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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do you think capitalism or communism is the way to go?
Which do you argue is better, pure capitalism, or pure communism. Ignore Russian, Chinese, etc communism, forget hammers, sickles, tanks. Pure communism in truth means a communal living, think like what a family has, all is shared, all in equal, regardless. Or capitalism, without government interference, a pull yourself up by your bootstraps, populated by the incredibly rich, and the incredibly poor.
Why is that you assume communism is this happy place like a family and you ask us to forget the only real world examples that exist, but when you describe capitalism you load the debate stating that there is only rich and poor as if no middle class is present in a capitalist society. However lets have it your way and ignore those God awful examples you asked us to forget. The reason communism cannot work is plain and simple it has never worked, again ignoring the examples of Russia, China, Cuba, and every other place that has tormented its people, lets look at my country America and all of her western allies. America is a capitalist country right...wrong! Not since the start of FDR's and Johnson's social programs, America is now a modified version of communism little brother socialism. Why is that important, because how is the money and goods extracted from people to fund these social programs in America...well if you guessed through force you guessed right. It takes the threats of violence and imprisonment from the government to get people to fund these programs and this happens in a "FREE" country. So what makes you think that some utopia is out there that will make people voluntary want to share there wealth to a point that everyone is equal. One of the greatest tricks governments pull is convincing its people that they are the good guys. Listen to me government=bad; private sector equals=good and why is that. Well its not because all businesses are good its because business has very little power unless it gets in bed with government. Henry Hazlitt said it best "The 'private sector' of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the 'public sector' is, in fact, the coercive sector. Look if a free society exists and the people want to help each other thats great but, time and time again it has been proven that it takes force and violence to create equality of wealth. I am certain that there is no perfect system however capitalism offers the greatest number of people the greatest chance to obtain wealth..."It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" Adam Smith
P.S. If capitalism is so evil why is that men like Michael Moore live in huge houses and are worth millions...why hasn't he given away all his money to equal out his wealth.
A family has two sons,one works hard every day and the other sits around on the couch playing X-box 360. The parents start taking half of the hard-working sons pay-check and give it to the lazy son. The rest of the story is easy to imagine. Capitalism
A man in a town starts a business producing a product, it sells very well. Eventually he produces a company with his wealth, with lots of employees, all paid a basic wage. The trouble is he lacks creativity and new businesses show up selling a copy product for less, by paying their employees a pittance. To compete with this he can't improve his product, so he just buys some of the businesses out and raises the price again.
Fast forward, he's the major distributor of this product, and learned from his trouble in the past. Now he's started to make connections with governors in his product's distribution circles, funding their campaigns in exchange for political favours.
A new businessman starts a business with a new product, which actually really improves upon the aforementioned product in so many ways as to make it obsolete. Word of this reaches the old businessman, and he is angry! He can't reverse-engineer the product effectively in a fast enough time to ruin the new business, so to buy time he spreads rumours about this product being harmful and dangerous. He also uses his political connections to make it harder for the new businessman by creating laws that impose taxes on products like the ones he sells (the old businessman can afford them, being more successful).
Fast forward a few years and the new businessman is bankrupted because the old businessman has managed to make an imitation of this new technology while selling it for way less than his competitor. Soon he raises the price well above what his competitor was charging, once his competitor is gone, and everybody suffers costlier merchandise.
You can change this story around a bit, for example the old businessman makes the new product illegal, leading to inferior technology for all, or he starts a massive propaganda campaign that predicts the death of his company and mass unemployment from this new product, ultimately proven wrong, etc. This has all happened in the past and continues to happen to this day in a capitalist society.
Agreed, politics caused the problem, NOT capitalism. Conservatives have been screaming this for some time now, less goverment.
Your example is a clear example of politics ruining capitalism,you even explained it clearer than I did,thank you.
This would happen no matter what kind of government you have. As long as an inventor or entrepreneur can accumulate wealth, he can influence government and undermine the economic model.
No, not one with proper checks and balances that are enforced and not one with an un-biased media that would report things despite being for or against certain agendas.
No, not one with proper checks and balances that are enforced and not one with an un-biased media that would report things despite being for or against certain agendas.
In case you haven't noticed, in each economy and government we've had, the wealthy have always bought off or influenced those in government, with the sole exceptions being the small tribes who see this as less of an issue.
The irony of your argument is that you condemn the Big businessman for crushing a smaller businessman. Communism crushes all businessmen.
In communism wealth is distributed in such a way that this is irrelevant. You may as well be asking why there are no bread lines in a capitalist society. You have to think like a communist.
Actually not. We call this lobbying and political fund-raising. Whatever you call it, the effect is that wealthy business CEOs funnel millions into political campaigns that serve their interests and remove the voice of the majority of citizens who have no vote in the matter (instead their representatives do, and these are being supported by the wealthy interest groups), and their interests are rarely served in this way.
The distilled version of what's happening is that businesses and special interest groups (often tied to businesses) indirectly run the governments because they have so much monetary influence, with the only good news being that there are enough wealthy businesses with contrary interests that the political climate is frozen up for them usually, and this way we don't yet have a true corporatocracy.
