Debate Info

Socialism Capitalism
Debate Score:218
Total Votes:277
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Socialism (42)
 Capitalism (50)

Debate Creator

JakeJ(3254) pic

Socialism vs Capitalism


Side Score: 111


Side Score: 107
11 points

Well, to play devil's advocate:

First im going to make my arguments assuming we are talking about a pure socialist nation, one where socialism is working, so we can actually assess the merits of socialism, rather than the downfalls of attempts at socialism that have often ended in dictatorships, atleast as far as our history is concerned.

"all people are created equal" is a commonly accepted phrase, yet in a capitalist nation this is not so... some people are born into poverty or wealth, and it is statistically proven that people born into poverty are at a disadvantage in almost every sector of life. Furthermore, capitalism rewards those who can take advantage of the poor, sweat shops for example, companies pay men, women, and children, very low wages to do 18 plus hours of work a day to make their products so they get a larger margin of profit.

Now, socialism is not an economic system where "a brain surgeon gets paid the same as a janitor," rather you are paid based on how hard you work and on your merits. Meaning that a brain surgeon would get paid more than a janitor based on the difficulty of their job and the time put in.

Plus, socialism presents all of the following to help equalize the classes:

-universal healthcare

-free public education

-public transport

-cheaper public houseing


So socialism is the only theory of economics where people can truly be equal.

Side: Socialism
frenchieak(1131) Disputed
6 points

But, one has to wonder why attempts at socialism have ended with dictatorships.

Total extremes of any type of government are bad. The most practical, and controversial, is a balance that is hard to find, and even harder to maintain. I believe that the only real way to find the balance is through trial and error.

Side: Capitalism
Britsrule909(66) Disputed
5 points

correct, a balance between the two would be much better. But of the extremes, socialism is less severe towards all people involved.

Side: Socialism
4 points

I advise you to check this out. You must not confuse socialism with communism.

Side: Socialism
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
3 points

the whole brain surgeon v. janitor thing isn't quite true.

some would consider that cleaning up shit 12 hours a week as a harder job and would then pay him more. there's a reason why the working class favor socialism way more than the other classes. it's because they are viewed as the "harder workers".

Side: Capitalism
Britsrule909(66) Disputed
6 points

No, the working class generally favors socialism because they would be treated more equally compared to the highly skilled such as brain surgeons. And when i said 'harder workers' i didn't mean hard as in physically demanding. I think we can all agree that it is much harder to remove a malignant brain tumor successfully than to "clean up shit for 12 hours." If you oppose that statement then i challenge you to find an untrained janitor who can remove a brain tumor.

Side: Socialism
8 points

Socialism is the better form of government for the same reason that Capitalism is a terrible form of government. In a Capitalist society, where regulation is preferably at a minimum if it exists at all, the rich prey upon the poor. We saw that in the Industrial Revolution, where immense corporations manipulated the poor to remain rich. Specifically in America, railroad companies in the late 19th century lobbied to prevent regulation so they could exact extraordinarily high prices from the farmers. Politicians were corrupted (because everyone has a price). Large corporations and factories prevented workers' rights by blocking the formation of unions, making them work 18 hours a day for extremely low wages. Lawyers used the 14th Amendment to claim corporations the same rights as a human being. Naturally, with this kind of power, basic human rights were lost to those who fell below the poverty lines. Even today, massive corporations demand so much from an individual that only with difficulty can one rise through society. Those who are rich tend to remain rich, with their children educated the best, and the poor remain poor (unless their children are brilliant).

Socialism, on the other hand, addresses these issues. It gives a piece of every company, of every corporation, of every factory, to every individual. Contrary to popular belief, the government isn't necessarily given control of the means of production (that's communism). Therefore, Democracy is one of the fundamental attributes of a Socialist society. When the people make the decisions, the corporations aren't allowed to abuse a person's innate rights. People are given material items according their needs. People are paid according to their skill, the difficulty of the job, and the time that they dedicate to that job. It's what most people hope to have in their lives: freedom.

