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.
A dickhead. Why would anybody believe in a system of hereditary wealth much like monarchism or feudalism provided the majority of citizens who will never be rich are given scraps to fight over as if they were dogs? How can you believe a "safety net" even exists when there are so many poor and/or homeless people in America? You are living in your own little bubble of reality which has been constructed from 50 years of Cold War propaganda. Capitalism is an extremely unfair system of economics, and for precisely that reason it is not sustainable indefinitely. Already we are at the stage where belief in it is now justified by the same false logic which justifies belief in Christianity.
You got a great idea Leftist free homes , free cars , free groceries , free electricity for everybody !!!!!!!!!
You don't even need to introduce free stuff to improve upon capitalism. People originally traded through necessity, until capitalism introduced the profit incentive. Since the aim of capitalism is to profit from others, it means the price of quite literally everything is artificially inflated to more than its market value.
I feel we live in corporatist states rather than capitalist ones. Are you arguing that there is a better system than capitalism? Please explicate in practical detail: saying socialism for example isn't sufficiently descriptive; how will people's pay be calculated, who controls the means of production and how, what will happen to business owners etc.
I feel we live in corporatist states rather than capitalist ones.
Sure, but corporatism is an outcome of capitalism anyway, so it's really the same difference.
Are you arguing that there is a better system than capitalism?
How can we ever even answer that question if we refuse to try any other systems!!?? Just imagine if we had refused to leave caves because the people benefiting most from living in caves convinced us it was the best system. Clearly, it is a fallacious and circular argument to say we don't need to try other methods because we have already found the best method. That argument defies a hundred thousand years of evolutionary progress.
Please explicate in practical detail: saying socialism for example isn't sufficiently descriptive
Please explicate in practical detail what you mean by practical, detail and descriptive. You aren't being descriptive enough.
"Sure, but corporatism is an outcome of capitalism anyway, so it's really the same difference."
How so? there's a difference between a government that operates in the interests of corporations and a government that allows individuals to accumulate private wealth. The quantity of private wealth is based on the free market's valuation of the individual's labor.
"How can we ever even answer that question if we refuse to try any other systems!!?? Just imagine if we had refused to leave caves because the people benefiting most from living in caves convinced us it was the best system. Clearly, it is a fallacious and circular argument to say we don't need to try other methods because we have already found the best method. That argument defies a hundred thousand years of evolutionary progress."
I actually agree that different systems should be experimented with. We are speaking specifically though about the financial/labor/property element of our system here. After all, a capitalist system can be anywhere from, for example, dictatorial to anarchic. Capitalism is the idea that one should be able to acquire wealth as (mostly) determined by the free market's estimation of the worth of one's labor. If I were disillusioned with this idea I would personally think up and propose modifications or an alternative.
"Please explicate in practical detail what you mean by practical, detail and descriptive. You aren't being descriptive enough."
Obviously I'm just asking, that if a system is proposed, it is proposed in a manner that can actually be discussed.
Because the only countries which even have corporations are capitalist. Corporations are a direct product of capitalism.
there's a difference between a government that operates in the interests of corporations and a government that allows individuals to accumulate private wealth.
No, not really. Corporations are a co-operation between individuals for the purpose of accumulating wealth.
The quantity of private wealth is based on the free market's valuation of the individual's labor.
No it isn't. The "free market" isn't offering you minimum wage to work at MacDonald's. A person does that. How can you even sit there with a straight face and call the market "free" in the first place? How does complete economic domination by a few massive companies constitute "freedom"? That's literally ridiculous.
You've misunderstood. A corporatist government is one that favors corporations above other interests. Perhaps I should have used the word corporatocracy. There certainly is a difference between allowing individuals to accumulate private wealth and operating in the interests of corporations. A corporation could for example be given a lucrative public contract simply because it helped finance several politicians' campaigns.
"No it isn't. The "free market" isn't offering you minimum wage to work at MacDonald's. A person does that."
It's offered by a person, who has valued the labor of a burger flipper at minimum wage. If other outlets were in desperate need of burger flippers the average wage of a burger flipper would increase. As such, it is indeed mostly determined by the market's valuation of the labor.
"How can you even sit there with a straight face and call the market "free" in the first place? How does complete economic domination by a few massive companies constitute "freedom"? That's literally ridiculous."
This was partly what I was talking about when i mentioned corporatocracy in the first place. Western governments often act in the interests of large corporations, helping them build and maintain large shares of the market. These acts aren't capitalistic, they are corporacratic.
I don't believe you have provided any evidence that I have misunderstood anything, which makes your attack nothing more than empty rhetoric.
A corporatist government is one that favors corporations above other interests
And I just explained that a corporation is simply a co-operation of the same individuals you believe should be free to accumulate private wealth. The problem is not that I am misunderstanding. The problem is that you are not acknowledging that you are wrong.
Why would a government favour corporations over other interests in the first place? Money. Hence, it doesn't matter if that money comes from a group of individuals or one individual.