Historically, the former has worked better than the latter, so here choose I.
Actually neither of them worked historically. That's why we have a mixture between them that tries desperately to offset the influence of the wealthy while maintaining prosperity through channeling their competition.
Actually not. We call this lobbying and political fund-raising. Whatever you call it, the effect is that wealthy business CEOs funnel millions into political campaigns that serve their interests and remove the voice of the majority of citizens who have no vote in the matter
Who re-elected Stalin?
(instead their representatives do, and these are being supported by the wealthy interest groups), and their interests are rarely served in this way.
Democracy is an utter failure. The people's interests are rarely served, rather those of the politicians are. This is true regardless of the economic system.
The distilled version of what's happening is that businesses and special interest groups (often tied to businesses) indirectly run the governments because they have so much monetary influence,
Surely that is the fault of the people who elected the officials. If the people are stupid enough to elect somebody because he has a shiny campaign (like Obama) then what good is there in running the country according to their whims?
with the only good news being that there are enough wealthy businesses with contrary interests that the political climate is frozen up for them usually, and this way we don't yet have a true corporatocracy.
Surely that achieves the same effect of ordinary democracy? Either way, contrary interests prevent much from being done (I'll mention at this point that I am a monarchist, so your democratic arguments do not move me in the slightest).
Actually neither of them worked historically.
Really? I presume you are typing on a corporate-manufactured keyboard, looking at a corporate-manufactured screen (but you are, I believe using Linux). I am unaware as to the structure of electricity supply in your country, but most of the fuels used are provided by private companies. Your car is run using either petroleum or diesel (I trust you dislike BP). The world only works because of capitalism (more specifically the free market). Indeed, the only communistic element I agree with is the higher tariffs on third-world secondary industrial products (in layman's terms, manufactured goods). You could argue that the tariffs are a capitalistic element, but I believe they could go either way. I have said many times before that governments are wholly inept at controlling industry, being elected (in the west at least) officials who more often than not entirely lacking in business acumen. I say we let industry be controlled by those who have proven that they can.
That's why we have a mixture between them that tries desperately to offset the influence of the wealthy while maintaining prosperity through channeling their competition.
That is not the issue we are debating. Please look at the debate title. This is an a) or b) debate. If it was a perspective debate, I would have outlined my own socio-economic policy, rather than sticking to pure capitalism. Though you must admit that the world at present is far more capitalistic than it is communistic.
Democracy is an utter failure. The people's interests are rarely served, rather those of the politicians are. This is true regardless of the economic system.
The economic system decides the ability of people to corrupt their government. If wealth is poorly distributed so that a minority holds the majority of wealth, then democracy is doomed to fail at some point.
Surely that is the fault of the people who elected the officials. If the people are stupid enough to elect somebody because he has a shiny campaign (like Obama) then what good is there in running the country according to their whims?
In a representative democracy, people elect officials to vote for them in government. This is a sort of compromise between letting the people vote on everything (lots of overhead, lets uneducated people have equal say with experts, etc.) and letting them vote on nothing (the least overhead, but none of the interests of the people are represented). The trouble is that to have a voice out of 300 million people, you need money and connections to stand out. This is where corporate funds enter the picture, so the representative can promise his voters anything but his campaign check may be written by people with different interests.
The idea of a democracy is that the majority's interests can be served. The thought behind it is that in such a system there should be the least amount of conflict because overall the interests of those being governed are not being violated.
Surely that achieves the same effect of ordinary democracy? Either way, contrary interests prevent much from being done (I'll mention at this point that I am a monarchist, so your democratic arguments do not move me in the slightest).
No, because in an ideal democracy, or at least one not corrupted the interests of the people may be put to a vote and speedily enter and be processed by the government.
In OUR democracy the simplest of issues take years to resolve, and must leap giant hurdles of red tape and conflicting paid-for interests. In fact it's so bad that just forming a movement to establish votes is impeded by noisy propaganda spewed by mass media.
Take global warming and environmentalism. It's a simple issue to resolve: use cleaner fuels, cleaner technologies and prevent usage of land that would decimate our ecology. To that end merely support research in technologies for these aims, and phase out old and dirty technology. It benefits everyone. What do we have? Mass media telling everyone that it's a scam (to want cleaner air?) and that the scientists are part of a major conspiracy.
...
The world only works because of capitalism (more specifically the free market).
...
If you lived in Russia in the 50s you would be arguing that it works because I am using government-supplied paper, writing or typing tools, and am living in government-supplied housing, and so on.
Maybe my language was ambiguous to you, but I thought I was implying that functioning is not the same as working. In other words those economic systems lead to functioning societies but the societies hardly represent the interests of the majority of people who live in them. In communist systems the government has too much power consolidated in the hands of the few. In a capitalist system the power rests in the hands of the wealthy.
That is not the issue we are debating. Please look at the debate title. This is an a) or b) debate. If it was a perspective debate, I would have outlined my own socio-economic policy, rather than sticking to pure capitalism. Though you must admit that the world at present is far more capitalistic than it is communistic.
Agreed. I was merely stating my feelings on the matter.