Capitalism is based upon the negative attributes of mankind. Greed, betrayal, selfishness, and thrives upon strict class distinctions (i.e. rich and poor, with little to no middle class). In order to succeed, one MUST step on others, one MUST destroy others' economic futures, one MUST advance forward without looking back to consider what he or she has done. What kind of a society wishes to leave the good people in society writhing in the dust? What kind of society doesn't prevent bad people from gaining to much power? What kind of society cares so much about the present that they forget the future?

Side: Socialism
1 point

Socialism is the better form of government for the same reason that Capitalism is a terrible form of government.

Show what you know. Capitalism is not a form of government, it is a economic system.

Side: Capitalism

As a Swede and a citizen of a largely socialist country, I know that I'll always have healthcare, housing, food, etc. I will never be in a desperate situation like those that have led so many Americans to live on the streets or turn to harmful drugs or sell their bodies. I know my government will take care of me.

Side: Socialism
5 points

i like the idea of socialism because it supreses greed, and when people get greedy, they do very nasty things, such as accuse a country of having wmd and invade it, and kill a million local civilians. many other dark things in history were caused by capitalism such as slave trade. many european countries also pillaged and raped countries in america, africa and asia. america also attacks a lot of countries in the name of capitalism, forcing them to trade with america under the terms and condition of america. capitalism also promotes america to sell weapons to other countries so that they can kill one another. i do not know that much about socialism, but i am very familiar with capitalism. what i do know is that socialism provides more equality and doesnt let people get too rich, or too poor. i dont see why someone should own 3 houses and 4 cars, while another person has to rent a basement, and take the bus.

Side: Socialism
lastsummer Disputed
1 point

i dont see why someone should own 3 houses and 4 cars, while another person has to rent a basement, and take the bus.

Because the one who owns three houses has worked harder. The person who has worked his tail off for those houses and cars would feel rather lousy if the other guy was just given certain luxuries in the name of "equality." And yes, anything above what the poorer man has is luxury. He has shelter, transportation, food, etc. (Refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs for more information on basic needs.)

The things that you equate with capitalist society (raping, pillaging, agressive expansionism, unethical economic transactions, slavery, etc.), it may be argued, are not representative of a "successful" or "true" capitalist society. One only needs to think for a moment. Would you consider China's system, a "socialist market economy," to be free (or even freer) of the issues you mention regarding capitalist society? How about North Korea?

For that matter, can you think of any country that is currently considered socialist, which also abstains from the "very nasty things" you mentioned? I'll help you out. The countries that currently label themselves socialist are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.

what i do know is that socialism provides more equality and doesnt let people get too rich, or too poor

How do you find the equality in China?

Supporting Evidence: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (
Side: Capitalism

Socialism is one step, my ideology which I will post later is opinionated, so, don't discuss that. In the end when greed is gone (which is really really hard) we can go to communism.

Side: Socialism

I support socialism and communism because everyone deserves 4 things, free health care, free food and water, free shelter and free education. These should all be shared or given equally no matter what race or religion you are, or how much pay you get

Side: Socialism and communism
4 points

Actually socialism would work better... if it weren't for human nature. (see Brits arguement on the other side.)

But if these are the only two choices, than capitalism is the better of the two for us human beings.

Capitalism could encourage hard work, entrepreneurship, new inventions, and education.

The problem though again is human nature. After a couple generation of any pure capitalist society, all of the good things mentioned above give way to pure nepitism.

Instead of the best and the brightest getting the biggest piece of the pie, it's the kids of the best and the brightest.

Great schools are started, where only the already rich can go.

New ideas are implemented.

Then quickly taken by the money machine, while the inventors are thrown a pitance (look up the windshield wipers.)

Soon there are only two kinds of people. A few very very rich, and hordes and hordes of peasants.

And the richest by then aren't inherently better than the peasants in any way.

They simply won the sperm lottery, that's all.

Pure capitalism would quickly turn into some kind of monarchy, and would be terrible for humans in general without some democratic means of power exchange, and a plethera of social programs, especially where education is concerned.

