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.
The Progressive Left has been in bed for decades with the Communist they wish for Communism in this country but when Hillary gets defeated they hate Communist and Putin. The American Left of today are more dangerous than Putin !
Despite the ironic nature of your post. The only difference I can discern between Communism and Fascism is the sections of society they intern. Political opponents or races or both. Economically one is against private property (full stop), the other against the use of private property 'where it is not in the nationalistic interest'.
Capitalism, WITH caveats.. Cause, capitalism isn't just one thing.
You've got UNFETTERED capitalism, which means NO rules, and that doesn't work.. And, we got CRONY capitalism, and that doesn't work either..
Capitalism works when people COMPETE and OBEY the rules. Crony capitalism is when a well connected capitalist CAN'T compete, so he asks his buddy in congress to pass a law that makes it EASIER for him to compete.. From then on, how WELL you produce doesn't MATTER any more... How well CONNECTED you are, does..
I'm IN business.. But, I'm NOT connected, so I actually have to COMPETE.
To begin with, Capitalism is the only economic system of the two that hasn't ended in genocidal oligarchy, so I'd say that's a fair indicator of how this is going to work out.
Second, the human psyche is built around incentives; people, like all other life, are not arbitrary beings. When a person engages in an activity, they do so because they acquire something from it, be it financial stability (occupations), a sense of moral justification (compassion and charity activity), or, quite frequently, the body's own built-in hormonal incentive mechanisms.
It follows, then, that an economic system which inherently relies on incentives will be more effective than one that either discourages them or even disregards them completely. Capitalism, without government intervention, is built on the notion that opportunity creates productivity and all the benefits that follow (wealth, technological innovation, and education, to name a few), while Communism is based on the idea that the government understands more than the people in every meaningful context, and should therefore dictate the entirety of their economic lives. In short, this is a terrible idea: not only does the government have no reason whatsoever to please its citizens (especially since, historically, they've almost exclusively been enforced by strength of arms), but the populous has no incentive to produce or innovate. If the government only allows you so much wealth, regardless of your accomplishments or lack thereof, why bother trying? Fundamentally, Communism not only disregards human nature, but entirely relies on an overwhelmingly moral, selfless citizenry and government, and is therefore entirely unrealistic, existing accurately only in the minds of the hopelessly optimistic, whose disregard of both history and human nature can only be described as delusional.
Well, actually there is much much genocidal oligarchy it is just hidden from the public. The 20 richest people in the America have as much wealth as the bottom 152 million people in America. Our form of capitalism has never worked for the poor and it's starting to fall apart for the middle class. Capitalism is good in theory but that's not what we have today. Today corporations can buy elections and write legislation that's not capitalism, that's fascism. We used to have capitalism, in the 1940's the rich paid 91 % income taxes, today they're paying close to nothing or in some cases nothing, due to extensive loopholes that were sent in place by the lobbying super rich. Warren Buffet the investing guru admitted to paying a lower tax rate (17%) than his employees.
"The rich keep all of the money, pay none of the taxes.
The middle class keep none of the money, pay all of the taxes.
The poor are just there to scare the shit out of the middle class. " -George Carlin
"Well, actually there is much much genocidal oligarchy it is just hidden from the public. "
How, exactly, does one go about hiding the discriminatory mass-murder of the political elite from over 300 million people?
"The 20 richest people in the America have as much wealth as the bottom 152 million people in America."
Your point? The total wealth of the populous is far from static, so it's not as if certain people possessing more resources means there're less for everyone else.
"Our form of capitalism has never worked for the poor and it's starting to fall apart for the middle class."
Define "poor". Last I checked, less than three percent of the population works at minimum wage (and if you're not working, you have no excuse for poverty; there are plenty of companies that hire unskilled, untrained labor [in fact, such a company, under said conditions, is how I recently acquired my first career]), and of that three percent, over three fifths of which are enrolled in school, and even ignoring them, only a quarter of the remaining, older minimum-wage workers fall below the poverty line. How, exactly, does the system "not work for the poor"? (statistics: http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents) )
"Capitalism is good in theory but that's not what we have today."
Agreed, though for clearly differing reasons. In my opinion, the government's far too involved in our economic system for it to function correctly. In other words, the problem, in my opinion, is our economy leans too far towards Communism to thrive.
"Today corporations can buy elections..."
Which is entirely illegal; responsibility for failure to enforce campaign and bribery legislation lies entirely on the government's shoulders.
"...and write legislation..."
Can you provide any example of this that doesn't fall under my above statement?
"...that's not capitalism, that's fascism."