So you can talk about capitalism's effect on democracy, but I can't talk about communism's effect on democracy?
The economic system decides the ability of people to corrupt their government. If wealth is poorly distributed so that a minority holds the majority of wealth, then democracy is doomed to fail at some point.
Democracy is doomed to fail at any point.
In a representative democracy, people elect officials to vote for them in government. This is a sort of compromise between letting the people vote on everything (lots of overhead, lets uneducated people have equal say with experts, etc.) and letting them vote on nothing (the least overhead, but none of the interests of the people are represented). The trouble is that to have a voice out of 300 million people, you need money and connections to stand out. This is where corporate funds enter the picture, so the representative can promise his voters anything but his campaign check may be written by people with different interests.
That is not a point, you just reiterated your theory.
The idea of a democracy is that the majority's interests can be served. The thought behind it is that in such a system there should be the least amount of conflict because overall the interests of those being governed are not being violated.
Outlining the ideas behind democracy is futile.
No, because in an ideal democracy, or at least one not corrupted the interests of the people may be put to a vote and speedily enter and be processed by the government.
You're a hypocrite. Your democratic argument deals with a utopia, but you always refute me with the worst examples of corporate corruption.
In OUR democracy the simplest of issues take years to resolve, and must leap giant hurdles of red tape and conflicting paid-for interests. In fact it's so bad that just forming a movement to establish votes is impeded by noisy propaganda spewed by mass media.
That is real democracy. I had thought you smarter than to expect utopia to be possible. Anyway, we are getting off topic.
Take global warming and environmentalism. It's a simple issue to resolve:
No, it isn't. Overhauling the entire planet's industrial complex is a monumental task. The engineering, scientific and logistical challenges involved are staggering. A little more respect to the people who actually have to deal with it, please.
use cleaner fuels, cleaner technologies and prevent usage of land that would decimate our ecology.
Easier said than done. It is both possible and necessary, but it is not simple (and I believe we could do worse than destroy one tenth of our ecological systems).
To that end merely support research in technologies for these aims, and phase out old and dirty technology. It benefits everyone. What do we have? Mass media telling everyone that it's a scam (to want cleaner air?) and that the scientists are part of a major conspiracy.
I have a different theory. Green propaganda is, for want of a better phrase, really, really gay. Not in a homosexual sense, but in the other sense, which I can loosely define as annoyingly emotional, fixating on dull issues. The marketing campaigns need to change. Instead of saying green technology, we should be saying ultra, or hyper-tech. Most people (including me, I must confess) switch off when they hear about melting ice caps, polar bears and all that whale-saving crap. If you want to promote the green agenda, you need to disguise it as a flashy, advanced gimmick. Like 3-d. Example:
The tree-buggy comes with a five-year carbon neutral guarantee. It uses entirely renewable energy sources, such as wind, wave and solar-power! Fight global warming, and get yourself a tree-buggy today!
Should be:
The Quickstream utilizes the latest and most advanced energy sources known to man. Representing the cutting edge of science, the Quickstream is a amazing technological breakthrough, powered into the future by the titanic forces of nature itself.
If you want to defeat the corporation, you must become the corporation.
If you lived in Russia in the 50s you would be arguing that it works because I am using government-supplied paper, writing or typing tools, and am living in government-supplied housing, and so on.
No, if I lived in Russia in the fifties I would be in The People's Tractor factory #53, toiling at the behest of the commissars. Debate was not encouraged.
Maybe my language was ambiguous to you, but I thought I was implying that functioning is not the same as working.
There is no ambiguity, I simply disagree.
In other words those economic systems lead to functioning societies but the societies hardly represent the interests of the majority of people who live in them.
The best interests of an individual is individual freedom. But, to evolve the point, please tell me; which of your interests are not represented by your society?
In communist systems the government has too much power consolidated in the hands of the few. In a capitalist system the power rests in the hands of the wealthy.
What is wrong with the wealthy ruling? In my experience, the wealthy rule no matter which system you use. The only variation is that in some systems, the leaders only become wealthy after their accession.
So you can talk about capitalism's effect on democracy, but I can't talk about communism's effect on democracy?
You can but it won't be a rebuttal to my argument.
Democracy is doomed to fail at any point.
Remember that when you make absolute statements such as these you open yourself to very easy criticism.
It's easy, for example, to envision a society that equally distributes power so that democracy loses its potential for corruption.
You're a hypocrite. Your democratic argument deals with a utopia, but you always refute me with the worst examples of corporate corruption.
It's actually not a utopia, but a description of a system that could be said to have been in place in early America.
However that system fell apart when corporations were allowed to be legal persons, and laws were passed that made them advantaged over small businesses.
In other words, a capitalist democracy will work for a period before it gives way to wealthy businesses that write the rules. It isn't hypocritical for me to state this, this is an observable phenomena.
That is real democracy. I had thought you smarter than to expect utopia to be possible. Anyway, we are getting off topic.
No, it is late-stage capitalist democracy. Also do not mock me, you are not my equal.
No, it isn't. Overhauling the entire planet's industrial complex is a monumental task. The engineering, scientific and logistical challenges involved are staggering. A little more respect to the people who actually have to deal with it, please.
