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.
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.
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!
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.
@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.
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.
ANTIFA told you what the better way is. Chaos, lawlessness, and death.
And yet statistically it is the far right responsible for all the domestic terror deaths in the United States and Antifa hasn't ever killed anybody. At least not on purpose.
Sounds like the Trump legacy to me, chaos, lawlessness, death. He IS chaos, he has NO respect for the law and he is responsible for thousands of deaths, here, in Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, who knows where else.
In his own family, he takes health care away from his own .... just for money. Scum.
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 ;)
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.
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 ;)
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.
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 ;)
Right. Capitalism isn't all bad, but socialism isn't either. Neither are good alone, both need to be controlled by a government of the people by the people and FOR the people.
What does a person do with most of the money in the world? Billionaires have more than they could ever use. It becomes a game to see just how much they can get. Some, like Bill Gates, realize this and start giving some back. If it is given back right it allows others to improve and begin getting some of their own. The whole world can improve. With it all in the hands of a few, the rest struggle, and the world is held back. There is enough in the hands of a few to stop poverty and educate millions. Just in the U.S. 1% of the population has well over 80% of the nation's money. Some people can only get some by robbing, cheating and killing. It would be nice if wages could spread the wealth a bit. They've been stagnant for 50 - 60 years. We haven't had a good economy since Reagan conceived "trickle-down" and the "gap" started widening. The middle class used to "make it" with one "breadwinner". Few can do that today BECAUSE capitalism needs to impress stockholders. More money from stockholders is where it begins to "trickle-up", and keeps on going because capitalists have seen to it that the system is rigged that way. THEY can't lose .... we can't win.
America gets it done quick, then the capitalists make arrangements with China, India, Hong Kong etc. to keep getting it done. Ahhh, capitalism ... :-(
Actually those billionaires have to invest the money in order to not lose money to inflation. That helps spread the wealth around. But when they circumvent taxes, that hurts. The government's job is to make sure the money keeps going around. I hope that billionaires start investing heavily into space. Getting people off the planet. Figuring out how to stop a giant space rock from slamming into Earth ;)
Actually those billionaires have to invest the money in order to not lose money to inflation.
That's ridiculous. A billionaire can park his billions up in any bank and live like a king just off the interest. They don't have to invest. They invest to make more profit. Rich people are not the victims of inflation. That is possibly the most absurdly stupid idea I have ever heard. The devaluation of the currency (i.e. inflation) is caused by wealth creation in the first place (i.e. more money in circulation = less worth), so how you are figuring billionaires are the victims in that is beyond my meagre ability to fathom.
When inflation hit 8 billion percent in Zimbabwe, it meant the rich had even more control over the economy than they did originally, because they were the only ones who could afford things like bread and milk.
It is all bad. The problem is that you are incapable of ever analysing it critically because you've been living inside its propaganda bubble for over 80 years. It nurtures and encourages the dominance of the emotional, irrational side of the brain. The part which lights up when you get a wage cheque. That's exactly why America is so choc-a-bloc full of stupid people who believe Jesus rose from the dead. Capitalism crushes reason and critical thought. Emotion and/or personal interest are what dominate decision making in a capitalist system.
I hope you will notice that I mentioned I am totally against a "capitalist system". I hope you will notice that I am ALSO against a "socialist system". I also don't believe Jesus rose from the dead.
I think I am "capable of analyzing critically" and I do NOT listen to propaganda. You should be careful of looking like Donald Trump, in that you seem to think YOUR way of thinking is the "only way that is correct". I agree with you often, I don't agree with you on several things here. You have a right to your opinion, which is often similar to mine. You don't have to be insulting about somebody disagreeing with you, Donald. (My turn ;-)
I think I am "capable of analyzing critically" and I do NOT listen to propaganda.
I'm not having a go at you mate. I'm just calling it how I see it. You cannot help but be influenced by propaganda because much of it is subliminal. Your conscious mind isn't even part of the decision.
