CreateDebate


Debate Info

43
29
Capitalism Socialism
Debate Score:72
Arguments:67
Total Votes:76
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Capitalism (32)
 
 Socialism (25)

Debate Creator

zlUnreal(157) pic



Capitalism or Socialism

Which one is better? Explain why

Capitalism

Side Score: 43
VS.

Socialism

Side Score: 29
5 points

Put simply, Capitalism is based on the principle of equal opportunity, while Socialism is based on the principle of equal outcome. The former is the idea that your wealth is proportional to the effort and ingenuity you apply, while the latter is the idea that your wealth is decided upon by the governing body, and has either a deemphasized or nonexistant relation to your effort and ingenuity. In other words, Capitalism rewards action and efficiency and punishes inaction and inefficiency, while Socialism is largely indifferent.

Disregarding progress and success is a potent method of promoting stagnation, a veritable death sentence in the modern world. As such, I can, with confidence, say that Capitalism is the superior economic system.

Side: Capitalism
3 points

Well said.....................................................................................................

Side: Capitalism
3 points

you really want to implement a failed system ? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2d/5f/50/2d5f50e406752fc3c7d1e38247c7e9f2.jpg

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

http://louderwithcrowder.com/socialist-venezuela-robbing-bakers/ MORE

YAY SOCIALISM! Venezuela Fights Food Shortage. By Robbing Bakeries…

Side: Capitalism
1 point

Capitalism is better for an economy and I'll refer to the US outlasting the Soviets in the Cold War as evidence for that.

But not pure capitalism with little or no rules. Pure capitalism is where robber barons control all, labor including children gets exploited, the environment gets ruined, and domestic and foreign policy serve only profit. Instead a successful capitalist country is one where you have capitalist engines but they have parameters from their society on safety and fairness.

Side: Capitalism
1 point

Pure capitalism is anarchocapitalism, and pure socialism is communism.

Considering that societies began from one end (sort of), it makes sense to say that communism is inevitable.

But from where we stand now, it can as well be anarchism down the path. Not to mention it being gradual.

Side: Socialism
Grenache(6103) Disputed
1 point

It's silly to say communism is inevitable just because it's the farthest terminus from anarchocapitalism. Indeed the whole world should be trending to or already communist per that argument and it simply isn't.

Side: Capitalism
Amarel(5287) Disputed
1 point

Pure capitalism is anarchocapitalism, and pure socialism is communism.

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism relies on the structure of property rights and the legal system sufficient to uphold and enforce them.

Considering that societies began from one end (sort of), it makes sense to say that communism is inevitable

That's what Marx baselessly asserted and his followers blindly promote. But there is no reason to think that history is a march along a path described by him or any other charlatan. Never trust a fortune teller.

Side: Capitalism
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Capitalism

An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state.

Your Socialism is shining through Progressive.

Side: Socialism
Grenache(6103) Disputed
1 point

Nope. Laws for public safety are not counter to capitalism. Indeed its instead a lack of public safety laws is which results in those private owners going to steps such as slavery, piratism, and indeed restores us the age of serfs.

Side: Capitalism
1 point

But not pure capitalism with little or no rules

I would argue that pure capitalism relies on the legal institutions you mention later in the post, rather than existing in contrast to them. Property rights, and law designed to protect them, are fundamental to Capitalism. As are laws protecting individual Liberty. The situations you cite as problems of pure Capitalism are actually situations wherein the institutions required for Capitalism have been broken down due to corruption. If the institutions that foster pure Capitalism are strong, then corruption is sufficiently reduced. When that is the case, labor is traded as voluntarily as any other commodity and protections against injury apply equally to all, including the laborer.

I am in agreement with your statement that "a successful capitalist country...'has' parameters from their society on safety and fairness", but I disagree that the alternative is conducive to capitalism, pure or otherwise.

Side: Capitalism

Socialism is Totalitarian Dictatorship when it is still growing into its clothes, and sometimes it is Totalitarian Dictatorship in disguise hoping you don't realize it is the wolf underneath the mask. Monsanto will feed you... uh huh... as long as you comply. Don't make them get the shock collars out.

Side: Capitalism
1 point

Hello:

The short of it is, I'm a staunch capitalist who believes in the safety net. It's the PERFECT blend between capitalism and socialism.

excon

Side: Capitalism

Capitalism is better for economic growth, socialism is better for delivering equality of outcome. But i reject this question as ridiculous. There is no such thing as a pure anarcho-capitalist society and no such thing as a pure socialist society. In the real world countries are an amalgam of private sector capitalist arguments to promote economic growth and prosperity and a socialization of certain industries for the best interest of the people. For instance the UK clearly has a capitalist private sector with manufacturing and trade and the like, but their healthcare industry is socialized to promote equal access.

Side: Capitalism
1 point

Communistic Socialism is socialism without capitalism, it has never worked.

Democratic Socialism is socialism WITH capitalism, it CAN and DOES work.

Capitalism has been great but, in this country, it is out of control! We need to cut the ridiculous profits it is making for the few who have more than they could EVER use, and USE it for the betterment of the COUNTRY! THAT would make America great again! You can't have a great country with poverty, poor education, sickness, bankruptcy and OUR money invested in countries that HATE U.S.!

So you have to pay a high tax to do business in a "great country"! Too BAD! It can make THIS country GREATER! During the 50's/ 60's when we were BECOMING great, the tax rate on businesses was between 60 and 90% ... the rich STILL got rich! (maybe not as fast)! Having the most billionaires does NOT make a country great! Saudi Arabia is not great! It is a conservative MYTH that more money to the rich helps U.S. ALL! That stuff trickling down on you is NOT money! Do to recent budget cuts the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned OFF! (For many Americans)! But for the FEW.....it's burning bright! That's capitalism .... out of control, for ya!

