CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:135
Arguments:167
Total Votes:141
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (104)

Debate Creator

Akulakhan(2985) pic



A Introduction to Capitalism (Direct link to vid added)


DIRECT YOUTUBE LINK: https://youtu.be/KLNW0sZKYhU
Add New Argument
3 points

I watched about half of the video......it's too stupid, but it does show how media is used to deliver the message of Marxism, trying to get people angry so they will steal from the rich and allow fascist dictators who never produce anything of value to rule over them.

I'm too busy with my own capitalistic enterprises to waste time watching a video like this which is just plain dumb for dummies who are too dumb to figure out how to capitalize on their talents. At one time I employed 12 people, and they were not dummies and robots like the mindless video portrays workers...they knew where their bread was buttered and who buttered it.

Wow, I'm impressed. You posted a whole 2 paragraphs without holy-rollering- will wonders never cease.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
3 points

You have always impressed me as you consistently are in character with your screenname, exactly what I would expect form a fool who is high falutin. What a stereotype you are, acting like you are so stinking great.

2 points

Please.

How many capitalist enterprises could you possible have with all the time you spend here? Unless maybe you're a day-trader who works from home on his computer. But since I used to engage in that endeavor I am aware that that market has all but been eradicated since the '08 meltdown.

Also anybody who writes that vid off as being simply "stupid" doe not seem to have the economic acumen to quickly and efficiently buy and sell stocks on a daily or even hourly basis. When I did it I was totally obsessed, and it lead to a nasty cocaine habit!

I am lucky that I can do this CD things from work. At my Gym. When I'm not on the floor with a client or doing some sort of work on the Box I can sit here behind the counter and play with you folks. You notice I post mostly during the day, as my nights are for wifey.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

A fool tells his whole heart. You don't need to know my business beyond what I talk about. I'll give you this, you publish a lot of personal info and that does take some guts.......but it's not wise. You invited me to visit your gym, a very stupid thing to do, opening your door to me and challenging me to enter. You have not earned my respect for me to tell you any of my personal business. The only person on here who has come anywhere close to earning my respect enough to know things you are prying into with no business digging......the only person I might consider being open about my business with would be SlapShot, and I'm in no hurry to tell anybody about my business. I do not trust people on the internet easily. You have been a fool to offer me an invite. I would not trust you any more than I trust a rattlesnake, and if I came to meet you, I would not be getting bitten........an exposed snake is easy to handle.

Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
1 point

But not too busy to jump on createdebate and make dozens of debates and ban everyone who disagrees with you? You always get dodgey when you're wrong. Based on your reaction. and the fact that you couldn't bare to watch the whole video, I think you didn't like that you were wrong. Curious, what do you do when you disagree with someone that isn't on your debate? Do you flag the video?

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
2 points

I ban people mostly for being disruptive and trying to derail the conversations I want focused on the OP. I watched most of that stupid Marxist video, insulting anybody who is employed by an owner of a business or property. This subject really does not interest me much, it's not much worth arguing about. If you want to cry about some people have more possessions than you, and you want to cry about having to work to earn a living, go ahead. I don't have time for it, I do what I need to do to provide for myself and if that means working an hourly job for low wages, fine. Most of my life I have found ways to be self employed and hire workers as needed, had twelve for a while. If you were one of my workers whining like this, I would fire you. Who wants a cry baby working for them? Go start your own business and use your brain and backbone instead of your mouth to whine about life not being fair.

You made some good comments in some of my debate, I don't remember what is was but I was surprised to see it coming from you. This Marxist garbage is just plain dumb and annoying, not worth time to argue about.

Demon_Hunter(635) Clarified
1 point

Please.

How many capitalist enterprises could you possible have with all the time you spend here? Unless maybe you're a day-trader who works from home on his computer. But since I used to engage in that endeavor I am aware that that market has all but been eradicated since the '08 meltdown.