It's offered by a person, who has valued the labor of a burger flipper at minimum wage
So employers decide how much to pay their own workers, and you think this constitutes the "free market" valuing how much they are worth? That's absolutely ludicrous. Every employer's incentive is to pay employees as little as possible in order to maximise profit. What is fair or free about a person who has a direct conflict of interests with you deciding how much to pay you?
"I don't believe you have provided any evidence that I have misunderstood anything, which makes your attack nothing more than empty rhetoric."
You clearly misunderstood what I said when you stated that corporatism is an outcome of capitalism and therefore the same difference. Corporatocracy isn't an inevitable outcome of capitalism. If it is, you should explain why or it's a baseless assertion.
"And I just explained that a corporation is simply a co-operation of the same individuals you believe should be free to accumulate private wealth. The problem is not that I am misunderstanding. The problem is that you are not acknowledging that you are wrong."
You need to explain why I'm wrong, that's how a debate works. I'm not saying corporations shouldn't exist, I'm saying they shouldn't have undue influence in politics thus allowing them to accumulate an undue market share.
"Why would a government favour corporations over other interests in the first place? Money. Hence, it doesn't matter if that money comes from a group of individuals or one individual."
A government would favor corporations over other interests because they finance the campaigns of politicians.
"So employers decide how much to pay their own workers, and you think this constitutes the "free market" valuing how much they are worth? That's absolutely ludicrous. Every employer's incentive is to pay employees as little as possible in order to maximise profit. What is fair or free about a person who has a direct conflict of interests with you deciding how much to pay you?"
Yes indeed, they will pay as little as they can to maximize profit. However, competition from other employers (which is somewhat stifled by corporate influence on government) drives these wages up. This is exactly why more skilled jobs command a greater salary: because less people can do them (and because of the preliminary work required). Anyone can perform the duties of a burger flipper, as such they are paid peanuts. This wage in fact is artificially inflated to a degree by government intervention so that it is sufficient to live on. When it comes a CEO or doctor, however, these people are rare and always in short supply so employers pay them more to compete with other employers offers. The market estimates the value of an individual's labor in this manner: through competition.
I'm sorry but "clearly" is a simple adverb which only serves to make your claim more emotive and irrational. It does not constitute the evidence I asked for that your claim was true.
when you stated that corporatism is an outcome of capitalism
Are you denying that corporatism is an outcome of capitalism? If so, then please list some corporate socialist countries.
You need to explain why I'm wrong
This statement falsely suggests that you have not been replying to explanations of why you are wrong for some time.
A government would favor corporations over other interests because they finance the campaigns of politicians.
False. As I explained once already in the passage you quoted and replied to, money finances the campaigns of politicians. Corporations are a source of money, as are wealthy entrepreneurs like Robert Mercer, Sheldon Adelson, and Rupert Murdoch.
Debate is not simply ignoring the refutation to your argument and repeating the same argument. I don't even know what that is.
"I'm sorry but "clearly" is a simple adverb which only serves to make your claim more emotive and irrational. It does not constitute the evidence I asked for that your claim was true."
Once again, I made a distinction between a corporatocracy and capitalism. When you stated "they are the same difference" you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of my point and the distinction I made. It's partly the explainer's fault when the explainee misunderstands so don't take it as an attack on your intelligence. Corporatocratic systems are ones where corporations have undue influence on politics. Please read the Wikipedia entries on both capitalism and corporatocracy in order to understand the difference.
"Are you denying that corporatism is an outcome of capitalism? If so, then please list some corporate socialist countries."
Corporations are indeed products of certain capitalistic systems, corporatocracy is not a necessary result of capitalism, however.
"This statement falsely suggests that you have not been replying to explanations of why you are wrong for some time."
This sentence doesn't make sense but I can appreciate what you're attempting to articulate. The statement preceeding the baseless assertion that I'm wrong was:
"And I just explained that a corporation is simply a co-operation of the same individuals you believe should be free to accumulate private wealth."
I don't particularly disagree with your definition of a corporation, but why would that make me wrong? One doesn't need to outlaw corporations in order to prevent them having undue influence in a nations political process. One can reform campaign finance for one example, a cause I agree with strongly.
"False. As I explained once already in the passage you quoted and replied to, money finances the campaigns of politicians. Corporations are a source of money, as are wealthy entrepreneurs like Robert Mercer, Sheldon Adelson, and Rupert Murdoch."
You quoted me saying exactly this and replied with the same sentiment. It is clear we both agree on the point that corporations are unduly influencing the politics of nations through campaign donations and such. You have misread "A government would favor corporations over other interests because they finance the campaigns of politicians." as a different point of view when it is in fact the same.
"Debate is not simply ignoring the refutation to your argument and repeating the same argument. I don't even know what that is."
I'm hoping I have now provided sufficient detail for you to understand my position. If not please ask about what you don't understand.
