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.
I demand to know how Nom can hope to defeat Capitalism
What do you think is an actual realistic way for events to pan out that results in the human race becoming socialist? Every single other long term outcome is more likely from extinction to AI-run technofascism and even to some form of futuristic capitalism.
In my opinion, criticizing the established procedures, social norms, and economic structure of a society is meaningless and unproductive unless one can propose a practical and universally equitable alternative.
Well, as a staunch capitalist I believe that it is a pointless and futile exercise to criticize the established procedures or social and economic structure of a society without being able to present a viable and universally fairer alternative.
However, in the vein of keeping an open mind I am of the opinion that the weaknesses of the capitalist system has been graphically illustrated in the past few years with most of the West's economies tottering on the verge of bankruptcy.
We can also see how the divide between rich & poor has widened during this time period and continues to do so apace.
In this context I feel it is vital that alterative systems of economic management and wealth distribution should be brought to the table for serious debate.
The problems associated with any form of commercial/economic change must allow for the indisputable fact that everyone is not equal and there will always be widespread executive corruption and worker dishonesty.
In the competition of life, and it is a competition, everyone has varying levels of value and the high performers, the innovative and entrepreneurial fireballs will always be in the premier division.
Communism has been tried and failed.
In their endeavour to make communism work Stalin and Mao filled the graveyards of their respective countries with millions of their own people whom they deemed were retarding the establishment of their totalitarian type of population control and state direction.
So far we have to accept that, as Churchill said about democracy, capitalism is the worst form of economic management, except for all the rest that is.
Changing the rules in a hopeless effort to make the strong weaker so the weak can feel less inferior is nothing more than a form of madness that is doomed to end in failure and misery.
It hasn't brother. You need to delve a little deeper into this, past the distorted information provided by capitalist governments acting through proxy of the mainstream media. Marx never wanted an all-powerful state. He wanted the complete opposite. His mistake arose from the real problem of how to transition societies which had been capitalist for hundreds of years into communist ones. The only way he saw to enact that change was government, but on the other hand he'd also spent countless hours writing about how government was an unnecessary by-product of capitalism, whose only real-world purpose was protecting the interests of the upper class. His idea was, as the roots of communism expanded into society, government would cease to perform any useful function and gradually would "wither away". However, what happened in reality is that opportunists like Stalin took advantage of the power vacuum left behind by the overthrow of the Tsarist system which had existed previously, and simply set up shop for themselves. It takes a very particular sort of person to be omnipotent, almost like a god, and then hand that power back to the people themselves. I'm not sure anybody has the strength to do that, but if they do then it certainly wasn't Stalin or Mao.
Before anyone is even allowed to call themselves a communist or socialist they should be mandated to have a realistic explanation for how it can be achieved which no human being in history has been able to produce. Your futile retarded religion is built upon a faith in humanity which the entirety of history proves to be irrational. The only way to make humanity Communist is to rebuild the species biologically and create a hive mind. It isn't just the leaders who have to be principled enough to give the power back while there's a 99% chance they are all power seeking types and that's how they got in power in the first place but the people as a collective who have to operate in a way most humans aren't biologically wired to. Leader types (who are almost inherently power seeking) and highly cooperative types are the minority and the majority of humans are lazy but disagreeable monkeys by nature who have been domesticated. That domestication of the unwashed masses is what really holds civilization together and it relies purely on a combination of peer pressure, intimidation by the state and materialistic rewards.
Before anyone is even allowed to call themselves a communist or socialist they should be mandated to have a realistic explanation for how it can be achieved which no human being in history has been able to produce. Your futile retarded religion is built upon a faith in humanity
Has anybody been able to produce a different system other than capitalism in the last 300 years? In the 300 years before that, was anybody able to produce a different system other than feudalism? In the 300 years before that, was anybody able to produce a different system than monarchism?
The problem is, and always has been, indoctrination. And I don't just mean the media telling people that capitalism is the best system. It's also that people are generally petrified of change. Even when capitalism has blatantly failed them, as it has for 90 percent of the world population, most people are still usually more willing to stick to the devil they know.
At the end of the day, there are few things more stupid than wanting to call a halt to progress. To believe that capitalism cannot be improved upon and that giant wealth inequalities and corporate authoritarianism are the best things mankind can achieve from its socio-economic systems, is the thing which is "retarded".
Has anybody been able to produce a different system other than capitalism in the last 300 years? In the 300 years before that, was anybody able to produce a different system other than feudalism? In the 300 years before that, was anybody able to produce a different system than monarchism?
All of those systems have 2 things in common which socialism doesn't. 1 they were actually implemented successfully after being thought up and 2 they all allow (yes, allow) humanity to be unequal as it is by default and as all of nature is because asking things to be fixed in a state of equality rather than fluctuating and differentiating is like trying to stop every river on earth from flowing. It isn't just a matter of progress but going against or with the grain of nature itself.
most people are still usually more willing to stick to the devil they know.
Most people are hopelessly shortsighted thinkers who I have no issue with allowing to be peasants while I sit on my throne above them.
All of those systems have 2 things in common which socialism doesn't. 1 they were actually implemented successfully after being thought up
Socialism has been implemented successfully on plenty of occasions mate. That isn't the problem. Most of mainland Europe presently uses a hybrid system with some socialist and some capitalist elements. Countries like Denmark and Iceland lean heavily towards socialism. The problem is that nobody has ever figured out how to transition from socialism to communism. Marx's idea about the state simply withering away seems to have been wrong. In fact, in most examples the precise opposite has happened, although that might be because the state is needed to protect any socialist system from the pressure it comes under from capitalist countries.
they all allow (yes, allow) humanity to be unequal as it is by default
You're trying to disguise an absolute fallacy here. Yes, humanity is unequal. Some people are smarter, some are stronger and some work harder. However, nature does not default a condition where wealth is horded from generation to generation across families. That condition exists nowhere in the natural world. Class is not a default condition. It is imposed artificially by people with wealth.
