CreateDebate


Debate Info

64
37
Interesting But Mein Fuhrer
Debate Score:101
Arguments:73
Total Votes:150
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Interesting (31)
 
 But Mein Fuhrer (25)

Debate Creator

BurritoLunch(5142) pic



Let Me Explain Briefly Why Capitalism Is Such A Bad Idea

Most importantly, capitalism is a system rooted in and which normalises conflict of interest. The ruling class wants to pay the minimum and receive maximum labour in exchange. The labouring class wants to be paid the maximum and produce minimum work in exchange. Hence, factoring in time, society becomes polarised across these class lines to the point that it becomes two societies, with one subservient to and exploited by the other.

These two societies both want to legitimise the necessity of their existence and so what we find is that they also develop competing philosophies and politics (i.e. right and left). The right begins to believe society would crumble without its guidance and leadership. The left begins to believe society would crumble without the labor of the workers.

In short, capitalism is one giant catalyst for conflict and strife.

Of course, Marx had all these ideas way before I did, but Americans have been trained never to give Marx the time of day. Can't have rational thought creeping into a capitalist society. That will kill the workflow.

Interesting

Side Score: 64
VS.

But Mein Fuhrer

Side Score: 37
4 points

The problem, as I see it, is considering capitalism "the system". Capitalism, uncontrolled, leads to an oligarchy. Democracy HAS to be the "system", capitalism with necessary regulation can only be considered a PART of the system, an amount of socialism, again, NOT a controlling amount has to be another "part" of the system.

Capitalism IS a cause of strife when it is allowed to buy itself into the government as has happened HERE. 90% of the country's money is in the hands of those who control the government. THAT is NOT a democracy! Freedom has been sold to the highest bidders. Eventually, even those bidders will be whittled down to the strongest few and the U.S. will be as Russia is now. A strong, unscrupulous leader and a handful of VERY wealthy oligarchs who can do anything THEY want but "freedom" for the people will be only to those who kowtow to those in control. That is NOT freedom.

And, by the way, when we get to that point, the first thing that will be gone .... is your guns!

Side: Interesting

Democracy HAS to be the "system"

Yes, but there is no democratic choice about whether to remain capitalist or shift to an alternative because capitalists control the state infrastructure. How do you think all these absurd pro-capitalist arguments ever see the light of day? In a reasonable society you would never get away with saying capitalism is human nature or without capitalism there'd be no technology. These beliefs are intellectually redundant. But they exist because there is no democracy and the reality is that people are told what to think. Not specifically what to think, but they are encouraged through the media to think within certain acceptable parameters.

If democracy really existed then people would get a choice about capitalism. There would be regular reviews. Better systems would be being proposed and those systems would be being tested.

Capitalism exists for the sole reason of keeping the powerful powerful. Its use identifies us as a hostile species, since we are exploiting ourselves so that some can enjoy luxury.

Side: Interesting
4 points

@Burritolunch - I know next to nothing about economics but I'd like to know if there is a country with an economic system that you think could be used as a model.

Side: Interesting
4 points

I agree. If not democracy, WHAT? SOMEBODY tell me what is a better way!

Side: Interesting

I agree. If not democracy, WHAT? SOMEBODY tell me what is a better way!

I personally think it is just a question of setting limitations for the democratic process in some areas (i.e. one shouldn't have the right to vote on something which is either objectively true or false) and opening up limitations in others (i.e. the end of bipartisanship). When science starts to become a matter of public opinion, as it has in America, that's a road to problems.

A true democracy requires a politically educated electorate, so everything has to begin there. But the problem is that information is always coloured to serve the dominant ideology, so even with all the options on the table people will still have a tendency to vote for what they know, even if it is against their own best interests.

Side: Interesting
KangaOfRoo(17) Disputed Banned
0 points

If not democracy, WHAT? SOMEBODY tell me what is a better way!

ANTIFA told you what the better way is. Chaos, lawlessness, and death.

Side: But Mein Fuhrer

I saw this video where a sealed terrarium has survived for 12 years so far. There are a variety of plants and insects. The part I found fascinating is that there's a plant in there that gets eaten by a specific insect that is also part of the ecosystem. When the insect population struggles, the plant population thrives and vice-versa.

It's not clear that capitalism is a zero-sum-game because government has the power to print more money and redistribute wealth. Also because wealth is created through various means. This means that the rich can get more money without necessarily diminishing the amount of money available for the poor.

However, as technology increases, the rich may have no need for the poor (i.e., no need for human labor). But if that happens, maybe they will start to eat each other and the poor may be left alone to create their own economy.

What I object to is that capitalism is not a meritocracy. For example, Paris Hilton didn't do anything to earn her millions.

Having said all of that, I think Trump is going to win..., again ;)

Side: Interesting
BurritoLunch(5142) Clarified
1 point

It's not clear that capitalism is a zero-sum-game because government has the power to print more money and redistribute wealth. Also because wealth is created through various means. This means that the rich can get more money without necessarily diminishing the amount of money available for the poor.

That is true, but I think you are overlooking something. When more money is printed it devalues the currency. The more money there is in circulation the less it is worth. That's why trickle down economics is such a scam. By the time any surplus revenue reaches the bottom its value has diminished.

Money is debt. That's quite literally what it is. By owning a banknote you are in debt to the bank which issued it for the interest on that banknote.

Side: Interesting

To me, trickle down theory means that capitalist invest money in a new venture, thus creating jobs which means that money trickles down to the masses. The thing is that once the initial venture is in place, it goes into the optimization/automation/efficiency phase. During this phase, a worker's value starts decreasing and jobs are lost. This means that American workers have to be constantly retooling (i.e., learning new skills). Which isn't bad but it's not easy and can be stressful ;)

Side: Interesting

What I object to is that capitalism is not a meritocracy. For example, Paris Hilton didn't do anything to earn her millions.