Luckily we don't live in a capitalist or socialist society.

Side: Capitalism
7 points

"Instead of the best and the brightest getting the biggest piece of the pie, it's the kids of the best and the brightest." Exactly, that is exactly what i was trying to get accross.

Side: Socialism
4 points

Luckily we don't live in a capitalist or socialist society

Yep, just Capitalism with safe guards.

Side: Capitalism
Britsrule909(66) Disputed
5 points

Again, i agree with you 100% I would much rather live in a mix of the two than in either extreme, because both sides have advantages lacking in the other one. But if i had to pick an extreme it would be socialism.

Side: Socialism
3 points

Capitalism is closer to achieving Henry David Thoreau's view of an enlightened government, respecting the individual as a higher power. I as well believe this is the epitome of government. The government is not entitled to make decisions for the individual, respecting the individuality and freedom of the people of the country.

In capitalism, one is theoretically able to go from the lowest economic and societal level all the way to the top. The system isn't perfect,though, and this doesn't always happen. Even in Capitalism there must be some regulation to prevent a company from becoming more powerful than the government, which is when problems arise.

Imagine socialism in today's America. It would be so different that you couldn't even call it America.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

Okay there are two identical football teams.

On the first team they decide that they are going to try socialism. Every player is rewarded the same after practice, no matter how hard they work. They are convinced that only the coaches are to help them, that they shouldn't have to work hard. One of the hard working players sacrifices allot of time trying to help one of the slackers to become better. The slacker doesn't want to work any harder because he will be rewarded anyways. He doesn't care if the team wins or loses.

The second team wants to try Capitalism. Those who work hard are rewarded, those who slack off are chewed out and punished and screamed at. Eventually most of the team is working their buts off, even though they are not all equally skilled. But the majority of the team is progressing.

Okay, now remember these teams where identical. They have been practicing for a couple of months. They play each other.

Who is going to win?

Side: Capitalism
Britsrule909(66) Disputed
3 points

You need to learn what socialism is. According to your weakly put together example, socialism is a system where everyone gets paid the same no matter how hard they work. This is not true. Please, if you plan to add arguments on this website at least know what you are talking about first.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation."

So, the football team would be more like this:

Every player is given an equal opportunity to try out for any of the positions, regardless of previous training etc. Those found to have particular talent in any one position are given that position. Then, once practice has finished, each player is rewarded based on how much work and effort they put in, with the lower earners getting extra help from their team members to help them along. Thus the team is motivated by monetary reward.

Now, the capitalist team would be more like this:

The team goes to practice, those players whose parents could afford lots of expensive training get to be the highest paying positions, those who grew up in relatively lower income families and couldnt afford football lessons are put on teh Bench. After practice the quarterback and the highly paid positions are paid their high wage and go off home happy. While those with little trained skill (and an unknown level of innate skill) go home, with little pay. Soon enough those players can no longer afford to miss work to go to practice and the team loses many members. But hey, they still have the rich majority to keep them going.

Side: Socialism
JakeJ(3254) Disputed
2 points

I know what socialism is. But thanks for trying to help.

Your right though, instead of saying they all get rewarded at the end of practice I should have said that the coaches would punish the hard working players saying that they earned to much and needed to "spread the wealth around" and then praise the slackers.

"those players whose parents could afford lots of expensive training get to be the highest paying positions"

So those parents are the bad guys? Who says that those player's parents didn't come from nothing and get rich through hard work? That would make them good examples.

" those who grew up in relatively lower income families and couldn't afford football lessons are put on teh Bench."

Ha, okay you got this all wrong, if this was a capitalist team they would be giving all players opportunity to work there way up to the top. Thats like saying the government doesn't let poor people work! and that is not true.