Side: Socialism
zlUnreal(157) Clarified
3 points

Just to clarify, putting the word "Democratic" in front of a word does not inherently change the meaning of that word. What if I someone supported "Democratic Slavery"?. It does not change the meaning of the word slavery. Just because they support the idea of slavery being put to a vote does not mean its okay to do so.

Side: Capitalism
AlofRI(3253) Clarified
1 point

Really? Do we HAVE to get ridiculous with everything? Nobody supports "democratic slavery" and it doesn't exist. If slavery is ever put to a vote in this country we will no longer be the U.S.A.!

However, we HAVE been a "socialistic" U.S.A. for years, much to the chagrin of conservatives .... through our BEST years!

Side: Capitalism
seanB(959) Disputed
1 point

And just because you compare slavery and socialism, specifically, doesn't make them logically comparable.

Side: Capitalism
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
3 points

AL you are trying to get around Socialism by placing a word in front of Socialism.

To you that some how makes it better but Socialism is Socialism no matter how you want to window dress in your Socialist mind.

Venezuela comes to mind and that Socialist Nirvana is working well ?

Side: Capitalism
seanB(959) Disputed
2 points

Socialism -- noun -- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Democracy -- noun -- the practice or principles of social equality, or, a system of government by the whole population.

Socialism is democracy done genuinely. In a true socialism, distribution of power in all issues of social organization is spread across the electorate who collectively decide on all matters of contention, thus allowing a true representation of the wishes of the populace. No more voting for people who change their minds on policies last minute and instate laws we don't, as a population, want. No more having to choose from a bipartisan sham election. Socialism is complete democratic control over all matters of social importance, through the power of collective vote and collective veto only. The only unchangeable tenet of socialism is the dispersion of power. For a society to remain socialist, power over infrastructure, economy and any and all matters of importance -- economic or otherwise -- must rest with the populace as political equals, all of them, ad infinitum.

American constitutional republicanism is not democracy (though it has perhaps the highest potential to be that). British parliamentary monarchism is not democracy. Likewise, Stalinism is not socialism. The current Venezuelan rule-by-decree is not socialism. Leninism is not socialism. Russian oligarchy is not socialism. Swedish regulated capitalism is not socialism. The "welfare state", is not socialism.

Socialist democracy is a society where power is dispersed evenly, thus a society where people are both economically free and politically equal. It's the rule of a country by the people holding power individually no smaller or greater than the power of the next person. There's no supreme leader or president. There's no corporation with more political power than a single individual. There's no infrastructure laid claim to by private interests. There's no issue of political contention which is decided outside of the choice of the collective.

A true socialism manifests in the legal institution of power-equality; the idea that each and every citizen should by birth have the power to direct society as part of the collective as he or she sees fit; that power being inalienable and irrevocable for all time and place. It's political and economic collectivism, democracy in its purest manner. The country and all its assets are the property of the collective to direct as a collective. The birthright of each citizen is his or her stake in that distribution of power, that all people come together to create a society that works for that society as a collective.

It's epic, and it's Athenian. And it's the way it should be.

Side: Socialism
AlofRI(3253) Clarified
1 point

I've been to Venezuela many times. It is a DICTATORSHIP. NO political system works "for the people" under a dictator! The U.S. will not work under Trump if he continues to "dictate"! Venezuela does NOT resemble democratic socialism in ANY WAY. Much of Europe is DS, it looks NOTHING like Venezuela's system. Not at all comparable! I'm not surprised that Venezuela comes to YOUR mind, outlaw, it is in it's OWN "nirvana".

Side: Capitalism

Capitalism is where any failed attempts are punished harshly, so that anyone is afraid to try. It isn't surprising for education to, then, make people ready for just repetitious jobs.

Instead of choosing between any two arbitrary fixed points, we should rather remove the negative aspects of capitalism.

But, anyway, for the debate, the best possible governance would lie closer to socialism than capitalism, due to aforementioned reasons.

Side: Socialism
Amarel(5287) Disputed
1 point

Capitalism is where any failed attempts are punished harshly, so that anyone is afraid to try

Would you say that people who drive cars poorly are "punished" by their auto collision?

A social construct that lets people fail is not the same as one that punishes. Capitalism doesn't only let people fail, it allows them (through property rights) to keep what they have earned. For this reason Capitalism has historically done the opposite of what you claim; it has encouraged the entrepreneur and brought more innovation that at any time in human history. Despite the various socialistic restraints of various countries.

Side: Capitalism
0 points

Yes, it does offer incentives. But humans are not naturally risk taking animals.

It'd be better if things were socialistic enough.

I do prefer selection to build a better human race, which is at its peak under capitalism, but that's too slow a process now. It probably won't even be needed later.

So, some stuff should be more freely available to all - primarily an access to information and means of employment. Which generally means education and job. A mandatory wage to all, perhaps?

Anything else isn't necessary, as I see it.

Side: Socialism
1 point

Denmark is a modern hybrid of socialism, and we have been stampled as the happiest people on earth... Just saying. I dont mind paying taxes, if i know that it helps my society. The health insurance payed with tax, is not for the poor. It's for me aswell. Because of the government paying all healthcare, i also get free treatment.

Side: Socialism

Capitalism is where any failed attempts are punished harshly, so that anyone is afraid to try. It isn't surprising for education to, then, make people ready for just repetitious jobs.

Instead of choosing between any two arbitrary fixed points, we should rather remove the negative aspects of capitalism.

But, anyway, for the debate, the best possible governance would lie closer to socialism than capitalism, due to aforementioned reasons.

Side: Socialism