1) The state doesn't wither away because there is infinitely more room for power seeking types to gain control of the state than there is for cooperative types to go against their nature by forcing everyone else to become cooperative types when most people are somewhere closer to the middle by default.
2) The fact that wealthy families can hoard their wealth is perfectly allowed by the reality in which we live. Nature isn't the default condition, it is what dictates conditions. The nature of the reality in which we live facilitates inequality to the extent that it fundamentally resists equality.
The fact that wealthy families can hoard their wealth is perfectly allowed by the reality in which we live.
That's exactly like living in Hitler's Germany and saying, "the fact that we put Jews in ovens is perfectly allowed by the reality in which we live." It isn't an argument, dopey. If we are the ones who create the reality in which we live, then there's no feasible reason to allow an intergenerational class system to flourish.
If we are the ones who create the reality in which we live, then there's no feasible reason to allow an intergenerational class system to flourish.
Nature creates the reality in which we live. The fact that nature makes it infinitely easier for fascism to exist and infinitely difficult for communism to exist (at least for a species like humans who aren't hive-like) is my argument. If you think about the implications, it means that if you stop the holocaust on earth there are still trillions of them happening in the universe thanks to nature assuming more communism friendly "builds" aren't the norm for advanced life. Even so, their collectivism may not be moral by human standards and in fact would be bound to devalue the individual if there's even such a concept as "individuality" for them.
You literally just said "nature isn't the default condition". Stop contradicting yourself, twat.
You are deliberately poorly interpreting what I say to piss me off again because you can't actually argue with it and you're a retarded satchel of cunts.
You are deliberately poorly interpreting what I say to piss me off
I don't need to piss you off because you argue just for the sake of arguing. You never want to give any ground, so you continue arguing long after your points are addressed and rebutted, which is pointless.
I destroyed any hope of communism or even long term socialism and as usual your response is a nitpick at wording or grammar. Nice way of addressing and rebutting you have there. You quite literally didn't address or rebut a single thing here.
nature makes it infinitely easier for fascism to exist and infinitely difficult for communism to exist
You're wrong again. For 99 percent of the history of our species, we've used social systems which are a lot more comparable to communism than fascism. The latter has evolved only after we came to dominate the planet. In the early days, anybody with half a brain cell could see why cooperation was necessary for survival, because we were running around with rocks and spears in a world dominated by large angry predators. After we became the dominant species, we turned on ourselves. We became our own predators.
For 99 percent of the history of our species, we've used social systems which are a lot more comparable to communism than fascism.
For the ENTIRETY of human history there has been hierarchy. There is no reason to assume that before recorded history everyone was Socialist when primitive systems often resemble monarchy and other more right wing systems. Not to mention Fascism has actually existed on earth and Communism hasn't unless any record of it was destroyed. Not only that but attempts at Communism result in Fascism ironically, so the only rational conclusion to draw here is that you are a retarded far-reaching cunt trying to hold on to an ideology.
There is no reason to assume that before recorded history everyone was Socialist when primitive systems often resemble monarchy and other more right wing systems.
It isn't an assumption you twit. Monarchism didn't develop until much later in history. There were no kings ordering the peasantry to take up arms against sabre toothed tigers. Early humans were hunter gatherers and their society was based on mutual sharing of responsibility according to the abilities of the individual. The strong hunted for food, the wise planned the economy, women raised children and others gathered ingredients for fires and medicines. Where do you think the traditional patriarchal and matriarchal roles came from in the first place? Sure, there was hierarchy in that the best warriors ate first, but that's not really the same type of hierarchy which exists today, where familial wealth is passed down through ten generations to give complete strangers a free ride. There were no free rides in early society. Everybody had a role to perform to enable the survival and smooth function of the group.
Calling early humans "right wing" only shows what a total ignorance of history you have.
Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".
The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy.
One of the bitter ironies of the 20th century was that communism, which began as an egalitarian doctrine accusing capitalism of selfishness and calloused sacrifices of others, became in power a system whose selfishness and callousness toward others made the sins of capitalism pale.
The story of Detroit's bankruptcy was simple enough: Allow capitalism to grow the city, campaign against income inequality, tax the job creators until they flee, increase government spending in order to boost employment, promise generous pension plans to keep people voting for failure. Rinse, wash and repeat.
Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".
Marx worked for the Daily Tribune for ten years as a journalist you pig ignorant twat. At least throw the occasional piece of truth into your historical hatchet job.
You left out that when Marx said "workers", he meant people who did manual labor and lifted heavy objects as opposed to lifting nothing but a pen. Very few people in those days made a living doing anything other than manual labor. He didn't say white collar journalists who sit in an air conditioned room unite. He said workers of the world unite.
One of the bitter ironies of the 20th century was that communism, which began as an egalitarian doctrine accusing capitalism of selfishness and calloused sacrifices of others, became in power a system whose selfishness and callousness toward others made the sins of capitalism pale.
It's incredibly disappointing when I watch idiots like you attempt to criticize The Communist Manifesto without ever actually having read The Communist Manifesto. Communism, as envisioned by Marx, necessitated the complete end to the state and therefore state power.
It takes an overwhelming amount of arrogance, not to mention ignorance, to try to criticize a book you clearly haven't even read.
These, criticisms of yours, which have become all too common among shit-stirring capitalist deceivers, essentially all follow precisely the same formula. Hitler claimed he was a socialist, therefore socialism is bad. Stalin claimed he was a communist, therefore communism is bad. Well, guess what? Jeffrey Epstein claimed he was a capitalist.
