CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Democratic Socialists of America
All information taken from the official website of the Democratic Socialists of America.
If Democratic Socialists dominated the country:
-They would abolish the profit motive, “democratize” (meaning nationalize/socialize) the means of production, and rely on centralized economic planning.
“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit...”
“We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution”
This is not a center-left movement, but admittedly a radical left movement.
“DSA made an ethical contribution to the broader American Left by being one of the few radical organizations born out of a merger rather than a split.”
Take a second look Al and excon. A DSA victory would be indistinguishable from Communism. Like other tyrannies in history, being voted in wouldn’t make them better.
“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit...”
As well they should. You have no right to hold power over me simply because your great granddaddy robbed my great granddaddy. The fact that you cannot see this implies that you are a psychopath.
There are two types of people who actively seek to destroy property rights; lazy thieves, and Communists. Oh wait, that’s one type.
What you actually mean is that Communists want to give the property back to the people, which is who you stole it from in the first place. You are exactly the same sort of corrupt dickhead who called Robin Hood a thief.
Except, "the people" are not all exceptionally kind, compassionate people just "trying to do the right thing" and "share the pie equally", with equal work put in". That is a huge problem
Also, acquiring a lot of power can be used for either good or ill--it is not inherently destructive or positively productive.
What you actually mean is that Communists want to give the property back to the people, which is who you stole it from in the first place. You are exactly the same sort of corrupt dickhead who called Robin Hood a thief.
Ryan the Burrito what does your insane rant mean ????? Explain your stupidity when you get off the Glass Pipe !!!
As well they should. You have no right to hold power over me simply because your great granddaddy robbed my great granddaddy. The fact that you cannot see this implies that you are a psychopath.
Ryan the Mexican rolls up spewing insane nonsense. Now Ryan please explain how Socialism has made the amount of computers that are in the world ! Socialism did not build your computer Ryan the Mexican so how did it get built ??????????
There are a LOT of good Christians in this country that don't agree with the radical evangelical pressures to make America "Christian". There are a lot of conservatives in this country that want reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment. There are a lot of BOTH that want our environment protected, the oceans, water, air, etc.
There are a lot of Social-Democrats that want the kind of Social-Democracy we've been living in for YEARS, rather than a religious conservative republic that wants to rewrite the Constitution to fit the Bible. NOT what the founders had in mind. The conservative side of that bunch also wants a capitalism that is FAR from what it was in the days of the founding. (Read: The Wealth of Nations … 1776 by Adam Smith).
So, I'm sure there is a radical bunch of "libs" that also want to take things too far. In almost ANY political group you have them. I consider myself a Social Democrat and I think what you put up IS a "bridge too far". In like manner to the radical conservatives, radical libs tend to stretch the Constitution to get TOO MUCH of their way. They will get support only to a reasonable level, or the country will go broke. Again, similar to radical conservatism or capitalism. I don't want much of what you posted, just enough of it to give U.S. healthcare, environmental care, fair taxes and income, racial and gender equality. Hmmm, and reasonable protection from the radicals of the Second!
I specifically referenced their website because they share their political positions with an increasing number of politicians including Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
The closest we came to the free markets discussed by Smith were in the 18th and 19th century. You couldn’t get us back to that level of government involvement if an anarchist was President.
I'd settle for much less than we had in 1956 under a Republican President, and into the 60's. No need to go back to the 18th/19th. The tax rate that allowed many to become millionaires was in the 60 to 90 percentile. No need for that. Of course, the rest of the world would have to work together also, cut out the GREEDY capitalism a bit. I didn't vote for Bernie because I think he IS too much like that website, but he would have been SOOO much better than what we ended up with! HE wouldn't lie any more than another normal politician, HE would not hold secret meetings with Putin, HE would not turn the U.S. into an evangelical state! White Nationalists would not be "charged up"! We could have had a bit of CONTROL over HIM!