Well, the definition of Fascism is actually quite convoluted, but sure, why not? The only purpose this statement has is to contradict your earlier statements; if we are indeed Fascist, it follows we're not Capitalist, and therefore your accusations against it are irrelevant.
"We used to have capitalism, in the 1940's the rich paid 91 % income taxes, today they're paying close to nothing or in some cases nothing, due to extensive loopholes that were sent in place by the lobbying super rich."
Which is, to reiterate, illegal. Further, a progressive tax system is inherently anti-Capitalist, as it punishes success and therefore deincentivizes it, and is therefore inherently contradictory to the system.
"The rich keep all of the money, pay none of the taxes.
The middle class keep none of the money, pay all of the taxes.
The poor are just there to scare the shit out of the middle class."
Other than the fact that the top ten percent of earners in the US account for more than half of all tax revenue, while the top one percent account for around a fifth? Meanwhile, the bottom fifty percent of earners account for three percent of all taxes. I have to reiterate: how, exactly, does the system fail? Where are the unwashed masses of starving children dying in droves in the streets beneath the gold-plated skyscrapers of the rich you appear to be alluding to?
"How, exactly, does one go about hiding the discriminatory mass-murder of the political elite from over 300 million people?"
The news that we're given from our media, believe it or not, is filtered and watered down. The first filter is size and ownership. On the face of it, it seems that we have thousands of different sources we get our news from but this is not true. If you look up the big six media, you will see that 6 major corporations own over 90% of the media. (GE, Walt Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS, Clear Channel Communication) These six corporations own many thousands of news outlets under different names, to give us the illusion of choice. But we really don't have thousands of choices we have 6. The second filter is advertising. Mainstream media's objective isn't to educate the people......... it's to make $$$$. They are not going to publicly talk about anything controversial that will make their advertisers pull out. Main stream media has every reason to underplay huge issues such as citizens united. The increased flow of dollars to candidates means more profit for commercial television in election years. The mainstream media basically sells democracy to the highest bidder. There are a couple other filters but I won't get into the right now. I urge you to fact check all of this, people need to wake up and learn that this is true.
"Define "poor"."
I don't know if your sources are credible, but according to the last report the Census Bureau conducted more than 45 million people live below the poverty line. If you don't believe that listen to this, The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP (food stamps), counted almost 43.6 million people in the program in April 2016, the most recent data available. Many people that receive food stamps have a full time job, they work from 9-5 if not longer and still need food stamps to be able to get by. I know, I used to be a food stamp recipient. SO explain to me how this system works, people work hard and long and still can't get by without help.
"In my opinion, the government's far too involved in our economic system for it to function correctly."
It's not the government alone that's involved, it's the corporations that lobby the government. Billion dollar corporations lobby both parties and so they hedge their bets. So it doesn't matter who wins, in the end they get what they want.
"Which is entirely illegal; responsibility for failure to enforce campaign and bribery legislation lies entirely on the government's shoulders."
It is illegal if you call it buying elections, but it's not illegal if you call it lobbying or campaign donations. These campaign donations aren't given because of similar political stances, they're given because politicians pass legislation that benefits their donors. It's not a coincidence that once companies give campaign donations legislation gets passed that favors that company or pac. Here's an example the Goldman and Sacs donated to Bush's campaign and Henry Paulson who firmly worked for Goldman sacs was appointed treasury secretary. Then when the government bailed out big banks coincidentally Goldman sacs received the most money.
"Can you provide any example of this that doesn't fall under my above statement?"
The example given above and I'll give you another one. Millions of dollars were 'donated' by Robert Stanford on political campaigns they year congress was debating a bill to curb financial fraud. Two of the biggest recipients were Bill Nelson and John McCain. Three key Democrats on the senate banking committee got checks from Stanford too. Surprise, surprise the reform never got out of the senate. (Another example is the citizens united case, you can look this one up for yourself.)
"Which is, to reiterate, illegal. Further, a progressive tax system is inherently anti-Capitalist, as it punishes success and therefore deincentivizes it, and is therefore inherently contradictory to the system."
Loopholes are not illegal warren buffet admitted to using legal loopholes and only paying a lower rate than his employees. And when we did have a 91% tax rate our budget was at a surplus, can you guess where our budget is now?
"Other than the fact that the top ten percent of earners in the US account for more than half of all tax revenue, while the top one percent account for around a fifth? Meanwhile, the bottom fifty percent of earners account for three percent of all taxes. I have to reiterate: how, exactly, does the system fail? Where are the unwashed masses of starving children dying in droves in the streets beneath the gold-plated skyscrapers of the rich you appear to be alluding to?"
the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. -CNBC article
I used to live in Jamaica Queens, a lot of my friends only got to eat in school and pretty much ate little to no food at home. If you want to see these 'starving children' visit a ghetto, cause I don't think you have.
