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.
SPOTLIGHT SERIES - kozlov
This is the Fifty-Second in an ongoing series of spotlight debates. The purpose of the debate is to "roast" the user (and when I say "roast", I mean in a nice way). Please share all the good, humorous, and otherwise positive aspects about this important user of our community. Don't worry, I will be creating one of these every few days so your name may show up next!
I hate his ideology and find most of his views to be idiotic, however, I don't hate him nor do I believe he is idiotic. I think Kozlov is intelligent, but needs to understand that alot of his policies (such as the war on drugs and minimum wage) have many unintended consequences.
Well, thanks for being nice. And maybe my economic views are pretty bad, but they're not as bad as capitalism. Capitalism has been mathematically proven to fail. The is because the overall goal of capitalists is to increase surplus value. There are a few ways they can do this: like increase hours and keeps the pay the same etc. However, they have lost the length of the work day battle, so they take advantage of a mathematical law. The people you employ, the more surplus value the capitalist can get. So they hire many people. This can be proven by using the formula (value+surplus value)/(number of workers)(hours worked). The result of this is intensity of labor. You'll notice that if you plug in numbers form a company, you'll get intensity of labor; however, if you just increase the number of workers, you'll notice the intensity of labor (surplus value) increases. In essence, businesses must grow to become more profitably. You would agree with this. But as businesses employ more people, they need to acquire more means of production. When more businesses do this, price of these things becomes higher and higher. The price of labor also gets higher (it's just supply and demand economics). When the price gets higher the capitalists cannot afford to expand and thus, grow. This primes the scene for a crisis.
You complete left out the element of innovation and technological advancement. The price of labor continues to go up and up until someone an innovation/technological advancement is made. Ex: Reaver Industries has been in the agriculture business for awhile and the cost of labor has been rising. Each worker plows the fields with a ho, plants the seeds by hand and harvests the crops by hand. Then, Reaver Industries develops new farming technology, such as the drill planter, tractor and plow that can be attached to the tractor. Suddenly, instead of the company needing 100 manual laborers they only need 10 workers to operate the machinery.
Understand now?
PS: Noam Chomsky saying Capitalism is bad then rambling on about how evil private enterprise is because it doesn't run at a loss isn't "mathematically" proving that Capitalism fails.
It does prove mathematically. I provided the necessary formula.
On the second point, technology does cause the price of the means of production and labor to decrease. You're completely right on this. But the thing is, can technology keep up with demand? This is harder than It sounds because we are continually having crises.
I found this video which explains things much more in -depth.
Economic understanding does not come from a series of graphs and equations that come from a man who has no understanding of how humans work. The economy is not some mechanical machine, it is an organic mass of all 7 billion people of the world making millions decisions every day. Behind all the smoke and mirrors, all this man said was this, in other words, concluded bullshit is still bullshit.
And your second point, companies also compete on a technological level, if they aren't as advanced as their competitors they generally go out of business because people want the better quality/cheaper product. What is the states incentive? Getting re-elected? Oh wait, thats easy to do when 95% of voters have no clue as to what is going on and only think about politics for 5 minutes during the elections.
You're correct. The economy of the world is an organic moving mass, but like anything else, there are a few rules. There is such a thing as supply and demand in the capitalistic economy. Capitalists must grow their business to make more profit, or they will go out of business. To do this they need more "stuff". The more stuff they use, the less there is, a and prices go up. Eventually a crisis forms. Look at the crash of 1929, this is what caused it. Look at 2008. Look at the minor recessions in the 70's and 80's, it all goes back to a seriously flawed system.
Don't you think humanity is better than capitalism? Humanity deserves something more than wasting resources on pointless things such as a new type of candy wrapper.
Furthermore, capitalism is exploitive. The more un-employment there is, the more the industrial reserve army grows. Capitalists make more money from the suffering of the least fortunate people. The exploitation goes even further because the average man must sell himself. Yes sell himself. Why? Because he has no other means to sustain himself. Sometimes he has a choice where to work, but it is still selling himself. He has no means of production.