Also anybody who writes that vid off as being simply "stupid" doe not seem to have the economic acumen to quickly and efficiently buy and sell stocks on a daily or even hourly basis. When I did it I was totally obsessed, and it lead to a nasty cocaine habit!

I am lucky that I can do this CD things from work. At my Gym. When I'm not on the floor with a client or doing some sort of work on the Box I can sit here behind the counter and play with you folks. You notice I post mostly during the day, as my nights are for wifey.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

Why don't you write a book about how great you are? I'm not impressed, but somebody might be. This isn't my first day at the rodeo, son.

2 points

Capitalism has done great things, but it can never truly succeed for all. Capitalism is an oligarchy in the economy. Capitalists cut their costs and increase profit, the corporations gain too much power. An economic system cannot truly succeed if a minority holds most of the power. This is also true in politics as well. Nations with totalitarian governments don't prosper because it benefits a few at the expense of the many. Capitalism leads to this, so it can't succeed in the long term.

2 points

An oligarchy?

I don't agree.

that word means "rule by a privileged few."

and although yeah, the top 10% of the wealthy make more money that the bottom entire 50% in the USA, this is just how it has played out during our 200+ year history. It DOES not mean that ALL capitalist systems have to necessarily end-up being oligarchical in nature. In fact, most countries that DO have a capitalist or free market (or even limited or modified free market) economy have a much more fluid distribution of the wealth than do we. the reasons for this can get complex, but one of the main reasons I think is due to our history of a lack of regulation in free enterprise, as well as the stocks and bonds arena. Ever notice how after some sort of de-regulation legislation is passed, some years of great prosperity follow, only to end-up with a crash of some sort? In which the regulations come a calling again. It is sort of a vicious circle in a way. This is an argument for Keynseian economics. While the Freidmaniacs say the market is best left alone and will always correct itself in the end.

sorry, I am straying off topic. I can get pretty expansive when talking Econ sometimes. old habits I reckon.

1 point

Tell that to the millions of business owners that they can't succeed. Give up! Don't try, it's a lost cause... true words for a defeatist group like the Democrats/socialists.

2 points

He clearly was talking about the economic system, not the individuals.

Why are you throwing up straw men?

DS0330(267) Disputed
1 point

Capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism. You can work hard and be successful in a capitalist society but the wealthy and big business win in the end. Many work hard and suffer from the low wages they get. Capitalism has an effective demand gap, so it fails in the long run.

Amarel(5556) Disputed
1 point

Capitalism has done great things, but it can never truly succeed for all

Capitalism succeeds, people fail.

Capitalism is an oligarchy in the economy

Only when corporations get government to pass regulation that is favorable only to companies large enough to withstand the costs of said regulation, thus squeezing out would-be competition through government force rather than market power.

Capitalists cut their costs and increase profit, the corporations gain too much power

Market power can only be "too much" power if politicians can be bought. This is a political problem that is not attached to capitalism as such, but rather capitalism as we know it.

Economic power is 1 of 2 things, the power to produce or the power to purchase. Someone having a great amount of either power is not a problem for anyone else. Again, only when the force of the government can be purchased does economic power become a threat to anyone. This type of threat is independent of capitalism.

Nations with totalitarian governments don't prosper because it benefits a few at the expense of the many

When utilizing markets alone, no corporation can benefit a few at the expense of the many. The cutting of costs is expressed as a cheaper price tag, which leads to more people benefiting by purchasing, which leads to greater profits. Trade in this way is a win-win situation. If your concern is for the worker, consider that they are trading as well. If they weren't being exploited for their labor, they would be broke and much worse off. The only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited.

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Capitalism succeeds, people fail.

And capitalism fails people. That's kind of his point; capitalism inherently disregards people who fail within the system, because it is not a system that beliefs such people are an economic responsibility.

Only when corporations get government to pass regulation that is favorable only to companies large enough to withstand the costs of said regulation, thus squeezing out would-be competition through government force rather than market power.

That happens all the time. That is essentially our entire agricultural system in a nut shell.

