Socialsim or Capitalism? Which one works better?
Will Socialsm or capitalism help the people or the economy of the of the U.S.A
Capitalism
Side Score: 62
|
 |
Socialsim
Side Score: 42
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
I am going to state this from the start. I am of the belief that capitalism is in no small part built on a "noble lie". But, before I jump in proper, let me ask you several questions with the hope of a more precising definition on your part. When you say "compete for the best jobs", what precisely do you mean by "best jobs"? Do you simply mean jobs that produce more capital/resources, earn a laborer more capital/money or credit, or are fulfilling and meaningful to that laborer? Is a corporate lawyer in a qualitatively better job than a Non-profit organization representative? Does "best job" even have any "real" meaning outside of some necessary, but nebulous convention? I can provide a number of examples of a negative correlation between "working harder" and not earning higher wages; and it's a socialist criticism. That is, capitalism is a mercantile system and works towards upward mobility. Do you disagree with this socialist propaganda: (http://sha3teely.com/wp- When you say that capitalism works better "in practice", what do you mean by "works better"? What does it work better at doing? And is the comparison between the goal of capitalism and its means present a fair comparison with the goals of socialism, and its means? Side: Socialsim
I've heard people say "Socialism is perfect... until you put people in it". I was born in a socialistic system, and I'd like to share a few things with you. There is nothing perfect in a system where the government controls your food rations. There is nothing perfect in a system where no matter how much you apply yourself to your subject, you will still make the same as the guy that dropped out of school at 15. There is nothing perfect in a system where the lawyer that is supposed to defend you, is appointed by the government, even if your case is against the government. There is nothing perfect in a system where your own brother/uncle/cousin reports you to the authorities for having dangerous opinions. There is nothing perfect in a system where having different opinions condemns you to a square meter jail room for ever, condemns your entire family tree to exile for ever, and forbids all your descendants and relatives of continuing past the 6th grade. There is nothing perfect in a system where everything you watch on your single TV channel is produced and controlled by the government, and everything you read on the paper is censored by the government. There is nothing perfect in a system where all spiritual places, churches, temples, are all destroyed, and any reference to religion lands you in that square meter jail room for ever. There is nothing perfect in a system where your holiday destination has to be approved by the local council. There is nothing perfect in a system where having any type of contact or simple correspondence with someone abroad, assures you a charge of treason, and a place in that jail room. I am perplexed as to why anyone would find this system perfect even on paper. Socialism sees people as ants. Well people are NOT ants. Ants don't have dreams. They don't have different aspirations. Ants work that way because that is what comes natural to them. I can see how utility services work better by using a socialist system. If it was up to me I would say every service that provides the fundamental needs of the public, such as water, electricity, medical help, fire etc. needs to be provided primarily by the government. But everything else needs to be left to free enterprise and people should be left to make their own way in life. Side: Capitalism
Actually most Americans right now are having their lives run by the likes of Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Exxon, Walt Disney and McDonalds. It is a myth that modern capitalism does not have central economic planning. The American economy is highly centralized but the planning doesn't come from Pennsylvania Avenue, but rather Wall Street. Side: Socialsim
0
points
Hmmm I don't see the connection between government or collective ownership of production of goods and services and the government running your life. Just to let you in on a little secret, some industries in the United States are already socialistic: fire departments, police departments, public schools and universities, utilities, social security, government owned airports. I am going to assume that you are not a conservative because if you are and you just said "Who do you think should run your life; you, or the government?" then the hypocrisy would have caused your head to explode and you won't be able to respond anyway. The answer to the question depends on the situation. Some things are most efficient with a capitalist model and some things are most efficient with a socialist model. Capitalism encourages competition and innovation, but there are some instances known as market failures when the free market does not work. I will use the example of utilities. If everyone had a different company for their phone, electricity, etc. then each company would end up making ways to transport their service to customers. This is incredibly inefficient. Another example I will give is fire departments. If a bunch of houses are on fire, multiple companies will respond. They might get into each others' way and not cooperate. Also they would compete to gain a monopoly over areas by making their own interfaces for fire hydrants and then patenting them. Then they could make the price of their service very high and consumers would have no choice. In general market failures exist with economies of scale. That is why almost every economy of scale is publicly owned or publicly regulated. So some situations call for socialism and others for capitalism. Side: Depends on the situation