You need to learn what capitalism is.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.[1] In capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated and traded by private individuals or corporations,[2][3] and where investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are primarily determined by private decision in a market economy largely free of government intervention.[4][5] A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.[2][6] In capitalism, private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.[7][8] In the modern capitalist state, legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market,[7][8] though the state may provide some public goods and infrastructure.[9]"

Side: Capitalism
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

the problem is the government shouldn't determine who is actually working the hardest. that's what socialism does.

at least, under capitalism, people have a choice on who deserves the most.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

Capitalism is crude and brutal, but it gets shit done. Whoever can most effectively produce and distribute the stuff that people want gets massively rewarded with a disproportionate amount of the available resources. This exploits a fundamental human desire to become more powerful than that asshole in the next cave.

Imagine that a path needs to be cleared through a forest. Socialism is a bunch of friendly people walking around with axes, chopping away, making a pleasant day of it. Capitalism is a godawful huge steamroller billowing smog and shaking the earth as it rolls. Both finish the job, but capitalism does it much more quickly and efficiently, albeit possibly crushing a few people and/or woodland creatures on its way.

Side: Capitalism
JakeJ(3254) Disputed
3 points

"Socialism is a bunch of friendly people walking around with axes, chopping away, making a pleasant day of it."

Yeah a bunch of people being forced to chop down trees. Sounds like a lot of fun. What if you chopped more trees than me, and we got payed the same? What if you don't want to chop down trees? Sounds kind of crude and brutal to me.

Side: Socialism
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

Capitalism also forces people to do things they don't want to do. If people don't work, they can't make money and can't afford food or shelter.

The difference is under socialism people are better taken care of (at least in the short term) due to higher wages, free health care, free education, etc. This is what I was getting at with my metaphor.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

Capitalism does work, when not mired down by our current and past Presidents. We've been moving toward socialism since FDR. And, capitalism is being punished. Bush enacted the new CPSC law that is killing small businesses and the capitalist mindset. I had to close my small business that manufactures educational products because I can't afford the testing. The idea was to hold China responsible for the crap it sends over here, instead, thousands of small business owners are closing their doors..capitalism does work, but it's being killed by laws and regulations.

The idea that the government needs to get involved in every aspect and control things is what's killing capitalism in this country.

And, if socialism is so wonderful, why are people from countries that have socialized medicine coming to the US for treatment?

Side: Capitalism
KansasGinger Disputed
2 points

Not so fast, I'm a bit confused by your position. Stop me and point out exactly where I am getting lost. So you are one of thousands of small-business owners in a Capitalist society and (surprise-surprise) where you had to close your business due to unfair fees on testing regulations. Correct so far? But you are blaming Socialism for the expensive testing? Why do you blame Socialism? Where is it that you think regulatory laws are Socialistic? i.e. "The idea that government needs to get involved in every aspect and control things is what's killing capitalism in this country." These regulations are indeed created by the American Legislation and enforced by the Judicial system, but their influence to instate such laws does not derive from these Socialist Presidents describe or who you perceive them to be, and is not by who most Americans commonly believe has the most influence over a nation. You see, you claim "We've been moving toward socialism since FDR. And, capitalism is being punished," I have news for you, in a Capitalist society, big business trumps all, we've been watching this happen since the Industrial Revolution. It is these big business and over-powered corporations that are driving the regulations on this market economy.

Alright, I fear that you have misconstrued the definition of Democratic Socialism. And we could each spend an hour on this site a day writing everything we want to say, but yet no one will budge. In all probability we would just leave with further reinforced beliefs for our ideologies. This is not progressive, nor the point of debate. It surely is an addictive game we play, politics. So all I'm saying is please do some research, be sure that you know what Capitalism, and Socialism really mean, and there places and positions today. Be sure that you are able to critically analyze social situations without a majority reference. QUESTION EVERYTHING (something the American people have forgotten to how to do) and re-educate yourself so you can back up your arguments. Because if you don't know your facts, than you are just another ignorant person throwing your weight around because it feels good.

Side: Socialism
2 points

The following is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand. I urge you to read it. If you read this and still see money as the root of all evil then as far as I am concerned you are irretrievably lost.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."