Smart. And I don't mean for a giant safety net, just simply a safety net of some kind.
Because here's the deal, the people who live and work beneath the capitalist are the work force who help his business, and usually also the consumers whose money directly or indirectly keeps business on a national scale humming. To be able to avoid personal disaster and maybe get back on their feet is good for business. Granted not everyone gets back on their feet. There are folks permanently disabled or mentally ill who will never work again and probably won't be big consumers. But then that comes back to the discussion of what size of safety net to have, not simply all in or all out.
"Because here's the deal, the people who live and work beneath the capitalist are the work force who help his business"
That's an interesting way of wording it. The reality of course is that his workforce expends their labour making him rich, since he claims ownership of the tools they use. This scam is as old as humanity itself. The workforce work not to benefit themselves, but to benefit the "master".
"The workforce work not to benefit themselves, but to benefit the "master".
Interesting concept you have arrived at there Leftist. With that said should government control the means and production of all consumable goods ? Would you be happy with that ?
Interesting concept you have arrived at there Leftist.
Interesting that you call it a concept instead of a basic fact. This is stuff Marx pointed out over a century ago.
Should government control the means and production of all consumable goods ?
Not "government" in our present understanding of the term, no. Government is only a necessity in the first place if the social system is unfair, such as it is with capitalism. A governing force must be there to prevent revolt. If the social system is fair, you remove the incentive for revolt and/or sedition and hence you remove the need for government. It has always been the thinking of Marxist scholars that eventually the people should govern themselves.
Is this a question or a statement? I've read Marx and I believe he proved through a process of reasoning why capitalism is unsustainable. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm a Communist, or that I believe everything Marx wrote was true.
but what does that have to do with one purchasing consumable goods ?
Pardon me, but what does "purchasing" have to do with whether or not the government should control consumable goods? That was the question you asked me. Goods must only be "purchased" in the first place because of the system we use. For some reason capitalists seem to love arbitrarily superimposing the problems caused by capitalism onto the very systems designed to fix these problems. It's like asking who will score the field goals in a formula one race.
Democratic socialists, as opposed to communistic socialists do NOT want to be "dependent on government". They want a government "BY the people, FOR the people. They (we), want the RIGHT to VOTE on how our government works.
Capitalists love the Gerrymandered system THEY cpontrol. The best thing that could happen in the U.S. is to lay out voting districts in squares or rectangles as much as possible, NOT a shape that gives one party or the other an advantage! The problem with this capitalistic "democracy" we have NOW is that the vote IS fixed, not the way Humpty Trumpty thinks it is, but the way conservatives set it up! The government can NOT work the way the founding fathers set it up because the electoral college is FIXED! Capitalism is running amok! This democracy is a bad joke that is being swung toward another oligarchy by politicians that are payed off by capitalists like the Kochs!
People all over the world are objecting to how the rich are taking over (see Hamburg), and THE PEOPLE want to control their government, not the FEW! Bring back democracy!
A smart capitalist. Capitalism without regulation or opposition is a self destructive entity. I'm not anti-capitalism, I'm anti-unregulated capitalism! Capitalism is a great thing, but, it is also a YUGE greed generator .... AND a oligarch creator! We went through that during the "Robber Baron days" before Teddy RooseveltThe countr (and "small" government), became "owned" by, basically, three billionaires, which eventually reduced to ONE! This made him an "unofficial dictator", as he controlled the President and everything he did! That is what today's conservatives want again! Trump is just the beginning, and, if he makes two terms, will likely become a "puppet President".
We got a taste of it in 2007. Bush allowed Wall Street and banks to ignore regulations and the fecal matter hit the rotary air mover! Want that again?? Vote for Trump and McConnell's boys ... or girls! We'll be not that much better than Russia!
The problem is that the very thing you are warning about concerning oligarchies is that if you put all social programs and regulation into the hands of the government you've only swapped oligarchs. And now you have an oligarchy with the power of the military and the power over the law in charge. That's worse.
The problem is that the very thing you are warning about concerning oligarchies is that if you put all social programs and regulation into the hands of the government you've only swapped oligarchs.
The problem isn't that "you've only swapped oligarchs". The problem is precisely that you haven't swapped oligarchs. Your argument is based on the supposition that government interests collide with business interests and this is simply -- for the most part -- untrue. The government's job is to protect the very system which has made these business owners rich. The campaign financing system is funded by donations from these very same business owners. You are right in the sense that government would be no better, but I think you are missing the bigger picture. Neither government nor business is at fault, but rather the system which gave rise to and nurtured these corrupt institutions in the first place.
I would call a Socialist, who believed the people should be dependent on Government rather than freely working for private businesses, a total idiot.
I would call a person who bans all opposition from his own debates a total idiot. You don't seem to understand that Christianity has literally killed more people than smallpox, or that the new testament is only half of the Bible. Nobody on this site should take anything you say seriously.
