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.
This is how a debate begins. And for the record, the creation of this debate is not a retort as far as we are concerned. The only biased retort in this debate is your reply!
ill play devils advocate. capitalism is a poor way of maintaining a stable economy, and there for weaken countries. it is to unstable and at any given time thousands can loose their jobs. the reason is that capitalism is privately owned by wealthier company's and so on all the way up the food chain of rich men who want to invest or start a company of their own. such as the great depression and the monopoly crises in America during the early 1900's. this shows here and there that a unjust person can abuse his power to do what he wants with a resource a nation desperately needs for uneconomic or personal needs. and in my opinion, are government really is not democratic if it lets these tycoons get away with what they want, and also they are not very Democratic when they intervene to the extent where the government abuses power to stop the money munchers. so personally i think capitalism is better then socialism, but i dint like capitalism to the extent of how its managed. we need a type of policy that is is the middle a bit more, where we don't let these people get away with what ever they want because they have the money to make any authoritative person quiet while they do what ever it is they wont.
So far all the arguments presented against socialism have failed to take into account two things, among them:
1) What socialism isn't
2) Socialism in a modern context OUTSIDE the United States
1) Socialism isn't communism. Socialism doesn't lead to fascism (since fascism is essentially the OPPOSITE of socialism.)
Socialism is NOT the government taking total control of the state and its people, as seen in Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, and Stalinist trains of thought: those are variants of fascist-tyrannies.
Socialism is the intervention of the government in critical areas of public sector services- it is the provision of universal healthcare, the provision of public services (and the maintaining of said services), and the protection of the economy by said government.
2) Moving on, repeated claims in this argument have claimed that "socialism" will (or has) failed America already. Addressing this complaint is easy: socialism has NEVER existed in America. That point is moot. The economy failed BECAUSE of a lack of government regulation.
Let's look at Canada, for example. By NOT privatizing their banks, the Canadian economy has managed to do reasonably well, weathering the recent recession with minimal damage. The "slippery-slope" fallacy fails upon any close inspection:
Canada is not run by tyrants. Canadians, for all their self-depreciation, have some of the highest standards of life in the world. Lest you forget that other countries exist outside North America, socialism also serves countries such as Sweeden and Norway very, very well.
Do you want freedom? The American soldier is what keeps this country free , and I will argue about that till my fingers fall off! Socialism leads to tyranny which is a complete loss of freedom,and all of the countries that turned to tyranny Have failed in their domestic application for an economy,in other words they didn't work out,wars broke out and chaos occurred. Capitalism is not ''no government'' its having alot more freedom from it and having a Public opinion , if we continue with socialism tyranny WILL occur . And your wrong tyranny IS complete government control . When slavery was ''happening'' white men had tyranny over black men,do you want the government to take that option with citizens of the U.S ? Thats what we WILL lead to . ''Government Regulation?'' Believe me ALL socialism is ,is government regulation! We are not Canada we are the U.S.A we shouldn't follow FOREIGN POLICIES,thats what makes us the ''unique'' country , notice that ALOT of countries are poor and want to come to ''America'',not china,japan,Iraq,Iran,Canada,Germany etc? And 1 last thing ''Socialism isn't'' the way to go!!!!
Did you read the above? Upon a quick look around this nation you can find all the terrors and faults that Capitalism has to offer. Because of our "buy all you can sell" attitude, China now owns us as we own our possesions. Multibillion dollar companies can and have bribe(d) the government with ease.
True! The Declaration of Independence affirms that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. These rights are endowments of their (men)Creator.
Inalienable: not able to be transferred or taken away.
Liberty, as an inalienable right, is not something that is taken or given, it is inalienable.
If Liberty can be guaranteed then I would argue that what is guaranteed is not Liberty, but is a guarantee of tyranny.
"...Do you want a politician legislating your Liberty? Or, do you want a politician guaranteeing your Liberty by his authority?"
I think I see your point about Legislators...do you mean a body of elected officials protecting my liberty? If so then neither! I prefer them to be understood as inalienable but as a last resort I would wish the protected by the Constitution.
If you haven't noticed, our mixed economy is based on capitalism. We tend to be on the more capitalistic side than socialistic. Obviously there needs to be some form of socialism to help the people, but its not wrong to say that capitalism is the way to go since it has been the basis of our country's success.
Like I said before, a very high percentage of industries are run by private owners for a profit, therefore there is more capitalism in our society than socialism.
Obviously no country has a completely capitalistic economy because that would be unjust to the people, but every modern economy is based on the practice of capitalism. Saying that our economy is mixed is right, but saying that capitalism is not the way to go is wrong.
Saying that our economy is mixed is right, but saying that capitalism is not the way to go is wrong.
The very fact that people stopped practicing capitalism in the early 10th century suggests that it's not the way to go.