That's why I said research new technologies and phase out old ones. There's also a difference between monumentally complexity and monumental difficulty. This is an example of complexity, well within our capacity.
Easier said than done. It is both possible and necessary, but it is not simple (and I believe we could do worse than destroy one tenth of our ecological systems).
The issue is simple, meaning we look at the data, conclude a major ecological disaster is in the works, and plan accordingly. The efforts proceeding from that are complex, but certainly within our capacity to plan for and fix.
I have a different theory. Green propaganda is, for want of a better phrase, really, really gay. Not in a homosexual sense, but in the other sense, which I can loosely define as annoyingly emotional, fixating on dull issues. The marketing campaigns need to change. Instead of saying green technology, we should be saying ultra, or hyper-tech. Most people (including me, I must confess) switch off when they hear about melting ice caps, polar bears and all that whale-saving crap. If you want to promote the green agenda, you need to disguise it as a flashy, advanced gimmick. Like 3-d. Example:
I'm talking about the politics but if you are interested in the social aspect, fine.
I had already considered this. My idea was for "Red" technology, as opposed to "Green" technology which mostly focuses on using old technologies and ideas to solve our modern problems, "Red" technology uses the latest, bleeding-edge of physics, engineering, and biotechnology to create cleaner fuels, productive and tasty foods, and nontoxic electronics. The idea of "Red Tech" is that like the colour it is flashy, it grabs the eye of those who see it and they will WANT to use it.
Green technology fears bioengineering, cyberisation, and so on. Red technology would use these principles to develop foods that don't need pesticides, plants and fungi that can grow in wastelands to clean them up, bacteria that produce compounds in bioreactors as opposed to natural means that take up space and resources.
No, if I lived in Russia in the fifties I would be in The People's Tractor factory #53, toiling at the behest of the commissars. Debate was not encouraged.
You missed the point, but I will give you a point for making me laugh.
The best interests of an individual is individual freedom. But, to evolve the point, please tell me; which of your interests are not represented by your society?
I really can't go there. That's a whole other topic, and it would derail the conversation. Suffice to say that in either government and economy, my right to engage in behaviours or projects that entertain me would vanish.
What is wrong with the wealthy ruling? In my experience, the wealthy rule no matter which system you use. The only variation is that in some systems, the leaders only become wealthy after their accession.
The wealthy are people. Like you and I they are not omniscient, but they have a lot of power that affects people they will never see or hear. It's like if we each had a hammer representing our status, the wealthy would have a mallet with a handle as wide as a mansion and a head as large as a small town, and they would be causing all sorts of collateral damage as they try to press the nail into their board.
That's why I favour an equality in distribution of wealth.
You can but it won't be a rebuttal to my argument.
And vice versa.
Remember that when you make absolute statements such as these you open yourself to very easy criticism.
It's easy, for example, to envision a society that equally distributes power so that democracy loses its potential for corruption.
It's easy to envision anything.
It's actually not a utopia, but a description of a system that could be said to have been in place in early America.
I have had the maintenance debate already.
However that system fell apart when corporations were allowed to be legal persons, and laws were passed that made them advantaged over small businesses.
How do you support this assertion?
In other words, a capitalist democracy will work for a period before it gives way to wealthy businesses that write the rules. It isn't hypocritical for me to state this, this is an observable phenomena.
See above.
No, it is late-stage capitalist democracy.
Which I call freedom.
Also do not mock me, you are not my equal.
I know. I am far smarter than you are.
That's why I said research new technologies and phase out old ones. There's also a difference between monumentally complexity and monumental difficulty. This is an example of complexity, well within our capacity.
Ah yes "research new technologies!". It's not a snap of the fingers.
The issue is simple, meaning we look at the data, conclude a major ecological disaster is in the works, and plan accordingly. The efforts proceeding from that are complex, but certainly within our capacity to plan for and fix.
All problems are simple. The solutions, the bits that count, are the hard part.
I had already considered this. My idea was for "Red" technology, as opposed to "Green" technology which mostly focuses on using old technologies and ideas to solve our modern problems, "Red" technology uses the latest, bleeding-edge of physics, engineering, and biotechnology to create cleaner fuels, productive and tasty foods, and nontoxic electronics. The idea of "Red Tech" is that like the colour it is flashy, it grabs the eye of those who see it and they will WANT to use it.
Green technology fears bioengineering, cyberisation, and so on. Red technology would use these principles to develop foods that don't need pesticides, plants and fungi that can grow in wastelands to clean them up, bacteria that produce compounds in bioreactors as opposed to natural means that take up space and resources.
Well I was working with what we have, but if you think there's time then feel free to invent bioreactors. Nanites would be handy too, while you're at it.
You missed the point, but I will give you a point for making me laugh.
No, I didn't miss your point. I doubt the aforementioned scenario would breed admiration for the system that put you there. Looking at my 23" monitor however, I feel quite pleased with capitalism (forgive the immodesty, I was illustrating a point).
I really can't go there. That's a whole other topic, and it would derail the conversation. Suffice to say that in either government and economy, my right to engage in behaviours or projects that entertain me would vanish.