The speaker is defending capitalism in the affirmative. points brought up by the opponent: (CON) ledhead818(383) counterpoints by the speaker: (PRO) nonostrum (CON) ledhead818(383)-"Hmmm I don't see the connection between government or collective ownership of production of goods and services and the government running your life." (PRO) nonostrum- I bring your attention to the example of the Ukraine in 1932, where Stalin starved 7-11 million people to death under a system of socialized farming. This is known as the Ukrainian genocide. The connection between government control of resources and controlling peoples lives is clear. Stalin's Starvation of Ukraine – Seventy Years Later, World Still Largely Unaware Of Tragedy By Askold Krushelnycky, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty http://www.ukemonde.com/news/rferl.html (CON) ledhead818(383)-"some industries in the United States are already socialistic: fire departments, police departments, public schools and universities, utilities, social security, government owned airports." (PRO) nonostrum- All forms of government provide services like fire and police departments, so this does not distinguish between socialism from capitalism; which is necessary to answer the question: "Socialism or Capitalism? Which one works better?". -Calling this level of local control a form of socialism is an overly broad use of the term, especially within the context of the question "Will Socialism or capitalism help the people or the economy of the of the U.S.A", which is referring to the country at the national level. There is no national police or fire department in the U.S.A.; when your house is on fire, you call the local fire department. -these cannot honestly be called socialism because socialism is a top down power structure, whereas fire and police departments are local affairs controlled at the town and city level. -this says nothing against private fire departments, which exist and serve a function that is unfilled by the public sector. -public schools do not work; they fail to educate school children adequately to first world standards. Indeed they lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in essential skills of math and science. U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html -Some public schools are also physically dangerous environments filled with gang culture. These schools must resort to using metal detectors and police guards in an attempt to control the violence. -Anyone that can afford to send their children to private schools sends their children there rather than to public schools, because they know the private schools are better. A prominent example of this is the Obama family's choice to send Sasha and Malia to Sidwell Friends, a private school. -As for public universities, they like the fire and police departments are controlled at the local or in this case, sometimes state level, and are controlled by the people of that city or state from the bottom up, rather than from the top down as under socialism. - the same can be said of public utilities, which are again locally controlled. -Social security is an unsustainable disaster, and will be forced to cut back on promised benefits. Or as Allan Greenspan, ex-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board put it- "Because benefit cuts will almost surely be at least part of the resolution, it is incumbent on government to convey to future retirees that the real resources currently promised to be available on retirement will not be fully forthcoming. We owe future retirees as much time as possible to adjust their plans for work, saving, and retirement spending. They need to ensure that their personal resources, along with what they expect to receive from government, will be sufficient to meet their retirement goals." Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Future of the Social Security program and economics of retirement Before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate March 15, 2005 http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/ -Government owned airports are part of a necessary national defense plan, regardless of the style of government. Moreover, there is no evidence that they perform any better than private airports, which there are more of. (CON) ledhead818(383)-"I am going to assume..." (PRO) nonostrum-presumptuous and therefore spurious argument (CON) ledhead818(383)-"...that you are not a conservative because if you are and you just said "Who do you think should run your life; you, or the government?" then the hypocrisy would have caused your head to explode and you won't be able to respond anyway." (PRO) nonostrum-ad hominem attack (CON) ledhead818(383)-"The answer to the question depends on the situation. " (PRO) nonostrum-waffling (CON) ledhead818(383)-"Some things are most efficient with a capitalist model and some things are most efficient with a socialist model. " (PRO) nonostrum-That is besides the point, that is not what is being argued. The question is not which system is more EFFICIENT, but which is BETTER. These are not the same thing. The question was "Socialism or Capitalism? Which one works better?" The socialized farming programs of Stalin in the Ukraine may have claimed higher efficiency, but it was certainly not better; millions of people died of starvation as a result of this policy. (CON) ledhead818(383)-"Capitalism encourages competition and innovation,..." (PRO) nonostrum- I thank ledhead818(383) for making a case for capitalism. Capitalism does indeed encourage these good things, something which socialism does not do; and actually discourages. (CON) ledhead818(383)-"but there are some instances known as market failures when the free market does not work." (PRO) nonostrum-fails to give any instances. (CON) ledhead818(383)-"I will use the example of utilities." (PRO) nonostrum-This is a