I don't even know what that really means, either to be honest. "Way to go"... where? If the only point of an economy is to produce capital, then capitalism certainly is a good system to have. Using capital to produce an ever-increasing supply of capital (repeat ad infinitum) is what capitalism is good at. And I won't fault it for being good at that. But we also shouldn't sit around pretending that it does more than that.
"people stopped practicing capitalism in the early 10th century"- we practice capitalism today. We just don't use it as the only means of economic growth.
"we also shouldn't sit around pretending that it does more than that."- i never said it did.
Whoops, let me begin by correcting myself: 10th century = 20th century
we practice capitalism today
I disagree. The market is far too regulated and mixed. I think that the term "Capitalism" is a modern misnomer, repeated by people with a heaping pile of misplaced nostalgia riding on their backs.
i never said it did.
You're right, but I was referring to "we" in the general sense of the term--y'know, the population or what have you.
If a country has industries with private owners who are out to make a profit, that country is practicing capitalism. The United States is doing exactly that.
If a country has industries with private owners who are out to make a profit, that country is practicing capitalism. The United States is doing exactly that.
What a tragic oversimplification. Consider this: "private owners who are out to make a profit" also happens to describe Mercantilists, Georgists, Fascists, Market Socialists, and Corporatists.
The United States is doing exactly that.
Then the US is also Mercantile, Georgian, Fascist, Socialist and Corporatist (oh wow.... how mixed), vis a vis your definition of "Capitalism"--but you go further and practice a form of South Parkian Manbearpigism.
I guess I could have been clearer. Any modern country that has industries with private owners who are out to make a profit is practicing capitalism.
Mercantilism is different from capitalism because it allows the government to control trade. The US economy cannot be called mercantile.
Georgism says that everybody has an equal share in the land and that it can be taxes to reduce other taxes. This is obviously not the case in the US.
Fascism- there really isn't any set definition for fascism since different fascists countries have done different things in terms of its economy. You can't really say that the US is fascist.
Market Socialism doesn't have any private owners so I don't know why that is relevant. The US is definitely not socialist.
Corporatism has a lot of government intervention and involves a lot of collective bargaining in corporate organizations. This doesn't go on regularly in the US.
America is a mixed-economy and it is disingenuous to call it Capitalist. Here is why:
1) in direct contradiction to your second point (Mercantilism), all modern governments control trade via tariff and regulations. Said governments even convene annually to discuss how trade is controlled. America is included.
2) Neither the profit motive nor private ownership are unique to Capitalism (even together), so we cannot say that simply because these two properties are present in an economy, that said economy is Capitalist.
3) America is rife with government regulation, intervention and the "collective bargaining (with and of corporations) in corporate organizations"--we call them lobbies and beneficial regulations, dialectically in cahoots with and often opposed to government authority.
4) Capitalism exists only as a result of free enterprise and a free market. A heavily regulated, government intervened market environment is not free. That is why we have a mixed economy.
Minor points. Georgian collectivism is only concerned with the non-ownership of land and its resources. Georgian collectivism only argues that citizens ought to have equal opportunity to said land and its resources. Any individual can act on that imperative and rent land and build a factory on it and start producing whatever they want and sell it on the market--for a profit at that. Private ownership is whatever you make in Georgism. In Facsism and all its incarnatinos, whether philosophically or practically, there is private property and there is a profit motive. In market socialism, the only centralized institutions are higher-order industries and infrastructure. IF you choose to open a shoestore and make your shoes to sell on the market, you are free to do so.
It is disingenuous to call our economy completely capitalist, but it is not disingenuous to call it a capitalist economy because it was developed around capitalism.
1) Free trade is taken much more seriously in our economy than in an economy that can be considered mercantile. It would take much more to impose a tariff on imports in a capitalist economy such as ours. A mercantile economy tries to discourages imports as much as possible, while imports are encouraged in our country. Controlling trade is just one aspect of a mercantile economy. Mercantilism also suggests that gold and sliver should not be exported, all land should be utilized, and any raw materials should be used for domestic manufacturing only. We obviously don't follow this ideology.
2) I added the word modern in there if you didn't notice.
3) Corporatism is an extreme case of lobbying. There has to be some kind of regulatory capture in order for a country to be considered corporatist.
4) Our economy is not heavily regulated. Compared to other industrialized country's, the United States has one of the least regulated economy's.
"Georgian collectivism only argues that citizens ought to have equal opportunity to said land and its resources."- Henry George, the man behind Georgism, said that land should be common property. This does not mean that people should have equal opportunity, but that they all should own it as a group. In an economy like this, land cannot be owned privately.
In fascism, most property was not owned publicly, but it was heavily controlled.
In market socialism, most institutions are publicly owned.
Capitalism is the way to go if your destination is socialism. But don't be surprised if you pick-up a hitch-hiker named fascism between capitalism and socialism.
I'll support my view if someone can intelligently question my view.
(I'm bored with absurd pseudo,counter-arguments. So pardon my initial laziness.)