Market power can only be "too much" power if politicians can be bought. This is a political problem that is not attached to capitalism as such, but rather capitalism as we know it.

It is a problem of American Capitalism mixed with our form of government. Mind you if we could solve the political side of the problem, much of the economic side would probably fall into place as well, but that is kind of hard to do at this point when the political influence from the economic side is so deeply entrenched.

Economic power is 1 of 2 things, the power to produce or the power to purchase. Someone having a great amount of either power is not a problem for anyone else.

That's not really true. Someone having a sufficient amount of production power can run competition out of business, leading to a monopoly which is a problem for a lot of people. Someone with sufficient purchasing power can artificially drive down prices, which is a problem for a lot of people. In fact, the two things you listed are two of the primary things Adam Smith can not exist in his concept of Capitalism.

Again, only when the force of the government can be purchased does economic power become a threat to anyone. This type of threat is independent of capitalism.

It really isn't though. The nature of capitalism (as we know it) involves taking steps necessary to maximize market efficiency and productivity. In this society, part of that involves political interference. Political influence over our government is a natural aspect of attempts at maximizing productivity and market efficiency. If we had a capitalist economic system and a different political system, capitalism would work to influence that economic system as well; it's just in the nature of capitalism.

When utilizing markets alone, no corporation can benefit a few at the expense of the many.

A company moves into a small town, sets up a grocery store. They have enough start up funds to create a grocery store larger than the initial one, and have a financial leak to their parent company, which allows them to obtain goods at a cheaper cost. They open up and higher a bunch of part time workers. Soon, the town ends up going primarily to this new store because the goods are cheaper. This leads to their competition going out of businesses. The increased profits allow them to expand into other departments, which puts more and more local businesses out of business, replacing higher paying small business jobs with part-time corporate jobs.

This happens literally all the time. It's the Walmart model. And it has been benefiting small numbers of people at the expense of others for a long time, even before the government got involved. Now I'd agree with you if we had a Smithin model of capitalism, but we don't.

The cutting of costs is expressed as a cheaper price tag, which leads to more people benefiting by purchasing, which leads to greater profits.

Yes, but the short term benefit rarely outdoes the long term harm. See my example above: Many people benefit from Walmart providing cheaper goods, but they wouldn't be reliant upon said cheaper goods if it weren't for the wages being driven down in their local area by the very group they are support to be benefiting from.

Trade in this way is a win-win situation.

The "win's" are rarely even, unless the parties involved are on equal footing, which rarely occurs in our system.

If your concern is for the worker, consider that they are trading as well. If they weren't being exploited for their labor, they would be broke and much worse off.

I'm sorry, but that is logically unsound. There are many workers who have jobs where they are sufficiently compensated for their labor. They are not being exploited, and they are not "worse off". The assumption that workers are either "exploited", or "worse" simply does not make any sense, and is incredibly defeatist.

The only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited.

Yes, but those aren't the only options.

Capitalism, it does a bank account good.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

3 points

A bank account.

HighFalutin(3268) Clarified
2 points

Any bank account. Remember; capitalism creates jobs and opportunity for more that just one person.

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Some yes, some no.

HighFalutin(3268) Clarified
2 points

It's better than any system ever devised by man. No other economic philosophy has created more wealth for more people that capitalism. You also have to take into account JOBS, a by product of capitalism. Real jobs, not manufactured bureaucratic jobs working for government; jobs that create wealth.

2 points

I'm ready for my introduction to Capitalism whenever you are! :))

Akulakhan(2985) Clarified
2 points

Just curious, based on your comment, if the video showed up for you, it was a problem for another member. I can post a direct link in the description if necessary.

RavenLily(733) Clarified
2 points

No, I can't see it at all... That's why I was waiting with my popcorn. :))

HighFalutin(3268) Clarified
1 point

OK, I'll pay you $30 to mow my lawn.