hypothetical, not an example. The hypothetical is a weaker argument than an example. (CON) ledhead818(383)-" If everyone had a different company for their phone, electricity, etc. then each company would end up making ways to transport their service to customers. This is incredibly inefficient." (PRO) nonostrum-This is the argument for the development of natural monopolies, which may naturally arise under capitalism, as apposed to being forced into existence under socialism. -Additionally capitalism produces the highest quality at the lowest price by responding through the free market system. This is what Adam Smith called the "invisible hand of the marketplace". In socialism, companies must bribe the government policy maker to survive, which is the only basis for decisions made under socialism. -But even so, the efficiency argument is not relevant to which is better. (CON) ledhead818(383)-"Another example I will give is fire departments. If a bunch of houses are on fire, multiple companies will respond. They might get into each others' way and not cooperate. Also they would compete to gain a monopoly over areas by making their own interfaces for fire hydrants and then patenting them. Then they could make the price of their service very high and consumers would have no choice." (PRO) nonostrum-Another hypothetical is given, not an example. -The fire hydrant interface scenario is one which is found in fittings between electrical components. This is solved by the creation of common standards by non-governmental engineering societies, such as the IEEE. Manufacturers voluntarily follow the standards of such organizations to assure intercompatibility so that their products continue to be salable. So there's no need for government control here. -consumers have no choice under socialism, which has a state monopoly on utilities. (CON) ledhead818(383)-"In general market failures exist with economies of scale.That is why almost every economy of scale is publicly owned or publicly regulated. " (PRO) nonostrum-Unsupported general statement, no examples. -Economies of scale simply refers to the efficiencies gained by manufacturing at large quantities. An excellent example of this is Henry Fords factory system; a brilliant case for the success of capitalism. Henry Ford was smart and figured out a way to build cars people wanted cheaper than anyone else ever. No socialism needed there. (CON) ledhead818(383)-"So some situations call for socialism and others for capitalism." (PRO) nonostrum-again waffling. IN SUMMARY -All my opponents points against capitalism and supporting socialism have been defeated. -My opponent has made a definite point in favor of capitalism, regarding competition and innovation. -In conclusion, my opponent has failed to make the case that socialism works better than capitalism. Side: Capitalism
I read recently that in the early history of New York City there were actually competing fire departments that would race to put out the same fire so they could get credit for putting it out. Competing companies of firemen would actually disguise and sabotage the fire hydrants in competitors’ neighborhoods so the competitors could not do their job when a fire started. The arch-capitalists do not understand that the profit motive of capitalism can too easily concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the few which leads to a misallocation of goods and services. Producers will almost always do what they need to do to maximize their short-term profits and in the process they will restrict what goods and services are available to consumers and this means consumers can go without the goods and services they need. For this reason there are certain industries that should not be driven by the profit motive. Side: Socialsim
1
point
2
points
I believe "socialism" is best described by the phrase, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." (Ayn Rand) Given that most humans look out for number 1 first, and then their family and friends, how will they be motivated in a socialist system? People will focus on their needs and hide their abilities. If what I receive for my 'needs' has no connection to what I produce, why should I produce? Why would I work hard (or at all) if all my needs are taken care of anyway? It might work in a commune where everyone knows everyone and shirkers risk being ostracized. But in a society where socialism means welfare, and if the only motivation to produce what others need is threat of prison, people will do the minimum required by authorities. Side: Socialsim
"I believe 'socialism' is best described by the phrase, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' (Ayn Rand)" Rand must have been stupider than I ever thought if she couldn’t tell the difference between socialism and Marxist communism, which is what this definition actually applies to. Side: Socialsim
1
point
the reason that socialism will never work is because of one key factor...human beings are greedy. You may not be greedy, the next poster may not even be greedy, but somewhere out there is someone who is greedy who wants more than their share. Through Socialism, this would supposedly solve the problem right? No. Do you remember a little incident called the Cold War? The Cold War had the "perfect system." Communism gave people each their share of what they needed when they needed it. They also, had nationalized health care, government run businesses, and total government control over people's jobs. “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” --Winston Churchill Side: Capitalism