It isn't the "government involvement" that is the point I took from the book, it was the capitalistic ethics that it touts. NOTHING like many businesses today … I said "many". The ethics CAN, and SHOULD be the same, which would make capitalists our beloved "providers"!
If we don't stop Trump and McConnell and Ryan, and a BUNCH of others we'll HAVE that anarchist after 2020!
Crazy AL you Socialist rant but what you need to do is tell all about the Nirvana of Socialism !!!!!! Stop the babbling nonsense get to the point Socialist
Hasn't it been proven time and again any form of socialism doesn't work??
Hello T:
Nahhh.. Your fire department is a good example of how a little bit of socialism within a capitalist society works pretty well.. Consider that the government owns the means of production.. Everybody pays in, and everybody is protected.. That's socialism personified..
Imagine for a minute, whether a private fire department would put out your fire if you were behind in your bill.
The police force is socialism.. So, is the military..
Socialism is seizure of private property by the state and used as to its will. FACT.
It's the polar opposite of a fact you contemptible moron. Socialism is supposed to get rid of the state, not empower it. The state currently stops the vast majority of people who are poor from taking back resources being exploited by the upper class. That is its primary function in society. Hence, the state is the enemy of a Marxist society.
If you want to slander Marx like a brainwashed 1980s Reaganite Cold War soldier, then AT LEAST READ SOME DAMNED MARX FIRST.
You're confusing socialism with communism or anarcho-communism. And don't worry, I know Marx used those terms interchangeably, but in modern day society we don't and there's a specific definition for socialism.
Socialism is supposed to get rid of the state, not empower it
Key word is SUPPOSED to. It's SUPPOSED to, but IT DOESN'T. It only ever serves to empower it.
The state currently stops the vast majority of people who are poor from taking back resources being exploited by the upper class.
Which resources are these? If I've bought something or traded for something, we own the results of the trade. You can't then say thats null and void and people less wealthy have a right to ignore their contracts or exchanges and take things for themselves by force.
My example: I'm a working class lad who started his building company. I charge £200 to paint a room. I pay my worker 50 and I keep 150. He agreed to this and we go and do the job. Where is the injustice?
Key word is SUPPOSED to. It's SUPPOSED to, but IT DOESN'T.
Socialism is an economic theory you idiot. If it is supposed to get rid of the state and someone implements another economic system which does not get rid of the state THEN THAT IS NOT SOCIALISM.
No, it's the very definition of the word socialism. Government owns the means to production and the distribution of goods. The socialists always claim that once everyone is equal, they'll dissolved the state and we'd all live freely and equally. But seeing as humans aren't equal, we're extremely diverse, they'll never hand over power and will stay running your lives until everybody dies of starvation, genocide, suicide or more.
No, it's the very definition of the word socialism. Government owns the means to production
That is the OPPOSITE of the definition of the word socialism, you impossibly stupid half-wit. In a socialist society the PROLETARIAT own the means of production. What you have described is a FASCIST society, which is the political OPPOSITE of a socialist society.
You clearly don't understand what capitalism is. Slavery is not capitalism as you have to be forced into bondage. FORCE being the key word, it's involuntary. You're not free. You don't have private property because private property is the ownership of yourself and by extension what you produce.
Tell me more about the 13 million American children who volunteered to be hungry, you delusional twerp.
Who said they volunteered to be hungry? lol. Where do you come up with these statements? Is there a website where it gives you a list of stupid things to say to throw off discourse?
You clearly don't understand what understanding is. I'll give you a hint retard: it isn't the theory that people volunteer to go hungry. If your family is starving and someone offers to jam something up your ass for 50 bucks then that appears to be your definition of "voluntary".
You're an idiot and your idiotic posts are not even worth reading, let alone replying to.
If your family is starving and someone offers to jam something up your ass for 50 bucks then that appears to be your definition of "voluntary".