1929 was caused by the Federal Reserve screwing around with monetary policy and then when the depression came along they still messed up the monetary policy. Starting in the 1920's the Fed began creating a speculative bubble and flooding the market with new money. No one says the great depression was caused by a lack a resources, even Keynesians say "well, we just made to much stuff" but they still have no clue as to what they are talking about, but then again, they probably made that clear when they said giving the government a monopoly on currency is a good idea.
I believe I've already explained what happened in 2008 to you before, but here it goes. The government wanted to increase the number of homeowners (because apartment ownership is ever so immoral) so they forced banks to give out loans to people who could never afford them. So these people began taking out loans left and right, the price of homes soared because people who couldn't buy homes could now "afford" them. And thus, a bubble was formed by the government. The bubble popped, the housing prices crashed, people defaulted on their loans and the banks cut of the credit line. Government caused.
Don't you think humanity is better than capitalism? Humanity deserves something more than wasting resources on pointless things such as a new type of candy wrapper.
I think humanity is better than socialism and I believe humanity works best in capitalism. You see making candy as wasteful, but if people want it, are willing to produce it and are willing to pay for it, what is the problem? You see candy as wasteful for being non-essential I assume. Then what about video games? In a sense we are "wasting" resources on them because they don't contribute to anything "useful." That is the difference between you and I, if someone wants candy, a video game and a joint I let them have it, you don't. You believe you and "the people" know how to run everyone's life better then they do. People should be ruled by themselves, not their neighbors.
Furthermore, capitalism is exploitive. The more un-employment there is, the more the industrial reserve army grows. Capitalists make more money from the suffering of the least fortunate people. The exploitation goes even further because the average man must sell himself. Yes sell himself. Why? Because he has no other means to sustain himself. Sometimes he has a choice where to work, but it is still selling himself. He has no means of production.
He dose have means to sustain himself. You do understand that for most of history a large amount of families lived on self sustaining farms and would only trade for luxuries? They could easily sustain themselves that way, but why don't they? Simple, because their quality of life is better if they work somewhere else, people weren't forced off their farms and into the cities to work, they left voluntarily and began making more, living better and creating more.
Capitalism is not exploitive. Socialism is exploitive. When I voluntarily sign up for a job and voluntarily spend my money, I'm not being exploited. When you come along with a gun and take the fruits of my labor because I either "don't need it" or believe that you know how to run my life better than I do. When I come up with a great idea, open up a factory and employ other workers you call it exploitation, I call it enterprise.
One last thing, as for people "selling themselves" let me make something very clear to you. If I said "Kozlov, for $100 I will be your slave for life" I have then sold myself. If I said "Kozlov, I'll work for you for $100 an hour and I'm free to quit at anytime" I'm not selling myself. See the difference? Workers sell their time, labor and ideas, not their self-ownership. In socialism there is no self-ownership, just collective ownership of everything, including yourself. My time, labor, time and self are not mine under democratic socialism, they are everyone's.
1929 was caused by the Federal Reserve screwing around with monetary policy and then when the depression came along they still messed up the monetary policy
True true. That monetary policy was too much capitalism!
On 2008, again your are completely correct! Here's the thing, the reason they wanted people to have more loans, credit cards, mortgages et cetera is so spending would keep increasing. This growth is necessary for capitalism. Peoples' wages have been kept relatively stagnant since the 1970's, soo the capitalists gave credit to everyone so demand would stay high. See? Tis capitalism?
You do understand that for most of history a large amount of families lived on self sustaining farms and would only trade for luxuries?
Correct again, though you left something out. That land was, for the most part, owned by some feudal lord, or a bourgeois landowner. The surplus value is still taken away.
Capitalism is not exploitive
Capitalism is exploitive. People must sell themselves or they will live in on the street. There is a choice, per se, but looking at it from another perspective indicates that people must take the job or live on the street. That's not much of a choice is it?