How disappointing. I had considered it quite relevant. But being a black and white debate, it seems prudent to point out that people in mainly capitalist countries have more rights than those in mainly communist countries (if there are any left - Cuba perhaps?).
The wealthy are people. Like you and I they are not omniscient, but they have a lot of power that affects people they will never see or hear.
The same is true of any elected official.
It's like if we each had a hammer representing our status, the wealthy would have a mallet with a handle as wide as a mansion and a head as large as a small town, and they would be causing all sorts of collateral damage as they try to press the nail into their board.
Better than everybody having a tiny hammer, no amount of which can get the nail into the wood.
That's why I favour an equality in distribution of wealth.
I could not take the wealth another man worked for. It's unconscionable.
Freedom for the wealthy, yes. Just hope you never find yourself impoverished needing help to stand up again in society.
I know. I am far smarter than you are.
A prideful response, that betrays your inadequacy. In case you hadn't notice, I've been toying with you in these debates to gauge if you're as smart as you proclaimed yourself to be a while ago. Suffice to say, I haven't been very impressed. Your reasoning is lazy much of the time, indicating that you're either not very smart or think you can simply impress people with bombastic language covering for tenuous logic.
Ah yes "research new technologies!". It's not a snap of the fingers.
It took over a decade in this capitalist democratic country to merely acknowledge global warming and begin researching technologies that are cleaner. Even the small steps that should have been over as quickly as a snap of the fingers, such as this (deciding to begin to research new technologies), were heavily restrained by denialism and lack of interest.
All problems are simple. The solutions, the bits that count, are the hard part.
Why are you restating what I said?
Well I was working with what we have, but if you think there's time then feel free to invent bioreactors. Nanites would be handy too, while you're at it.
No, I didn't miss your point. I doubt the aforementioned scenario would breed admiration for the system that put you there. Looking at my 23" monitor however, I feel quite pleased with capitalism (forgive the immodesty, I was illustrating a point).
Luckily, your incredulity has no bearing on reality. The point that you missed was that communism like capitalism had scientific industries that invented new technologies, and that communists like you would also have said that their government works because of the new technologies that it was responsible for.
How disappointing. I had considered it quite relevant. But being a black and white debate, it seems prudent to point out that people in mainly capitalist countries have more rights than those in mainly communist countries (if there are any left - Cuba perhaps?).
If you pay close attention, you can see that the tools that communist governments use to curtail individual liberty exist in capitalist nations but have different names.
Examples:
Communism
-Censorship
-Propaganda
-Demonising
-Surveilance
Capitalism
-DMCA/ACTA, political correctness and gag orders
-Mass media
-War slogans and misrepresentations of communism
-Business CCTVs and recordings, internet records tracking
Better than everybody having a tiny hammer, no amount of which can get the nail into the wood.
False dilemma.
I could not take the wealth another man worked for. It's unconscionable.
You already do; unless you go to a private school and live in the country on dirt roads, well water and solar power.
In case you had trouble following the discussion, your ultimate rebuttal to my statement:
Wealth is distributed by mega-corporations who own the government.
Was:
Who re-elected Stalin?
I believe your second (the one I responded to with the above) point was that capitalism ultimately leads to the corruption of democracy. My argument as (and is) that communism does the same. Instead of refuting this, you claim I changed the subject.
Right, which is why making absolute statements and defending them is notoriously difficult.
A jibe is not supporting evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Not that part. How do you support the assertion that this was directly responsible for (what you perceive to be) a semi-corpocracy, constituting the perversion of democracy (which seems to be the only argument you have as to why capitalism is an inferior system to communism)?
Freedom for the wealthy, yes. Just hope you never find yourself impoverished needing help to stand up again in society.
I believe corporations pay a massive amount of tax. God knows who would pay for social welfare if they didn't generate that money.
A prideful response, that betrays your inadequacy.
"You are not my equal".
In case you hadn't notice, I've been toying with you in these debates to gauge if you're as smart as you proclaimed yourself to be a while ago.
And I thought I was arrogant.
Suffice to say, I haven't been very impressed.
You delude yourself if you think I care.
Your reasoning is lazy much of the time, indicating that you're either not very smart or think you can simply impress people with bombastic language covering for tenuous logic.
I can only apologise.
It took over a decade in this capitalist democratic country to merely acknowledge global warming
I believe it is only recently that conclusive evidence has emerged. Furthermore, from 2001 to 2009, the U.S.A (I presume that is the nation you speak of) was governed by This man.
Why are you restating what I said?
Because you don't seem to understand it. You are acting as though new technologies grow on trees. I take no issue with your ideas, merely your lack of appreciation for the people who actually have to research and implement them.
Luckily, your incredulity has no bearing on reality.
Really? The CPSU was quite unpopular, I hear.
The point that you missed was that communism like capitalism had scientific industries that invented new technologies
Not on the scale of the U.S.A.
and that communists like you would also have said that their government works because of the new technologies that it was responsible for.
Only the fanatics. Most people were disillusioned 20 years in.