Side: Capitalism
2 points

I want to read this book. I have to read this book. I love how it describes money as a good thing. Thats what I have always been saying. I hate when people associate money with greed and corruption. It's so cliche.

I have a very liberal friend who once told me:

"Yeah, I know, my man Paul (Ron Paul) is out. He didn't have enough money. Most great honest men don't have allot of money."

That is simply un-true.

from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand.

"Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'"


Side: Capitalism
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point


The problem with "Atlas Shrugs" (a great book I'll admit)

is it deals with extremes.

Money is not evil certainly.

But always remember, it is not good either.

It is exactly like every tool every human has ever had his hands on.

It can be used in any way any individual chooses.

And the way he chooses to use it, has very little to do with how he got it.

Hopefully that makes sense to you.

But definitely read the book.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

There are problems with every form of government and society, I'm sure. Capitalism is great because it allows people to actually work for their money and understand the value of it. Socialism could be a problem for the same reason because the poorest people in society would then be getting, in a way, government hand-outs and would not appreciate them. Suddenly, they realize they don't need to try as hard and the former upper class is working harder to maintain stability in society. Then they realize there's no point in doing this and society collapses.

Now, if we were all robots or if we all actually wanted to work together without laziness or greed or jealousy, then yes, I'm sure socialism could definitely work. In fact, I think it could work on a much smaller scale in some cases.

Side: Capitalism

Capitalism is better than socialism. In socialism, "We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork." Milton Friedman

However, America has a mixed economy, which mean that it has the best of capitalism and socialism.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

Capitalism because if you think what socialism is like, there would be no chance for you to make more money than anyone else, your house would be the exact same, people would all get bored because there is nothing different about socialism. If your in Capitalism, you have the chance to rise from the poor side to the high side. You just have to take a risk.

Side: Capitalism
1 point

here is the deal socialism would work if people were perfect but since we are not power hungry thugs always take control after socialist revolutions and really honestly in the hundred plus years socialism has been tried when has it ever worked and evolved into the utopia that socialists always promise it will

Side: Capitalism
1 point


But definitely closer to Capitalism than Socialism

In the USA we are not capitalist, we are free market. We have anti Trust laws that break up monopolies.

Sometimes, especially in our current environment, there is an unfair over correction that is harmful to a business owner. They aren’t big enough to sustain it, but are forced into loosing their businesses because of “a war on capitalism” Like the raisin farmer in California. I believe he won in the Supreme Court, but he didn’t deserve the cost he incurred to stay alive.

These are the people that need protection from this society we are becoming!

I hate to say, I’m not name calling. But that’s just stupid!But if we think its true then it must be. Regardless of history of facts and even the blatant manipulations in our society today.

But keep in mind, without these businesses we'd be far behind in the progress we know and enjoy today. And also they employed much of the population of the day. Although, we did need corrections to improve working conditions, increase safety, and pay higher wages. But the beauty of America isn’t that we were perfect. But the systems we have to correct greed when greed doesn’t correct itself!

We are a land of equal opportunity

Anyone can take an idea and create a successful business, and charge "what the market will bare" and make a living and/or gain wealth.

Many have overcome obstacles for the successes they achieve, with risk.

And as far as inheritance and the hand me down wealth - inheritance tax is probably the highest proportional tax in our society. So if you consider "fair share" we accumulate wealth to provide a better life for our families and to pass to our children.

The starting point, or tipping point varies of both failure and success in over generations. And sometimes it continues as it is for generations without change.

American success is built on ideas, enterprise, risk, and the wants and perceived needs of the general market.

An Informative History Lesson on Capitalism

Many through our history are "capitalist" but not many did so without loss, even bankruptcy.

Here is a Capitalist Parade – And while your at it look at the giving back some of these people did. Do you think that would happen in the USSR or Denmark or Turkey?

Milton Hershey – Drooped out of school, he was a poor student. Apprenticed for 4 years then - after two failed attempts, he set up the Lancaster Caramel Co. sold it then made the worlds largest Choc factory – then built a community and a home and school for children.