Also, I'm sorry, but the idea of "my labor" doesn't really exist. Labor is usually exploited out of the worker.
True true. That monetary policy was too much capitalism!
Government controlled, monopolized, central banking is not capitalism.
On 2008, again your are completely correct! Here's the thing, the reason they wanted people to have more loans, credit cards, mortgages et cetera is so spending would keep increasing. This growth is necessary for capitalism.
Economies do not grow because people consume more, they grow because people produce more. I would also like to add that forcing banks to give out loans isn't capitalist either, thats Keynesian, and Keynes has been debunked for almost century now.
Peoples' wages have been kept relatively stagnant since the 1970's
We already had this debate before, I showed you the individual income in America (according to the government's census) and income has roughly doubled since then.
soo the capitalists gave credit to everyone so demand would stay high. See? Tis capitalism?
The "capitalists" didn't give them credit. The Keynesians and socialists forced the banks to give loans to people who did not deserve them, created artificial demand and a bubble. Tis not capitalism.
Correct again, though you left something out. That land was, for the most part, owned by some feudal lord, or a bourgeois landowner. The surplus value is still taken away.
You were right until you said bourgeois. Most of the feudal lords were war lords, they didn't hold onto their land by having money (that they didn't have by the way) they held on to their land by giving land to their knights, the knights would then give parts of their land to the serfs and forced them to work on it. They didn't take it with money, they took it with swords and pikes.
Now, as for America, thats the way it was, most people lived on self sustaining farms. They slowly moved to the cities and suburbs due to advances in technology and for the promise of a better life and pay. If they didn't want to deal with the factory owners, they didn't have to, they could have just stayed on their farms.
Capitalism is exploitive. People must sell themselves or they will live in on the street.
I just explained this to you! Selling yourself as a permanent slave is selling yourself, selling yourself as a temporary laborer (when you can leave whenever you want I might add) is not selling yourself, you are offering your labor.By the way, if working for someone else is selling yourself, doesn't that mean belong to a socialist community means you sold yourself to the community?
There is a choice, per se, but looking at it from another perspective indicates that people must take the job or live on the street. That's not much of a choice is it?
No one ever said you had to take a job. You could if you wanted to, but you could always start your own business, be self employed or be self-sustaining. People chose to work in these factories, they weren't forced off their farms, they flocked to the cities.
Also, I'm sorry, but the idea of "my labor" doesn't really exist. Labor is usually exploited out of the worker.
It does. I mowed the lawn and weeded the garden, I used my labor to do that work in exchange for currency that can be exchanged for other goods. If you see me voluntarily doing work so I can voluntarily buy goods as exploitation, then I can't wait to hear what you have to say about taxation.
He is awesome. I learned that we both like collecting flags. Which is incredibly cool. I have a high amount of respect for him. I haven't really debated against him before but if the debate involves Russia then he knows everything. He is pretty awesome.
Amazing guy, fairly smart. We butt heads(more than most realize). He's a trollish person once you get to know him, and he's a little too... capitalist (if any of you think I'm serious with that, find out more about Kozlov.) for my liking, other than that, smart and cool guy, glad to know him.
He seems intelligent enough, we don't butt head all that much because I avoid politics and anything of the sort, and I suspect that is where he goes. If I am not mistaken he is canadian right? Or was that someone else? If so, lucky bastard, I want to visit Canada :P.
I can't recall any tough headbutts we've had, but I remember an interesting conversation we had on one of his debates asking if Canada should adopt the high powered speed rail.
Very intelligent. It's kind of Clichéd to say but it's true of most debaters on here.
Haven't really seen his debates nor debated with him. So I did what I normally do here and look at their most recent arguments and make a general opinion.
I generally seem to disagree with his views, but I like the solid determination he demonstrates and the ability to withstand heated debates.
I think we would get along personally, but probably not as debate buddies. Who knows though. :)