Examples:
Communism
-Censorship
-Propaganda
-Demonising
-Surveilance
Capitalism
-DMCA/ACTA, political correctness and gag orders
-Mass media
-War slogans and misrepresentations of communism
-Business CCTVs and recordings, internet records tracking
Forcing intellectuals to work on farms, managing production to the extent that famine breaks out, working thousands of your own citizens to death in factories, National service, suppressing organised religion (including the mass murder of religious groups), imprisoning and killing writers...do these happen in "the west"? I know men who had to live in these circumstances. I can assure you, life on the ground was not as rosy as you seem to think.
False dilemma.
I think not.
You already do; unless you go to a private school and live in the country on dirt roads, well water and solar power.
I believe your second (the one I responded to with the above) point was that capitalism ultimately leads to the corruption of democracy. My argument as (and is) that communism does the same. Instead of refuting this, you claim I changed the subject.
The argument that communism does the same is not a rebuttal to the statement that capitalism ultimately undermines and corrupts democracy. Unless of course you accept my argument, concede to its merit and are trying to change the subject to point out that governments are innately corruptible, which only agrees with what I said days ago.
A jibe is not supporting evidence.
You made an absolute statement:Democracy is doomed to fail at any point. and did not justify it.
Not that part. How do you support the assertion that this was directly responsible for (what you perceive to be) a semi-corpocracy, constituting the perversion of democracy (which seems to be the only argument you have as to why capitalism is an inferior system to communism)?
It's fairly obvious actually. So obvious that I'm having trouble breaking it down any simpler. I'll make an attempt, however.
A normal business gains wealth but is by its nature limited in scope, definitely not wealthy enough to line the pockets of governors, senators and so on without risking the extra strain on its ability to operate. In a normal business the only personhood that exists is for the management and employees, that which counts is the management.
In a capitalist society, this means that the distribution of wealth is unbalanced but government still has enough power to (mostly) keep independent of business influence.
Now, if we give a corporation personhood, suddenly all sorts of little businesses can assemble as one "person" which means the business now has all sorts of wealth at its disposal with which to represent the interests of its legal personhood. Now it can lobby statewide and beat out the voices of small businesses and people like you and I. That is the beginning of the end.
Also, I never argued that capitalism is inferior to communism, just that both are bad systems the difference being that in a capitalist society you live in a dystopia and don't realise it. Probably because its boundaries of influence encapsulate most of the world.
I believe corporations pay a massive amount of tax. God knows who would pay for social welfare if they didn't generate that money.
Yet we still have so many homeless, people dying because they can't afford healthcare, citizens working in the worst kinds of jobs because they can't move up in the system and so on. Then there are people who spend their lives working for a company who fires them as soon as they get an injury and are older, and the same company resist to the end paying any medical expenses to help this person cover his injury.
We can afford to treat these people better but the sheer wealth of these companies is untouched for that purpose. How many millions of dollars go towards political fundraising and buying favours from politicians? How many millions go towards litigating against normal men and women who download intellectual property? But these companies can't use that money to provide better salaries to their workers.
You're lucky being smarter than the average person. It means that you won't have to accept a life of tedious manual labour and poor salaries. Most people work very hard and can't make it far in this system. When they hit hard times, they are essentially victims.
"You are not my equal".
And I thought I was arrogant.
You delude yourself if you think I care.
I can only apologise.
Some advice:
Don't brag about your IQ in a place where smarter people exist, and then proceed to mock their intellect because you misunderstood them. People like me will only find entertainment in criticising your inability to make good arguments and keep up with simple topics.
I don't like being a prick, but when someone acts as arrogantly as you do, without earning the right through stellar argumentation, I have to ridicule that person immensely.
I believe it is only recently that conclusive evidence has emerged. Furthermore, from 2001 to 2009, the U.S.A (I presume that is the nation you speak of) was governed by This man.
There was a strong consensus on climate change in the '70s and '80s. Granted we didn't know as much back then, we still could have listened to the scientists and invested in cleaner energies.
Because you don't seem to understand it. You are acting as though new technologies grow on trees. I take no issue with your ideas, merely your lack of appreciation for the people who actually have to research and implement them.
Actually I didn't.
I said that it was a simple issue. Meaning it's simple to review the data and PLAN accordingly, THEN you fix it, which takes more effort.
Really? The CPSU was quite unpopular, I hear.
Not on the scale of the U.S.A.
Only the fanatics. Most people were disillusioned 20 years in.
Again missing the point.
Arguing that being able to type on a computer is an example of capitalist merit is the same as arguing that programming an M-220 is indicative of communist success. You don't measure success based on these things, but on quality of life and welfare of the people. Tell me, is each person in the capitalist sphere of influence living up to their potential?
Forcing intellectuals to work on farms, managing production to the extent that famine breaks out, working thousands of your own citizens to death in factories, National service, suppressing organised religion (including the mass murder of religious groups), imprisoning and killing writers...do these happen in "the west"? I know men who had to live in these circumstances. I can assure you, life on the ground was not as rosy as you seem to think.
We're talking about rights.
