in economics; social safety nets, and so forth) which can effect the character of the particular implementation of capitalism.

Second, I would not dare to think that capitalism would look the same around the world underneath different cultures; surely the important features of capitalism would be interpreted over time to dramatically differ from American conceptualizations of a capitalist society. I would not think a Japanese democracy to possess the same features or mechanisms as a French democracy or an American democracy; nor would I think their industrial path of development/maturity will all look the same. I think there will be critical, not merely superficial, changes to the character of capitalism when we look at the expression of an economic system across cultures.

Third, it is extremely difficult to uncouple the harms/benefits of capitalism from the institutions (and the people and cultural views behind those institutions) who execute and sustain an economic way. Is it the fault of the European culture and religion which lead to those various nations moves to colonize other nations, or was it simply individuals rationally motivated by the incentive of profit?

And Fourth, I think an interesting point to be made is: if systematic, robust harms or benefits do result from the implementation of one economic system (capitalism) v. another economic system -- what if they are not essential features for that economic system, but instead are artifacts of a particular implementation?

Ultimately I think these four questions point to the errors behind this question, and make it extremely difficult to provide a respectable or solid YES or NO answer. The face of capitalism is changing, and how many experts are actually smart enough to know the future of an economic system? Who do you trust is smart enough to answer questions like what the Chinese "communist"-capitalist system will look like in 50 years?

If investments become commonplace enough; if the average consumer begins to actually OWN enough interest or stock in the companies they interact with or depend on, then it is conceivable that the theoretical categories of "consumer" and "business" becomes difficult to uncouple. We may also need new concepts to cover the "group" consumer, or a group that acts as a singular entity in consumption but serves to represent the economic actions of many.

Side: No
4 points

Your views are nuanced and well-informed.

I'm giving you a week before you get tired of the idiots on this site.

Side: No
2 points

@HGrey87: You know, HGrey, I participated in a few other topics on this site, and on the whole I find that there are a lot of carelessly written questions which damage the sophistication of the debate, and I also find enough people that provide new knowledge or critique I had never thought of before. All in all, though, I also find that most debates are difficult to learn from because how how people tear others down without repairing their opponent's argument or providing a good alternative.

It's too bad that most people think of a debate in adversarial terms, like in a courtroom, rather than a community/collaborative effort.

Complex models or theories require people to work together, and modelling capitalism surely is difficult work. People who just tear down others' theories without helping them build it back up or provide new, enriching examples just weigh the debate down and make it difficult to achieve steps in logic that go beyond the simple sound-bite arguments we hear in our daily lives.

Side: No
1 point

I like your point of view, no nonsense at all.

The intelligent ones are a rarity on this site.

Side: Neutral