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

RavenLily(733) Disputed
3 points

I'm not sure why you're directing that comment to me, but no thank you. We use a gardening service I can refer you to though.

In common with all resentful fools from the vast army of life's losers you mindlessly criticize the economic system upon which the world's trade is based without offering a viable alternative. You've failed to succeed in the highly competitive world of capitalism so you decide to throw your rattle out of the pram and start squealing. Instead of bawling like a spoilt brat why don't you show some mature leadership and submit your detailed proposals for a realistic replacement to capitalism?

1 point

Little arm chair warrior, insulting anyone who puts forth an opinion you don't like, then acting like you have the moral high ground.

Go back to spouting racism.

2 points

Having to resort to 'downvoting' is yet another graphic illustration of a loser whose feeble mind is baron of rational argument. JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY, you can't even spell your own assumed name.Watch out that Spartacus the deceased gladiator doesn't pay you a visit from the other side and to give you a kick up the arse. Ha, that would be funny, roars of laughter from the back stalls.

1 point

Tut, tut little man, most of life's losers behave just like you. You are truly a classic example of how these pitiful losers display their resentment at their own failure in life by spewing out a load of meaningless drivel in the misguided notion that they are insulting their betters. Be advised that low lives such as you cannot insult high achievers of whom I am one, we recognize the oozing of their diarrhea in text form for what it is. Also, Please note the correct spelling of Spartacus the gladiator, if that's the character from history whose name you are defiling by using it as a pseudonym. I challenge you to show your alternative to capitalism without making an even bigger fool of yourself than you have already done.

1 point

Nice!

I bit harsh, perhaps. But you are correct in saying that it is almost always the financially downtrodden who bemoan the politics and economics of Free Market enterprise, or Capitalism. The reason for this is all too obvious.

and their only alternative seems to be a vague and at-the-end-of-the-day Greedy plan to redistribute the Wealth. thus espousing the same mindset or zeitgeist in themselves that they are railing against and accusing us Capitalists of harboring.

1 point

But you are correct in saying that it is almost always the financially downtrodden who bemoan the politics and economics of Free Market enterprise, or Capitalism. The reason for this is all too obvious.

Yes, but people such as yourself ignore wealthy critics of capitalism to your determent. Playing the class warfare card does nothing to undermine the arguments of individuals like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

and their only alternative seems to be a vague and at-the-end-of-the-day Greedy plan to redistribute the Wealth.

Many people have very specific plans, so why are you vaguely referring to vague individuals with vague plans, instead of addressing those who have actually presented new ideas and systems? It seems to be nothing more than a straw man.

thus espousing the same mindset or zeitgeist in themselves that they are railing against and accusing us Capitalists of harboring.

Not really. People can easily criticize capitalism for abusing the working class and not paying the true value of labor, and then demand redistribution of wealth. Receiving that redistribution would not show that they are abusing themselves and refusing to pay themselves the value of their labor, obviously.

Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
1 point

In common with all resentful fools from the vast army of life's losers you mindlessly criticize the economic system upon which the world's trade is based without offering a viable alternative.

One has the capacity to think critically about something even if one doesn't have an alternative to a problem they might encounter with it.

You've failed to succeed in the highly competitive world of capitalism so you decide to throw your rattle out of the pram and start squealing.

My background, which that is not, has no bearing on the validity of my beliefs.

Instead of bawling like a spoilt brat why don't you show some mature leadership and submit your detailed proposals for a realistic replacement to capitalism?

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-02-17

1 point

From an anticapitalist with love.

1 point

Is there supposed to be a video? I can't open it. Tried mobile too, no luck.

Akulakhan(2985) Clarified
1 point

Could have something to do with your flash player. if necessary I'll post direct YouTube link into the description.

1 point

Yes yes

1 point

Okay I just updated the debate to have a direct link. It's in the description as promised.

1 point

Okay thank you. That works .

First off...who or what is that in your profile pic? It's sorta weirding me out. But it's also creepily captivating in a way.