I urge you to fact check me, but unfortunately this is the reality we live in today. Please feel free to message me if you wish to further talk about this topic.
Fun fact : in 2011 , all the Republican candidates for president were asked in a debate what would happen if they were presented a deal to tackle the federal deficit, and the deal would yield $10 in budget cuts for every $1 of tax increases. “Who on this stage would walk away from that deal?” asked Fox News’s Bret Baier. Every single one of them raised their hands, so deeply offensive did they find the notion of any tax increase at all, even one that would allow enormous progress on another goal they claimed to hold dear.
"The news that we're given from our media...(statement shortened for the sake of brevity)...people need to wake up and learn that this is true."
While I agree that conventional media is a poor source of information, your argument would've worked quite a bit better several decades ago, when conventional media was actually relevant. Nowadays, with the wonders of the internet and the freedom of information that comes with it, conventional media is all-but obsolete, excepting the few elderly persons who still give it credence.
"I don't know if your sources are credible, but according to the last report the Census Bureau conducted more than 45 million people live below the poverty line."
I don't doubt that, but what does it really mean? Let's take the FPL (Federal Poverty Line) for a household with a single person: $11,880 yearly (https://obamacare.net/2017-federal-poverty-level/). This household would have to make $227 per week ($11,880/52) to achieve this, which, at minimum wage (as I've previously pointed out, and as you've thus far neglected to rebut, in our competitive economy, you have no excuse not to have a job), comes to a grand total of... 31 hours per week ($227/$7.25, the latter being the current federal minimum wage). And that's for the less than one percent of the population which theoretically depends on a minimum-wage job to survive. Having personally done a cost-of-living project, I can safely conclude that depending on a minimum wage job (which, as previously pointed out, is a rarity) is viable, if not comfortable. For one, you could drastically reduce living costs by splitting an apartment with a roommate, using inexpensive means of travel (such as cycling, which is most certainly an option in a city), and frugally spending.
"If you don't believe that listen to this, The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP (food stamps), counted almost 43.6 million people in the program in April 2016, the most recent data available."
Food Stamps, like just about every other federal welfare program, are extremely vulnerable to abuse. Why, for example, spend money on food when you could spend it on trivial interests or sheer impulsiveness? All it does is largely unconditionally provide people a means of spending more money.
"Many people that receive food stamps have a full time job, they work from 9-5 if not longer and still need food stamps to be able to get by."
Care to provide any actual examples?
"SO explain to me how this system works, people work hard and long and still can't get by without help."
Remember how the US stagnated in the early 1900's while the rest of the world innovated continuously, producing wonders such as cheap steel production and the first motor vehicles? Me neither, seeing as both inventions (and many more) were purely American exploits.
"It's not the government alone that's involved, it's the corporations that lobby the government. Billion dollar corporations lobby both parties and so they hedge their bets. So it doesn't matter who wins, in the end they get what they want."
Lobbying has nothing to do with Capitalism itself; it's an illegitimate political practice, not a fundamental facet of a free market.
"but it's not illegal if you call it lobbying or campaign donations."
It most certainly is, regarding donations, anyway. Entities, by law, have restrictions on campaign donations. I recommend you look up the relevant legislation.
"Loopholes are not illegal warren buffet admitted to using legal loopholes and only paying a lower rate than his employees."
First of all, the IRS, a government organization, is solely responsible for ensuring taxes are paid as they should be. If they're not, the fault lies with them.
Second, even with such an apparently low tax rate, the top ten percent of earners, to reiterate, account for the majority of tax revenue. Even if rates are comparatively lower, the only thing that really matters is actual revenue, which, given your own admission of their frankly absurd wealth, is quite disparate between groups of taxpayers.
And when we did have a 91% tax rate our budget was at a surplus, can you guess where our budget is now?"
Are you implying that tax rates on the rich is the sole, or even major, factor concerning the federal budget?
"I used to live in Jamaica Queens, a lot of my friends only got to eat in school and pretty much ate little to no food at home."
Not to make light of the presented circumstances, but given the fact that Jamaica is a middle-class NY neighborhood, and the previously stated financial statistics, I dare say the cause of those childrens' lack of food was a lack of financial responsibility on the part of their parents. Besides, if Food Stamps are so great, why didn't they just apply for them?