I hope you will notice that I mentioned I am totally against a "capitalist system".
I didn't see you mention that I'm afraid, no. But I have seen you in the past, on plenty of separate occasions, directly advocating capitalism (albeit with heavy regulation).
You should be careful of looking like Donald Trump, in that you seem to think YOUR way of thinking is the "only way that is correct".
I don't think that at all. What I think is that there is a correct and, if I find out what it is, if you disagree you are therefore incorrect.
I have to remind you that you also have a conscious mind, and YOURS is maybe not even "part of the decision" if MINE isn't.
Yes, I think BOTH capitalism and socialism are necessary. BOTH can be dangerous. BOTH need to be limited BY the people using them. I think if YOU disagree you are not necessarily incorrect, you are simply of a different opinion. I don't think anyone will ever say I act like "The John". If they DO, then I will then disagree to the point where I will consider them .... incorrect. ;-)
I have to remind you that you also have a conscious mind, and YOURS is maybe not even "part of the decision" if MINE isn't.
I never suggested otherwise. I think you are being extraordinarily defensive.
Yes, I think BOTH capitalism and socialism are necessary.
But you just said you don't want either of them.
BOTH can be dangerous.
I'm sorry but this just shows a complete ignorance of what socialism is. Socialism is not dangerous. It's people like Stalin and Mao who are dangerous.
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
Socialism relies on a childish notion that human beings are clones with only one goal in life that being to work in unison to bring about this Utopian ideal of a perfect society as imagined by Socialists.
One no doubt under this system works a 9 to 5 job befitting their skill set with no chance of progress just a dreary existence void of any chance of improving their position or status in life
The system also relies on those who implement it at a local level being totally honest and having the collectives interests at heart .
If Capitalism is such a bad idea I guess it’s because you’re very unhappy with your lot in life , you would not be saying so if you were well paid and comfortable in life , you have no choice I guess as there is no such thing nor ever will be of a functioning Socialist Society
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who are these people? Some people are more selfish than others, but if forced to save another human or themselves in the event of a fire, I'm fairly sure that every human would save themselves, even if it was a family member or close friend.
You can't seriously be trying to convince me that you believe there are no people in the world who aren't selfish and greedy.
Some people are more selfish than others
Capitalism forces people to be selfish. If the system were based on giving instead of taking then people wouldn't be so selfish. Arguing that people are somehow naturally conditioned to be selfish arseholes even when they aren't directly incentivised to behave that way is a typical capitalist fallacy called putting the cart before the horse. It flips cause and effect.
You can't seriously be trying to convince me that you believe there are no people in the world who aren't selfish and greedy.
Everyone puts themselves before others... to do otherwise would be illogical. Perhaps there are a few mentally disabled people who would not save themselves in the situation I described, but that is evidence of them being mentally disabled, not selfless and greedless.
Capitalism forces people to be selfish.
And this is a bad thing?
Arguing that people are somehow naturally conditioned to be selfish arseholes even when they aren't directly incentivised to behave that way is a typical capitalist fallacy called putting the cart before the horse. It flips cause and effect.
You have a fair point, but humans have always been looking out for themselves, in order to survive. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene provides an excellent, clear explanation of this.
Marx did have these ideas long ago, and time had demonstrated his folly, though reason was sufficient even back then. Marx's collectivist analysis wasn't only incorrect in this case, but represents a highly flawed method for analyzing human action. Groups of people don't have a brain. If Marx were an astronomer, he would have studied the cosmos without regard for individual stars.
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.
Yes, people buy for as little as the market will bear and sell for as much. This is true in labor markets as well all other free markets. But if the price is too high for a buyer or too low for a seller, the exchange doesn't happen. However, if the price is lower then what a buyer is willing to pay, and simultaneously higher than what the seller will accept, then the sale occurs to both parties' benefit (they both have something worth more to them than what they gave up for it). This mutual benefit is how wealth expands in a free market and it's the reason why the "piece of a pie" analogy is fallacious.