Socialism does not work in the real world because of human greed- people will not work for a living as long as someone else is willing or can be forced to do it for them. This means than an economy cannot produce the most it is capable of producing. But the profit motive in capitalism can cause cut-throat competition that can cause an imbalance between supply and demand that can threaten the entire economy. The Great Depression was often seen as a failure of capitalism. Farmers and factories could produce more than consumers could afford to buy. The cost of production (especially for farmers) became higher than the retail price that the market could bear so producers cut back which lead to unemployment which drove demand down even more. Farmers found it cheaper to destroy food and fiber in the field rather than send their products to market while at the same time consumers literally went hungry and naked because they couldn’t afford to buy even essential goods and services. In all likelihood socialism never works while capitalism never works all of the time. Side: Capitalism
1
point
If anything can prove capitalism's superiority over socialism, history can. No socialist country has lasted as long or been as successful as one that follows capitalism. For example, the United States, a country founded on capitalist beliefs, still has one of the world's strongest and most valuable currencies, whereas the Third Reich government established by the Nazis had nearly worthless currency and lasted for less than a decade. Side: Capitalism
1
point
Your history seems to be a little confused. While I agree that pure capitalism is usually better for a nation economically then pure socialism, the examples you used do not illustrate this point. The Nazi's established a Facist government...not one that was socialist. In addition, their failure had nothing to do with economics, but instead from a little skirmish you may of heard of called World War II. In fact, one of the reasons for Hitler's rise to power was that his economic plans (led by his economic advisor) were tremendously successful. This allowed him to gain tremendous public support, and silence his opponents. Germany had been economically devastated after WWI by the Treaty of Versailles, and it's recovery to a state capable of waging an initially successful war on France and Britain (and later Russia) was nothing short of miraculous. Side: Socialsim
-5
points
1
point
According to wikipedia: Capitalism is an economic system in which trade and industry are privately controlled for profit rather than by the state. Through capitalism, the land, capital are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy. Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer. How could there be more governent types than governments? Well, first, I would argue that there isn't. There are about two hundred nations on earth, each with governments that are more or less unique, and throughout history regimes and government types have changed. In addition, ideas are not limited by reality. Let's say hypothetically everyone on the earth died except for two people. According to your example there could only be two personality types, when we know that just because the other personality types don't exist, doesn't mean that they are not possible. Finally, you should be aware that you are confusing economic systems with "government types". Although the two are related they are by no means the same. Side: Socialsim
-2
points
|
2
points
In a perfect world ie. not reality. If we're going to pick which is better based on how they work in pure theory, than capitalism should still win, because in theory a capitalism with perfect competition results is no-one making supernormal profits and everyone being equal. Side: Capitalism
2
points
The simple fact is that as long as government interferes in both systems, neither one is going to work the way they were theoretically intended. Government is, by nature, corrupt and will provide advantages to special interests as long as it serves their purpose. With socialism, government courts the unions, with capitalism, any company or private corporation that is willing to bribe its members. Always, in both systems, it is the common person who suffers. Socialism offers death by petty bureaucracy, capitalism - death by international bankers. Take your choice. Side: Socialsim
In a perfect world anarchism would work. In the real world, under the right circumstances, socialism would work. Today capitalism seems to work. Or so they keep telling us anyway... Still my vote goes to the tree hugging, weed smoking, Lenin loving, Trabant driving socialists. Side: Socialsim
-2
points
4
points
"none of you know what socialism and capitalisms represent and are" Bad wording aside, this seems to be a pretty bold statement. Do you know everyone on the site? Have you discussed this issue with each of them, or at least read some of their arguments on the topic? If so, correct me; however, it seems more likely that you are just being arrogant and disrespectful. Side: Capitalism
2
points
But it is certainly true in my experience that most people who denigrate, at least, socialism rarely have a working understanding of it. For example, if you look at the arguments on "the other side of the pond" of this debate, you'll realize a trend. The average person seems to be under the impression that socialism equals state institutions running a country. But that's the farthest thing from the truth, and that's why socialism is called the next step to political anarchy. Socialism involves the dissolution of state institutions to their smallest components: the people. The bigger the state government involvement you have in a country, the less socialist it is. Socialism is philosophically the closest thing to a pure democracy in its classical use. The best education a person can have with respect to socialism is the literature: Michel de Montaigne's "Of Cannibals", Marge Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time", Robinson's "Red Mars", Thomas More's "Utopia", Read about the Shakers and the Oneida, Morris' "News from Nowhere", Gilman's "Herland". The literature is rich for the budding intellect wanting to know more about socialism. Side: Socialsim
-2
points
|