Walt Disney - fired by a newspaper editor because, "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas, started a number of businesses that didn't last too long and ended with bankruptcy and failure

Henry Ford – businesses failed and left him broke five times

R H Macy - Macy started seven failed business before finally hitting big with his store in New York City

F W Woolworth - Before starting his own business, young Woolworth worked at a dry goods store and was not allowed to wait on customers because his boss said he lacked the sense needed to do so. I guess he said F... YOU, and opened his own store, followed by successful chains of stores!

Good ole Colonel Sanders and his Fried Chicken - rejected 1,009 times before a restaurant accepted it

Albert Einstein - teachers and parents to think he was mentally handicapped

Thomas Edison - teachers told Edison he was "too stupid to learn anything

Sidney Poitier brutally rejected by American Negro Theater for his heavy Bohamian accent

Others with similar stories - H J Heinz - Emily Dickinson - Lucille Ball - P T Barnum - Fred Astaire - Jerry Seinfeld 50-famously-successful-people-who-failed-at-first/

And African Americans – Successful in the face of adversity businesshistoryanentrepreneurialtimeline.html

Like anything in the social front, with twisting, and media led head hunting, and the public's eagerness to follow without knowledge. Capitalism is redefined, then accepted for whatever they want.

Like the urban racial legends believed with a fury, that Democrats and Republicans switched places. So those Republicans who believed in Civil rights and paid for it putting their money and their lives where their heart was on the matter, are NOW called White Supremacists, while Democrats who were always white supremacists (and also some Black slave owners also) are hailed as civil rights heroes!

Teddy Roosevelt broke up the capitalist in the early 1900's. And it needed to be broken. They built great industry. We are where we are because of them. It was corrected, they kept the wealth they made, but the monopoly was broken and out of 1 came many oil and gas companies, for competitive free market competition. .

Supporting Evidence: Capitalism in History (
Side: Capitalism
0 points

I like Capitalism more mainly because it's a system where the beneficiaries are determined by the people and not the government. Now, it does create disadvantages in some ways, such as stupid people having shit jobs and shit wages, but that is their problem. Everyone's problems belongs to themselves. No one is burdened by another person's mistakes.

Under Socialism, you are obligated to help those who surely don't deserve what you have. As a CEO, you've sacrificed everything in order to make money. A social life, a family, all your happiness. Everything you loss in order to become some of the richest of the rich. But, the government feels that you are no harder a worker than a construction worker just because he has to carry heavy shit. So, everything you sacrifice means nothing at all. Your wage is redistributed to everyone else, through both government aid and social programs. You are no longer able to shop around for the better buy, the government owns everything now. You must stick to insurance that you find mediocre, doctors that have reputations for wrong side surgery and cars that don't go fast enough or last long enough.

Technology progression will be at an all time low and Goals of improvement will be stricken since you are now in a classless society. Life will become meaningless.

to be honest though, i personally believe that we shouldn't be purely Capitalist, but is sure as fuck is better than pure socialism. I also don't believe in the middle ground such as Fascism or Social Democracy... i like a good lean towards Capitalism.

Side: Capitalism
jessald(1915) Disputed
4 points

"Capitalism... because it's a system where the beneficiaries are determined by the people and not the government"

I see two problems with this statement.

1) A democratic government is government of the people, by the people, for the people. Yes it has its issues, but votes represent the will of the people better than the stuff they purchase.

2) Capitalism tends to promote monopolies and oligarchies. People don't get to choose who the beneficiaries are when there's only one or only a few companies to buy from.

Side: Socialism
2 points

I'm seriously tired of this ridiculous misinformation. Stop confusing socialism with communism!

Second, the money that is payed to some CEO's is absurd. Your argument is incredibly weak and should I say...stupid. If you haven't noticed your money, right now, is being distributed to social programs. Your assumption of a classless society that will result in a decrease in technology progression is old and it sounds repeated right out of a McCarthyistict point of view.

Side: Socialism
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
3 points

old or not, it is true. actually, based on common sense. it only sounds stupid to you because you have your head stuck in a very dark, evil place.