1) As opposed to socialism where everyone pretty much starves anyway
2) You could either go and jam something up yourself or go to a cheaper place nextdoor. Nobody should be forced to jam something up for you under threat of being sentenced to the gulag.
It is not a sign of intelligence. It is a sign of frustration at your near-total ignorance of the topic you are attempting to have an argument about.
As opposed to socialism where everyone pretty much starves anyway
Please stick to the topic under discussion you ignorant retard. You claimed capitalism was voluntary and that is obviously a GROSS distortion of reality. Rather than accept that your claim was debunked you have instead smear attacked socialism and that PROVES that you are intellectually dishonest.
You could either go and jam something up yourself or go to a cheaper place nextdoor
Wtf are you even talking about you retard? Do you know how stupid you sound?
Slavery is not capitalism as you have to be forced into bondage. FORCE being the key word
Try again retard. Slaves only need to be forced when they don't do what they are told, EXACTLY LIKE A CAPITALIST SOCIETY. Nobody hurt the slaves who happily did their master's work.
So force was used to keep slaves obedient. Therefore it's not capitalism. It's definitely a much more serious violation of private property rights than almost anything else.
No, that's false. The government is only involved at a bureaucratic (i.e. management) level. The system itself is completely independent of government and could just as easily be managed independently (in fact, private prisons and private police forces are increasing in number in the United States). Besides which, it is very easy to illustrate your mistake simply by pointing out that the payment of taxes predates democratic government by thousands of years.
I would say Statism is the opposite of Anarchism and I'd claim socialism is 'liberal statism' and fascism is 'conservative statism'.
Anarchism is antithetical to Capitalism (as well as Liberty). Capitalism requires the state, which seems to make statism the wrong common thread between fascism and communism. Totalitarian may be a more distinguishing common thread. Or perhaps collectivist, though this implies more about the philosophy beneath the government than it does the government itself.
I clearly agree capitalism requires a state, but in a completely limited amount. Very little state. Anarchism believe in NO state, and so I would put it in complete opposition to Totalitarianism (of which both socialism and fascism are). Statism is the belief in an absolute state, totalitarianism. I'd also put collectivism (statism) and individualism (freedom) on opposite ends. There's no point being too hung up on this because all these terms are so frustrating to pin down it's not practical to get too stuck on details.
There's no point being too hung up on this because all these terms are so frustrating to pin down it's not practical to get too stuck on details.
I find statism to be the most vague, which is why I challenged it. Finding the clearest terms available may be necessary for clarity, particularly in such troll infested waters as these. As you can see first hand.
It seems you confuse all government as such with socialism. The opposite of socialism is not anarchy, it’s capitalism, which requires government.
A free market economy relies on a government which has a monopoly on retributive force utilized to protect individual rights. Yes, all pay in and yes, all benefit, but that’s because these are naturally public goods. Which is to say free riders are unavoidable, thus payment from all is justifiable. The police and the fire department are not socialism, they are just government.
It seems you confuse all government as such with socialism.
You have not supported this allegation with any evidence, which essentially makes it an ad hominem attack.
The opposite of socialism is not anarchy
Bizarre straw man argumentation. Nobody has suggested otherwise.
it’s capitalism, which requires government.
I'm not sure complex political systems can have true opposites, but I agree that capitalism requires government because it is an unfair, hierarchical system reminiscent of much earlier economic models. Government has to be present to stop justice happening or the capitalist nation will self-implode in revolutionary violence.
A free market economy relies on a government which has a monopoly on retributive force utilized to protect individual rights.
You seem to have gone off on a mad tangent of your own devising. I have no idea why you are even talking about this.
Yes, all pay in and yes, all benefit, but that’s because these are naturally public goods
There is no such thing as "natural public goods". This is bizarre pseudo-babble. Nature does not owe humanity goods or anything else. Your language is nonsensical and does nothing to support the attempt you are making at a coherent argument.
The police and the fire department are not socialism, they are just government.