Capitalism is more democratic that socialism
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Surmise all citizens’ belongings are strong enough to sacrifice for the country.
- Assume citizens’ education levels are high enough to sacrifice for the society.
- Presume there is only one government.
- Ideal case of capitalism: www.gaus.biz/Gaus-Capitalism.pdf
Yet unequivocally ,capitalism is not practical in the foreseeable future . But please admit in the ideal case it is more democratic than socialism.
Argument: Pro presented a very convincing argument by comparison of democratic voting fore representation in government, and the more personally involved democracy of "voting" by choice of this or that product. It was a very cohesive, and, in the end, unassailable argument. Con attempted to defeat that Pro argument, but to do so, attempted to change both the content and the implication of Pro's resolution. Definitions may, of course, be offered ands rebutted, bt the language of the resolution is, to debate, sacrosanct. If the contender does not like the resolution as offered, it can certainly be negotiated prior to the launch of the debate, but, once launched, the resolution has been agreed upon be de facto acceptance of the debate. Con attempted in all rounds to argue according to Con's versiion of the resolution, and failed because of it. Plus, on at least two occasions, Con actually agreed with the major thrust of Pro's argument. Points to Pro.
Sources: Pro present zero sources, offering only personal, though successful argument without back-up. Con offered a single source, and it did comply with the Con argument. Points to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Tie.
Pretty clear case, as they both agree the resolution is correct in the real world. Con attempts to move the goalposts to a hypothetical world, but I saw no reason this should override the actual debate signed up for. Further, pro has shown capitalism to be highly democratic due to daily votes via spending habits, whereas con instead of trying to show socialism as democratic talked about how everyone having the exact same phone would lead to less discrimination (which is drifting off topic).
In my vote, I indicated that you offered no sources. In fact, you quoted Nathan Robinson in R1, but did not offer a citation such that I was unable to go to any specific source to confirm the quote. Lacking a citation, I do not consider that meets the demand of sourcing, per voting policy. In the future, please cite your sources so voters may verify.
I'm in process of voting, and ran across this item in your argument in your R1, or your preference of PC over Mac, and, having not yet finished a review of the arguments, I still had to stop to comment on this point, only because I, too had that choice, and have made it several times in my life, bouncing back and forth. I've chosen PC s a few times, but only because I needed compatibility with my office while I was working for "the man." But, many years ago, having decided I could do better on my own, and started my own business, I doggedly maintained Macs in succession because they are simply more dependable, and do not constantly ask me if I'm sure I want to do such and such a function, afraid that I might make a mistake, and also that I was asked to use a counter-intuitive shutdown of the machine using the START button. Absurd. I was broken on the pane of Windows. Mac forever!! But I do support that argument. At least, we have the individual choice!
Opps gg well play my typo damn
Capitalism is not a political system. It has nothing to say about democracy. It calls for a separation of state and economics (ie for individualism, voluntarism and private property rights). It's only political interface is to support the rule of law (in particular contract and property rights) and protection from external aggression (a military). There are traditions that within the overall umbrella of Capitalism that call for a no-state solution (which borders on the political). But we must differentiate between political freedoms and economic freedoms. Capitalism only requires economic freedoms to be maximised (where that exact point lies to some extent depends on the country, ts geography and the culture of the people).
Socialism is a political system that removes these economic rights and replaces it with an economic system which nationalises industry and attempts to centrally plan outcomes to a desired arbitrary pattern. And is always a total disaster. Sooner or later the plans collapse and people "want a strong man" to sort it out..and they find the body politik is only too willing to oblige. Even in its ideal form it is far from a democracy as it calls for a crushing both political and economic freedoms, under a boot.
Communism is an a-political system, akin to an anarchy as @armoredcat states.
Capitalism doesn't need a democracy (in theory nor practice) to function (eg Singapore or HK). However it needs people to have economic freedom, and as such political freedoms tend to develop alongside this in most Capitalist countries. But it can still function without. Socialism inevitably leads to authoritarianism as laid out beautifully in the "Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek. The classic current case study is Venezeula.
There is absolutely zero evidence to conclude that people become "more equal" the more Socialism they have. A quick cross-reference of the GINI coefficient and the international economic freedom index by country shows no such correlation. One could say that people in Socialist countries where universally poorer than their counterparts in Capitalist countries. That evidence is clear.
Marxism is communist...
Also, communism's end goal is the abolition of the state. So if you're saying that communism is authoritarian you must be saying that in some nontraditional sense.
I think you mean communism. Social democracy and even marxism asks for democracy more than capitalism. Communism is always authoritarian and collectivist.
Both, I suppose. Both in ideology and in practical effect.
Can you be more specific in what "is more democratic" means? Does this mean in practice capitalism is more democratic? Or on a pure ideological basis? It's unclear which side should/can be argued.