However, if you insist:
-American Japanese internment
-Canadian Japanese internment
-Abu Ghraib and similar black site confinement and torture
-Supporting dictators in other countries who have engaged in genocide and religious suppression (look it up)
-Supporting Saudi Arabia, as a deep (in pocket) ally despite their utter intolerance of human rights and religious suppression
The argument that communism does the same is not a rebuttal to the statement that capitalism ultimately undermines and corrupts democracy. Unless of course you accept my argument, concede to its merit and are trying to change the subject to point out that governments are innately corruptible, which only agrees with what I said days ago.
The faults of capitalism are not as severe as those of communism. Look at the debate title.
You made an absolute statement:Democracy is doomed to fail at any point. and did not justify it.
Can you name one democratic country in which the desires of the people are most important to the government.
A normal business gains wealth but is by its nature limited in scope, definitely not wealthy enough to line the pockets of governors, senators and so on without risking the extra strain on its ability to operate. In a normal business the only personhood that exists is for the management and employees, that which counts is the management.
In a capitalist society, this means that the distribution of wealth is unbalanced but government still has enough power to (mostly) keep independent of business influence.
Now, if we give a corporation personhood, suddenly all sorts of little businesses can assemble as one "person" which means the business now has all sorts of wealth at its disposal with which to represent the interests of its legal personhood. Now it can lobby statewide and beat out the voices of small businesses and people like you and I. That is the beginning of the end.
Also, I never argued that capitalism is inferior to communism, just that both are bad systems the difference being that in a capitalist society you live in a dystopia and don't realise it. Probably because its boundaries of influence encapsulate most of the world.
I didn't ask for another of your hypotheses, I asked for evidence.
Yet we still have so many homeless, people dying because they can't afford healthcare, citizens working in the worst kinds of jobs because they can't move up in the system and so on. Then there are people who spend their lives working for a company who fires them as soon as they get an injury and are older, and the same company resist to the end paying any medical expenses to help this person cover his injury.
And in communistic societies, things were even worse, as I have pointed out many times.
We can afford to treat these people better but the sheer wealth of these companies is untouched for that purpose. How many millions of dollars go towards political fundraising and buying favours from politicians? How many millions go towards litigating against normal men and women who download intellectual property? But these companies can't use that money to provide better salaries to their workers.
You don't start a company to make other people money. If you did, then why should you work your arse off to make it successful? And then, when it is successful, why should other people just get to take it away because they want to? You clearly don't understand the sheer volume of work that goes into building a business.
You're lucky being smarter than the average person. It means that you won't have to accept a life of tedious manual labour and poor salaries. Most people work very hard and can't make it far in this system. When they hit hard times, they are essentially victims.
I've had my share of labour and paucity. Never again.
There was a strong consensus on climate change in the '70s and '80s. Granted we didn't know as much back then, we still could have listened to the scientists and invested in cleaner energies.
It's happening now. Complaining about the past does nothing to improve the present or the future.
Actually I didn't.
I said that it was a simple issue. Meaning it's simple to review the data and PLAN accordingly, THEN you fix it, which takes more effort.
I am glad we can agree on something.
Arguing that being able to type on a computer is an example of capitalist merit is the same as arguing that programming an M-220 is indicative of communist success. You don't measure success based on these things, but on quality of life and welfare of the people. Tell me, is each person in the capitalist sphere of influence living up to their potential?
Tell me, was the quality of life in Soviet Russia better than it was in the west? This is the crux of the historical element of this debate. Remember that this is a capitalism versus communism debate and that the right to attack the contrary system is not exclusively yours.
-American Japanese internment
-Canadian Japanese internment
-Abu Ghraib and similar black site confinement and torture
-Supporting dictators in other countries who have engaged in genocide and religious suppression (look it up)
-Supporting Saudi Arabia, as a deep (in pocket) ally despite their utter intolerance of human rights and religious suppression
-Also Pakistan
You have a funny definition of West. I don't care what we've to those eastern barbarians (though I do not think so poorly of the Japanese, war has a habit of angering governments).
You've clearly never heard of socialism.
Yes, people who know nothing of industry directing it. Great idea.
I take it you concede to being hypocritical then.
Wrong. Taxes should be handled in a communistic manner. Private wealth is the concern of neither the state nor those citizens unrelated to it, unless it is attained through illegal means.
Why is it that people always insist on bringing the government up with capitalism. There is no free market with the government the government is what ruins capitalism. It is dishonest businessmen and politicians that form alliances. Government ruins capitalism as it does communism, however the difference is communism can't work without government force capitalism can. Steve Jobs didn't make me buy my Ipod however the government will put me in jail if I stop paying social security taxes.
Why is it that people always insist on bringing the government up with capitalism.
Because each serves its own purpose.
There is no free market with the government the government is what ruins capitalism.
You have it the other way around.
Government ruins capitalism as it does communism, however the difference is communism can't work without government force capitalism can.
A capitalist market without government or regulation becomes very repressive and exploitative towards workers and consumers. Government is necessary to keep the capitalists from becoming slaver owners, sweatshop owners, etc.
Steve Jobs didn't make me buy my Ipod however the government will put me in jail if I stop paying social security taxes.