That's exactly right. And Paris Hilton is earning more money in interest from her millions sitting in the bank than most of us are by going to work every day.

Capitalism can't be defended logically because it simply isn't logical to do things that way. If your goal is to provide a reasonably fair system then capitalism is not logical. But the frightening thing is that capitalism IS defended through rhetoric, myth and fallacy. In turn, this legitimises subconsciously to people the idea that it is OK to use rhetoric, myth and fallacy when you want something, even if that something is detrimental to others. What capitalism has given us are generations of utter shits. People with no intrinsic moral values or concern for the future of humanity. Purely selfish people who don't care who gets hurt provided they can still have their luxuries.

Just examine the attitudes of some of the people right here, in this thread.

Side: Interesting

Well...., capitalism isn't all bad either. We would not be as technologically advanced if it weren't for capitalism.

When you go to Europe, the people there say that they work to live but Americans live to work. In other words, if you need to get something done quickly, go to America ;)

Side: Interesting
Dermot(5796) Banned
-2 points
2 points

Yes of course if a person decides to educate themselves and decide which career path to take and weigh up the job offers and pick the one that best suits them thats utterly contemptible

And you're banned for absurd straw man arguments which bear no relationship to anything I have written. I didn't call anything contemptible. If you are going to make up your own arguments and then attack them like the seven year old idiot you are, then you can simply leave mate.

Side: But Mein Fuhrer
AThAPhys(83) Banned
1 point

You have a point, but it's not that conflict will be entirely absent in a socialist system. Conflict of interest is simply when two people have opposing interests. People's interests will always be to serve their own desires, and in a socialist system, which aims to serve everyone's desires, there will inevitably be conflicts.

Side: But Mein Fuhrer
1 point

People's interests will always be to serve their own desires

Why do you think that? Plenty of people have lived and are still alive who do not have such selfish interests. Capitalism not only takes a pessimistic view of people's characters, but it reinforces that pessimism by removing their incentive to do anything else other than look after their own interests.

Side: Interesting
AThAPhys(83) Disputed Banned
1 point

Why, whose interests do you look after that aren't your own? Okay, you might look after the interests of friends and family, but I at least always put my own interests first, and I hope that most other people would agree.

Side: But Mein Fuhrer
Amarel(5135) Banned
-2 points
3 points

Marx did have these ideas long ago, and time had demonstrated his folly

Marx's work is taught as part of every university humanities curriculum a full century after his death, so you have begun with your usual trick of accusing everybody who is smarter than you of being a fool. To even contemplate that capitalism is a perfect system is so far beyond foolish it beggars all belief, but such is your overwhelming -- almost nauseating -- bias, that as far as you are concerned criticising capitalism is akin to blasphemy.

Unfortunately for you, since Marx's criticisms have all been proved entirely accurate (i.e. wealth gap, class conflict, consolidation of power etc...), you are left with little more than baseless rhetoric to attack him with, as per usual.

Side: Interesting
2 points

Your specific fallacy in this post is that of the zero sum game. It makes scoundrels out of all who have ever bought or sold an item while upholding thieves and their victims (the alternative to capitalist markets) as altruistic heroes and martyrs.

I'm banning you for writing a senseless, incoherent pile of shit. Firstly, the "zero sum game" is not a fallacy. Secondly, I never mentioned the "zero sum game" or anything which could be construed as being the "zero sum game". Thirdly, much like Bronto, you are literally making up your own version of the things I write which have absolutely ZERO relationship to what I have actually written. Your drivel is just loaded with absurdity. The only alternative to market capitalism is thievery? Are you on fucking crack you stupid bastard? If you are skimming the profit from my labour as happens under capitalism then how is that not thievery?

You are a fucking incoherent idiot who splashes the page with nonsensical rhetorical buffoonery which you hope somehow disguises the complete fucking idiocy of the things you believe.

Side: Interesting
-2 points
4 points

This paragraph doesn't even make sense.

Then why are you replying to it you fucking idiot?

You point out that laborers negotiate for higher salaries while condemning those that they negotiated these salaries from.

You've literally rewritten my paragraph, which is probably why it doesn't make sense. Try reading what I wrote instead of writing your own version. That might help.

Side: Interesting

You know what. I'm just going to ban you for straw man argumentation. I didn't condemn anybody, nor did I mention negotiation. If you won't address what I wrote without changing it then you don't belong on a debate site. You're an imbecile Bronto. A real bona fide imbecile.

Side: But Mein Fuhrer
PotatoChip(2) Banned
-2 points
2 points

Because his ideas have been proven wrong in real life.

You are being banned for being a liar and for using multiple accounts to circumvent the last ban.

Side: Interesting
2 points

Or into a leftist society

You are obsessed with the left because you are a Nazi Bronto. You are a Nazi and every solitary word which every leaves your horrible little mouth is an attack against the left.

Side: Interesting
-3 points
4 points

Any system can be manipulated by wicked minds.

Capitalism doesn't have to be manipulated by a wicked mind to cause damage so you're making a false equivalence. Exploitation is the actual measure of success under capitalism. The more workers exploited, the better the state of the economy.

Side: Interesting
4 points

You can have Capitalism and limitations and constraints at one time.

And I can have an old car full of fixes to make it work without breaking down. But why don't I just buy a new car?

Side: Interesting
AThAPhys(83) Disputed Banned
1 point

Because it's cheaper to use an old car full of fixes than to buy new car.

Side: But Mein Fuhrer