In short, when two parties shake hands and leave the table better off, as they most often do in free markets, conflict resolution is the foundational principle. Such is the nature of capitalism.
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.
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.
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.
This paragraph doesn't even make sense. You point out that laborers negotiate for higher salaries while condemning those that they negotiated these salaries from. You're own paragraph points out that these laborers are voluntarily there and on an agreement they themselves negotiated for and accepted.
Your basic point is that people shouldn't have to work hard unless there is the guarantee of some abstract amount of gain that you personally approve of, which could be any amount. To you, stocking shelves with bread, which takes no brainpower or large amount of physical effort, should pay the same as going to college for a decade and creating computer programs, being a surgeon, or managing a company that builds cruise ships and airplanes.
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.
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.
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.
Any system can be manipulated by wicked minds. That's what monopoly laws, regulations, and price gouging restrictions are for. You can have Capitalism and limitations and constraints at one time.
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.
Yes it does. I have a feeling you are about to be banned yet again for vote manipulation, using puppet accounts to circumvent a ban and Nazi propaganda.
Because it's cheaper to use an old car full of fixes than to buy new car.
No it isn't though. When you keep spending money on something old and inadequate instead of replacing it that is called paying for diminishing returns.
Not if you get a high-quality, well-built car in the first place... sure they are expensive initially, but it's cheaper in the long run, as you don't have to use fixes, and when you do, they work.
Yes OK, but expensive items are better than cheap ones generally, in the sense that they are made of better materials, have greater precision and last longer. If it kills the poor, it can still be a good car, just an expensive one.
Yes OK, but expensive items are better than cheap ones generally
I don't understand what the hell you are talking about.
in the sense that they are made of better materials, have greater precision and last longer.
Capitalism isn't made from diamonds. It is made from home grown garden fed bullshit. It is made from the idea that the poor can get rich by making the rich richer.
I don't understand what the hell you are talking about.
Sorry, what? How are you denying that expensive items are better than cheap ones? Take Apple MacBooks for example. They are more expensive than similarly specced Windows laptops, but they have greater precision and last longer. Oh, and they have a three-year warranty, something you will seldom get on a Windows laptop.
Capitalism isn't made from diamonds. It is made from home grown garden fed bullshit. It is made from the idea that the poor can get rich by making the rich richer.
What annoys me is when anti-Capitalists create this divide between 'the rich' and 'the poor'. Everyone has the opportunity to get rich, if they work hard and are smart with their money.
Sorry, what? How are you denying that expensive items are better than cheap ones?
Are you feeling well? I haven't denied anything. I don't understand what you are talking about because your analogy has no relevance whatsoever. Capitalism isn't an item for sale, and even if it were then the expense is not paid by the purchaser. It is paid by others who have not chosen to be in the position they are in.
Capitalism isn't an item for sale, and even if it were then the expense is not paid by the purchaser. It is paid by others who have not chosen to be in the position they are in.
A person born into Communism could make the same statement when asking why they can't willingly work more to get more.
This isn't a discussion about communism. If you want to talk about communism then fuck off and start your own thread, instead of using puppet accounts to circumvent bans and get back into this one. You are a worthless, useless, boring little Nazi.
What annoys me is when anti-Capitalists create this divide between 'the rich' and 'the poor'. Everyone has the opportunity to get rich, if they work hard and are smart with their money.
Shut your idiot mouth. You're literally a goddamned imbecile. Why are you denying the objective reality of a wealth divide between rich and poor? Do you have the mental age of a seven year old or something?
The strings on the cheap masks from China pop off easily.
What relevance does that have to any discussion we are having? Things like love, friendship and kindness are absolutely free. They don't cost a dime. But you wouldn't know, would you?
The strings on the cheap masks from China pop off easily. The more expensive masks from Taiwan don't pop off easily.
You can buy expensive masks in China too you ridiculous dope. What are you even babbling about you fucking idiot? I can't buy expensive stuff in China? Gtfo you idiot.