A bad analogy. In an extreme capitalist system the iPod will be the only computer you can buy, because all other forms of computers are illegal or nonexistent, thanks to Steve Jobs owning a monopoly. Competitors are either jailed for undermining the economic success of the iPod, or bankrupted by the bloated Apple empire.
That's how capitalism works at its apex. For a real life example, see the MPAA and RIAA, who have made all sorts of disruptive competing technologies illegal or neutered.
Actually in real life and communism (not lies you've heard from capitalists) the parents would make the lazy son work. Turns out with 2 sons working you get more productivity than 1 son working.
Let me explain to you retardface that in the described communist society people wouldn't have the choice so it and collect welfare. Even if they did have the choice... their mentality would be completely different - they wouldn't be sitting there trying to skive off.
All the more reason to vote capitalism.Glad you expressed that all would have no choice but to work,that should swing about 50% more votes to capitalism.
What if the lazy son wants to be lazy and lay around in his own filth with just enough to get by and play xbox. What right does his parents (which I assume would be government) have to force any person to do anything against there will. You can't have freedom and communism. Some of you should be ashamed forcing people to do things against there will is slavery...no matter how noble you may believe your collectivist cause is.
there is no money in communism, people work put up their products to the market and the working people get their share of everything produced, it=f one works more, he gets more, but if one works less, he will get less, but it is always easier to get everyone to use the same amount of labor power and work the same amount of hours so that people get what they deserve and get the same amount at the same time.
Every man's means are the product of his own will, determination and skill. Such moneys as he can spare can be spent on the object or person of his desire. He will gather to him such physical extensions as bring him fulfilment: property and materials. No man shall take from such means as are not his own, nor will any man in authority seek to limit the enterprises of one but to avert the oppression of the many; a tax will be implemented on all monetary exchanges and acquisitions so as to ensure the security of the state. That state, financed by said taxes upon the private, will provide for the public, and each man will be owed from that ministry the boons of health, security, education and infrastructure; all of which to serve the public, to better the private.
Any corruption therein does not besmirch name of the capitalist system.
Any corruption therein does not besmirch name of the capitalist system.
Money represents power. The ability to acquire large sums of money therefore must represent the ability to exert a powerful influence upon those who live near you. It is the nature of individuals to be short sighted (and even callous) to the needs of the thousands or even millions of people around them, so the power that comes from wealth can only mean it will ultimately serve some personal interest at the expense of the public interest. This can even mean political investments that undermine the voice of all those other people.
And the rest is history as they say. One look at our dystopia of a society clearly shows how wealth is squandered killing good ideas and inventions, undermining science and technology, setting up political favours that kill the spirit of democracy and majority interests.
Money represents power. The ability to acquire large sums of money therefore must represent the ability to exert a powerful influence upon those who live near you. It is the nature of individuals to be short sighted (and even callous) to the needs of the thousands or even millions of people around them, so the power that comes from wealth can only mean it will ultimately serve some personal interest at the expense of the public interest. This can even mean political investments that undermine the voice of all those other people.
And the rest is history as they say. One look at our dystopia of a society clearly shows how wealth is squandered killing good ideas and inventions, undermining science and technology, setting up political favours that kill the spirit of democracy and majority interests.
Why do you use historical evidence when in the past, you have refuted my historical evidence with theory?
I thought you'd get the hint but I'll be more explicit:
Different debate, different rules.
My point is that the only instances where capitalism worked is in primitive, nomadic societies, whereas capitalism has sustained cast, industrialised ones.
Your inability to envision how one can engage in this debate without taking a side doesn't preclude its possibility.
No, what precludes that possibility is the debate title.
My point is that the only instances where capitalism worked is in primitive, nomadic societies, whereas capitalism has sustained cast, industrialised ones.
Then you should have stated that outright. It has no relevance to how I debated differently between debates.
No, what precludes that possibility is the debate title.
Another way to argue within the frame of this debate is to point out inconsistencies with the arguments made for either communism or capitalism.
It's pretty obvious and it does fit in with the rules.
Well, this is honestly a terrible example. First of all, in a family, not everything is shared in equal. Whoever makes money can keep it and spend it on things for themselves or others (like charity). They are not forced to share. If someone (perhaps a non- moneymaking child) asks for money, you have the right to say 'no' and refuse. Opportunities are given to make money (chores and allowance), and self sufficiency is practiced (balancing saving and spending and giving money). Actually, a family would seem to be much more like a capitalist society! By no means is it communistic. I don't know what kind of family you people come from!
I don't support either, they're both pure. Political extremes and purisms are mistakes by nature. Just thought I'd throw in an effort to make more even. Both options are idiotic, it's just that Western Civilization is not as friendly with the word "Communism." Which, by the way, is incorrectly compared here. If we wanted to use the word "Communism" we should replace "Capitalism" with "Fascism." The opposite of "Capitalism" is "Socialism." Both are broad umbrellas. This is an unfairly worded argument. Comparing capitalism to communism is like comparing steak to poultry.
Actually the described form of communism has been around for millenia and has been sucessful. It was how humans grew into much more advanced and self sufficient societies...
Communism is the way to go. But not the purest form. We should do our best to fix the biggest flaw, lack of motivation. I already have a few ideas, do you?