So why are you a self proclaimed anti Capitalist? Tell us. And what firm of financial or economics system would you suggest would work better for the USA? I was an Econ major so I'm interested. I also am guessing your unfairly maligning the capitalists. Do you know if you ever bought it sold anything here in your life you were a part of the system?

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
2 points

One can be a participant whilst maligning the system they are in. Hell, Adam Smith would have maligned the way capitalism developed, and he's pretty much the patron saint of Capitolism.

Demon_Hunter(635) Clarified
1 point

Adam Smith is widely recognized as the founder of explaining the science of Economics, not capitalism. With his book On the Wealth of Nations back in the 1800s.

As far as your capitalism, if you want to begin debating the pros and cons we should adjust our terminology. Perhaps to Free Market econ vs. Keynesian. Are you familiar with the works of John Maynard Keynes? He might be the loudest voice in espousing the economic dogma you seem to be advocating.

I on the other hand like Friedman.

Like I said, this is my area, bro.

Akulakhan(2985) Clarified
1 point

Because you asked...

-

I'm a libertarian socialist. I advocate an economy where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods.

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Perhaps you could help, but I've always struggled with differentiating Libertarian Socialism with Marxism, on an effective level at least.

Is it mostly that you advocate for the same general set up, just with a different ideological basis?

1 point

Wtf?

Workers DO produce and distribute the goods in a free market Capitalist society. Especially when they have stock or some vested interest in the company they work for. Or are i where of. Or are you playing the Das Kapital Marxist card by claiming that business owners and corporate execs are not workers? But only big bad Bourgoise? And that likely humble workers constitute a beleaguered proletariat? This is outmoded thinking. Proven to be unsound. Also not accurate of the USA system.

Amarel(5556) Clarified
1 point

It is the upholding of property rights that leads to people owning the means of production.

How would a libertarian propose we keep the means of production in the hands of workers?

1 point

Unfortunately, libertarian socialism does not exist. Animal farm was libertarian and socialist... oh wait! Marxists are messing up India!

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Mohdi is by no means an actual Marxist, and Animal Farm was a critique on Stalinist Communism.

shaash(434) Clarified
1 point

I wasn't talking about Modi, I was talking about the people on the other side of the spectrum, who are marxist. Pakistan and China, for example. And I guess the second point is true, I shouldn't have used AF as an example there are better examples. Again, China.

I explained also to him that Libertarian socialism does not exist and in fact us an oxymoron. I don't think our young debate author here is too familiar with what Marxian socialism really involves. Rather, he just equates capitalism with unbridled greed and socialism with equality and compassion for your fellow man. We know this is not only drastically naive but also so over generalized as to make it a spurious definition.

2 points

I explained also to him that Libertarian socialism does not exist and in fact us an oxymoron.

Except that is a factually wrong statement. I recommend you start here and focus your time on the citations.

I don't think our young debate author here is too familiar with what Marxian socialism really involves

You have already demonstrated that you don't know what Marxism is (hint: Marxism isn't Socialism).

Rather, he just equates capitalism with unbridled greed and socialism with equality and compassion for your fellow man

He hasn't demonstrated that at all, while you demonstrate that you think all "Socialism", "Communism" and "Marxism" to mean "Government control".

We know this is not only drastically naive but also so over generalized as to make it a spurious definition.

It's also not found in his comments.

1 point

Yes yes

1 point

This is an introduction to Marxism, Communism. It's an attempt to start rebellion by making masses of people feel like victims. It's evil, and God is against it.

2 points

Not so fast.

I think if Jesus came back today and some economist sat him down and gave him a primer on all the different types of possible economic ideologies, that Jesus would choose Communism. Or at least a socialist Democracy. He for sure would eschew Capitalism.

You thoughts? Can you explain why I am wrong without condemning me to hell and thumping your Bible?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

How can you claim to be talking about Jesus if what you say is nothing you can thump your Bible about to show where your words are true?

1 point

Yes yes