When a government tries to cling on to Capitalism while attempting to absorb socialism, there may be terrible results. I find that the American government may never be willing to fully accept Socialism and leave Capitalism behind. Therefore, it is crucial to have both leaders and the common man willing to accept change. However, Americans are renown to be stubborn.
I suggest a good start to fixing the nation would be to rethink current income faults. A prime example of what I mean would be the Entertainment Industry. Celebrities, that really don't do anything for anyone besides assist commercialism, should have nowhere near as high salaries as they currently have. Instead, this money could be put into a number of better uses. Such as: Education, Research, Alternative Fuels, and so on...
Socialism will embrace both capitalistic and fascistic measures in order to preserve the current state of a socialistic economy. And likewise, capitalism will embrace socialistic and fascistic measures to preserve the current state of capitalism. There is no pure capitalistic, socialistic or fascistic economy in the world today, and probably never was or will be.
The economic systems of the world are not static, they are dynamic, and move from one extreme to the other during economic calamities or difficulties. So, in essence neither economic system is ideal, but is purely pragmatic and even capricious at times.
I have to agree with this statement in so much as Capitalism will never be pure as long as there are people who think they deserve something for nothing and Socialism will never be pure as long as there are people who think they should have more based on their productivity.
But in the end it really comes down to the fact that there will always be people on the right and the left that will take advantage of either position to gain control over others.
I would lean towards the Capitalistic side as it tends to promote individual accountability and freedoms more than Socialism or Fascism
Great response! I like the way you think as well as articulate.
I think many people get wrapped up in these types of debates...me included...and argue based on their idea of a "perfect" situation or Utopian societies.
With out saying it we all know that it will never exist.
Socialism is the way if your destination is Tyranny.
Men have to be free to rise and fall based on their own initiatives and decisions. Any time the government interferes in that process you begin the slide to domination and tyranny.
I would dispute the order in which you describe the political spectrum.
I believe that if you create a line that explains the political spectrum, tyranny would fall on the left end of the line followed by Socialism/Communism and Anarchy at the right end followed quickly by Constitutional Republic with all variants lying in between. Or have I completely missed your point!
I believe that if you create a line that explains the political spectrum, tyranny would fall on the left end of the line followed by Socialism/Communism and Anarchy at the right end followed quickly by Constitutional Republic with all variants lying in between.
This would be something of an ahistorical and counterfactual political spectrum.
One: tyranny is apolitical. That's why there are Conservative, Fascist tyrants (Hitler and Mussolini) and Liberal, Communist tyrants (Lenin and Stalin), or Monarchical tyrants (King Henry VII). All tyrants look the same regardless of what political ideology or lack thereof they espouse.
Two: both Socialism and Communism are called the next step to (classical) anarchy. That is, the absence of a government as an institution. Early liberal political philosophers viewed governments as antagonizing forces. And both socialist and communist commentators moved further by suggesting that they were unnecessary--to various degrees. If you look at a lot of socialist and communist literature, there is rarely if ever a government--as an institution--present in the utopias they project.
Three: historically, conservatism has been in favor of stronger governments. That's why you had the classical conservatives of the late 19th and early 20th century defending the monarchies, then the nation, then the state. Francis Fukuyama alludes to this in the first chapter of his book "The End of History and the Last Man", when he discusses the historical progression of pessimism and the eventual rise of the liberal democracy. Neoconservatism has coopted much of both classical and modern liberalism and tried to claim it as its own: individual freedom, autonomy (without the liberal solidarity), and so forth, and conflated it with liberal democratic economics of the past. In essence, conservatism is now where liberalism once was.
In reply to your dispute, I want you to be aware that I don’t consider the political spectrum as subject to a geometric definition. Sorry for that implied description of politics. But, in answer to your question, I am more inclined to consider the political spectrum as a recipe of governance. Governments have all the ingredients of all aspects of economics and political authority. It’s just the proportions and when they are added to the recipe of government.
Would you like an example or two?
The government of the US contains the ingredients:
Democracy
Communism
Capitalism
Socialism
Tyranny
Fascism
Anarchy
However, what distinguishes the US from China is only a matter of the proportions of the same ingredients. They both have the same ingredients, but the ingredients were added in different amounts in different orders, and in the end they taste the same, only one may be more ‘salty’ or more ‘sweet’ than the other government. Furthermore, the taste of each recipe is subject to the changing preferential tastes of the subjects and principals.
When you say "only anarchy falls on the right" how far would you say that Constitutional Republic is right of center? Also how for left of center would you place socialism/communism?
I don't think of myself as rep or dem. G. Washington warned the country about party politics. He stated that soon you would owe you allegiances to the party instead of the citizens who elected you.
If I remember correctly, anarchism is on the far Left (if you look globally that is). The worldwide political spectrum basically goes (from far Left to far Right)...anarchism, communism, social democracy, Libertarian, conservatism, fascism.
Its not so much weather it is on the right or left. I suppose the correct way for me to have put it was one on one extreme and the other on the other extreme.