McCarthy... good one. i could just throw out Marx and it will have the same effect. actually, Marx is on point, since it is part of his philosophy. McCarthy just wanted to throw anyone he wanted into jail and decided to call them communist. total fallacy.

CEO's make their money based off of the people, not the government. that's why, despite how "absurd" it may be, it was done fairly.

with less ability to PROGRESS in the work force, the less ability to PROGRESS in technology. people are highly motivated by the ability to make a SHITLOAD of money. with government determining who deserves what, it is unlikely that inventors will make that shit load of money, or your average worker will work his ass off to get that raise. Communism is the militant force to push Socialism onto a country, i wasn't confusing anything.

Side: Capitalism
KansasGinger Disputed
2 points

Wow, really?

1st: "I like Capitalism more mainly because it's a system where the beneficiaries are determined by the people and not the government." First of all, you are making a treacherous mistake, failing to distinguish between Capitalism and Democracy. So, in a nut-shell (and please, do some research on your own as well, don't just take my word for it) Democracy is what allows a nation to be "by the people and for the people," (since Democracy is not the topic of debate, I shall assume that you now understand the difference the fact that Capitalism is different). Capitalism is the ideological economic system by which the means of production and distribution (capital) are privately owned, and operated. Unlike Democracy, Capitalism directly influences privatized control over goods in a market economy. What this means is that the corporations involved in their given industry regulate themselves by means of adjusting the prices of their products, along with the wages and benefits (compensation) for their employees. Now, to remove any confusion I clarify that I see nothing inherently wrong with this ideology. On paper, Capitalism works great (as do most, if not all forms of social systems) but the problem lies not in Capitalism, but in people. Do you see where I'm leading to? If you are the President of a Major Corporation and you control the prices of your goods, what incentive do you have to not drive those prices out the window? Well, if you set them too high, people won't buy them, but you set them too low, and you might be missing an opportunity to make more money (capital). And after all that is the goal of a Capitalist business, to generate the most possible capital in the shortest amount of time. How about wages for your employees? How should they be compensated? Well, as cheaply as possible of course! If the goal is to generate as much capital as possible, then you will want to find a balance where your employee's maintain the highest productivity-to-wage ratio. In other words, enough so that they aren't on strike all the time. Corporations know that their employees should be compensated, but why not just compensate them with the federal minimum wage, feed them anti-Union propaganda and let the extra incentive fall on your higher paid employees. One effective method found often in the corporate world is to apply pressure on your mid-level managers to hassle their immediate underlings. This is especially effective during times of economic distress, much like the American recession today, where your employees are more desperate for compensation and the corporations are aware that they can get away with the bare minimum because everyone in a corporation is replaceable and will in fact be replaced.

2nd: I can't wrap my head around this one. You said "[Capitalism]...does create disadvantages in some ways such as stupid people have shit jobs and shit wages, but that is their problem. Everyone's problems belong to themselves. No one is burdened by another person's mistakes." It is precisely this same arrogant and ignorant attitudes characterized by the American people that have helped to ruin this country's reputation. Everywhere I look, I see the same fatal flaw in any pro-Capitalists. It must be nice to believe that everyone is created equal and has the same equal rights and opportunities as the next guy, but as I have learned, one can only grow accustomed to such a flawed-perception by turning a blind-eye on corruption, racism, police brutality, etc...and keeping one eagle-eye on the conveniently placed distraction that we fail to identify as propaganda. It is everywhere, Internet, Radio, TV, Advertisements, retail stores. It is the Media, something we refer to as the "fourth branch of the government." Do you know why we call it this? Because it is a fact that the Media has a dominating control over the 'stuff' of thought i.e. things we value, our pleasures, our desires, our secrets, our motives. Honestly, why do you think corporations pump so much money into advertising? For Funzies? You have to understand that we are nothing more than beings reacting to stimuli. The media is a direct gateway into the minds of the masses, in which private businesses take advantage of our astounding willingness to conform to whatever they tell us! Have you watched a television show lately? They are full of the characters we wish we could be, the characters that lead more exciting lives we wish we had. It is a distraction that exists because we want it to. Now sure, by recognizing this, I can get off the computer whenever I wish, and you can stop listening to the radio, but it doesn't matter because it has been brain-washing the masses for generations. But the worst part of it all, is that it also teaches close-mindedness and a great unwillingness to partake in any other informative outlet. No one reads anymore, no one philosophizes anymore, does anyone know the meaning of critical analysis? So now generations are raising their young to be just like them further embedding ignorance in citizens that partake in a Capitalist System. I digress and I apologize. Back to my second point, if you honestly believe that all people under a capitalist system have equal opportunities to be successful, then I feel compelled to shed some light on the subject, so here are some facts for you to ponder and make your own judgment:

"About 10.4% of the entire African-American male population in the United States aged 25 to 29 was incarcerated, by far the largest racial or ethnic group—by comparison, 2.4% of Hispanic men and 1.2% of white men in that same age group were incarcerated. According to a report by the Justice Policy Institute in 2002, the number of black men in prison has grown to five times the rate it was twenty years ago. Today, more African-American men are in jail than in college. In 2000 there were 791,600 black men in prison and 603,032 enrolled in college. In 1980, there were 143,000 black men in prison and 463,700 enrolled in college."

Read more: Prison Population Exceeds Two Million —

"- More than 60 percent of the people behind bars in America are people of color.

- In 1999, African-Americans constituted 13 percent of drug users, Hispanics, 11

percent, and whites, 72 percent. In that same year, African-Americans constituted 35

percent of drug arrests, 53 percent of drug convictions, and 58 percent of those in

prison for drug offenses."

-The Aba Justice Kennedy Commission

So, what is up with the our Judicial System? I mean, if everyone has equal opportunities, and everyone is created equal then there should be a steady consistency in the ratio of inmates of a certain race over the total population of that race. For instance, say there are 500 White people, 100 African-Americans, and 200 Hispanics, living in a Equal Town, where African-Americans and hispanics are the minority (which is the case of the American Population, just in case you don't believe in minorities.) Now if approximately 10% of each demographic is in jail, then there are 50 White people in jail, 10 African-Americans in jail, and 20 Hispanics in jail, then I don't have a problem. But when African-Americans constitute 13% of drug users in America, and those 13% constitute the 58% of drug users that are actually in prison, I HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM.

Racism is still here, profiling happens everyday especially by racist police officers.

Every night, 13 Million children go to bed hungry in America alone, but serves them right, right? I mean it is their fault they are starving.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, NO ONE HAS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY, because the people we trust to protect us, are not impartial, disinterested or benevolent in any way. In fact they are quite partial(to white people), and are just as interested because of the incentive to compete for capital, and are of course non-sympathetic towards unjust treatment, especially to the minorities.

So what is there that makes you so proud of Capitalism now? The bottom line is, life is not a competition. Each one of us are born into our situation, and are at the mercy of luck, no one is safe and instead of fighting each other for capital, why don't we help each other? Life's a bitch and then you die. Why don't you act like your self-less idols?

Side: Socialism
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

I love what most of your argument is based on, cause it sucks so bad.

anyway, racism, corruption, and police brutality are all flaws of the government. Sure, it seeps it's way into the economic status, but converting from capitalism to socialism isn't somehow going to make these government issues better. It seems that all of YOUR problems with Capitalism are just based on YOUR problems with people and government.

sure, there is unfairness, but giving government more power isn't going to solve our problems.

Side: Capitalism

A brain surgeon SHOULD be payed more than a janitor because there are fewer brain surgeons and it is indeed harder. As for the "you start off poor, you end up poor" argument, that's complete BS. Everyone in this country has access to school and healthcare, and unless you're tied down to a chair, you have the same opportunity as everyone else.

How do the poor pay for college?


Community College

If they're smart enough or play a sport, a scholarship.

I was a liberal for a long time and I was just ignoring the truth.

Side: Capitalism