"Every single one of them raised their hands, so deeply offensive did they find the notion of any tax increase at all, even one that would allow enormous progress on another goal they claimed to hold dear."
Tell me, when has the government throwing more money at a problem (with no responsibility or accountability, as it appears to be terminally incapable of creating) ever solved an issue in a reasonably efficient manner, or even at all?
A couple things I forgot to mention in my previous post:
1. Even if your argument concerning media were entirely true, it would still lend no credence to your claim regarding oligarchical genocide.
2. Keep in mind, the dichotomy presented in this debate is whether Capitalism or Communism is the better economic system; my position is that Capitalism is the superior of the two, therefore yours, in refuting mine, is necessarily the opposite (the position that Communism is the superior of the two). And yet, you have failed thus far to either contradict my statements regarding the latter (specifically my mention of the aforementioned oligarchical genocide it invariably causes), or even present any merit of it whatsoever. Even if you can irrefutably prove Capitalism to be a terrible economic system (which is, in my opinion, rather unlikely), you'd still have to demonstrate Communism to be superior to it to substantiate your side.
To begin with, my previous post was on the "incorrect" side due to an apparent error in the post it rebutted (which was on the "Capitalism" side, despite "disputing" my original post, which was on the same side).
Further, in my opinion, the "points" system is entirely meaningless; the validity of the side of an issue has nothing to do with either its popularity or how many arguments are posted on its behalf.
Outhouse60, you make those two statements and call ME crazy??????? They must have made what you're smoking legal in your state, and it must be POWERFUL! Your mind is SOOO twisted.... no wonder you like Trump!
It would be nice if you at least made sense! (Oh! I understand, you are making yourself perfectly clear ,.... like Trump. What has happened to the English language on the right. They want to change everything. The Constitution, the language, common sense and everything biological and ecological! Time to throw them out ... before they destroy the world!
Crazy AL you off your medication the only people that want to change the Constitution, the language , common sense (by the way you don't have) , everything biological and ecological are those on the Left ! Just to hard for you to accept the reality of the party you support AL !
First, I would like to accept that capitalism is a biased system and has flaws, like the wealth gap that will inevitably result, or the influence of corporations on the govt. However, communism has all of those flaws and more. It requires a dictatorship (Marxism-Leninism) and they own everything in the country. Also, they often drain the money and wealth out of everyone for their pocket to support social programs that are even worse than that of the capitalist country. Worse, it also claims to protect the weak but the leaders assign that label to everyone that follows them, a.k.a. the strong. Finally, communism has the fatal flaw of denying the individual for its anti-capitalist storyline. A system like that never works.
I think this is a Marxist myth. If you correlate economic freedom (thus capitalism) with wealth gap statistics. It is generally the case that the freeer economies have less wealth gap. It is also interesting to note that the wealth gap in former socialist countries adopting free market economics is reducing Russia, China and a host of Eastern European nations. Just go to North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba and see how the elite live compared to the masses.
Capitalism is the moral system. It allows free people to enter in voluntaristic arrangements for their mutual benefit, allowing them to maximize their potential. Communism is the anti-thesis of this, asking individuals to surrender their labour, property and even their rationality to some abstract Collective. Rand describes this well when she asserts the superiority of the ethics of rational self-interest over altruism.
Was almost brain washed to be communist but am still capitalist.
Rewards must be according individual level of productivity.
If greed and corruption is properly dealt with to ensure fairness, there is always much advancement as compared to communism which motivates lazy asses.
I never understood the point about Capitalism and greed. It seems to me that we are all 'greedy' in a sense to improve our situation. What is wrong with that. To quote Thomas Sowell:
"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
In other words the people accusing Capitalists of greed, are themselves greedy. But worse they are greedy AND envious.
I meant genuine greed of mischieviously trying to increase your wealth more than what your hardwork could ever bring to you within a particular period.
Corruption.
That is the only human factor that hinders advancement in a capitalist system.
But even in some communist countries russia , cuba etc. greed and corruption still retards progress.
And even if they are able to do away with that absolutely(most impossible), the communist system is still not fair.
It entertains 'lazy'(Genuine word, different from weak or disabled) people.
Then let's call it corruption or fraud and not greed.
I can agree that people should be protected from fraud. It is a non violent coersive force that distorts markets. However it is frequently well intentioned government meddling in the market that creates loopholes for corporates to exploit and thus create this corruption or fraud. Business is a fantastic institution when it has to compete in an open free market. Having said all of that, then I would still rather have crony capitalism than communism. Communists are the masters of corruption.
