In this debate, I want to depart from the usual discussions about which economic system is most effective at producing prosperity and wealth and instead talk directly about which system is most democratic in both its ideology and practical effect. I'll attempt to keep this as short as I can for the sake of simplicity in my argument.
Socialists have always claimed that their economic and political system is morally vindicated by its roots in majoritarian consent. Socialist author Nathan Robinson wrote that "The moral imperative is to place the economy under the control of the people."
On a superficial surface level, this seems to make socialism a more democratic system. But a closer analysis of what's going on belies a different truth. First I would posit that popular control over any government institution isn't actually possible. In fact, by necessity surrendering control of a facet of society to a governmental body surrenders popular control of that societal function. Consider the British National Health Service, the American DMV, DOT, or Postal Service. The average citizen wields virtually no control over how these institutions are run. This was put on full display when the British NHS decided that the two parents of a young child named Alfie Evans didn't have the right to pursue treatment for their son's life-threatening illness. Instead, the state decided, he had to die. How democratic is that? Not at all. When the British people surrendered their healthcare into the hands of a socialist system, they lost all control.
The exact opposite is true in regards to Capitalism. Everyone in a capitalist society is two things. A citizen, and a consumer. In both of these societal roles, we get to vote. As a citizen, we vote every few years in elections, referendums, etc. But as a consumer, we vote all of the time and with something much more precious to us than the one measly vote we get at the ballot box. I am of course talking about our money. Something that is the product of all of the time and effort we put in to earn it. As a consumer I don't vote for politicians, I vote for products and businesses. I'm typing this on a PC which I bought in exclusion of any other type of computer like a MAC. As such I voted for PC's over MAC's.
Note the difference between political voting and consumer voting. As a citizen, I vote for representatives to exercise my will (sometimes.) If I want something to happen politically I typically can't vote on that policy directly. This is because most, if not all, modern democracies are representative democracies. By contrast, as a consumer, we participate in a system of direct democracy. If I want to exercise my will in the market place by choosing to give my money to Black Rifle instead of Starbucks, then I don't have to elect a representative to do it for me. I just go do it myself.
Another way that Capitalism is more democratic than Socialism is that under Capitalism I don't only have some marginal degree of influence over the way the government chooses to structure and manage society, I get to help decide that directly. By voting with my money I decide what corporate behaviors I want to see propagated. If we all stop buying the products of companies that dump toxic waste into rivers and only buy from eco-friendly companies instead, then that would provide monetary incentives for other companies to adopt the patterns of behaviors that we want to see from them. Contrast this with placing the economy and society at large into the hands of the government. Which is largely made up of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats within the executive agency leviathan. This also explains why some individuals rise to become super wealthy billionaires and others don't. It is the direct result of a popular mandate. Bill Gates isn't rich because he stole from us. He's rich because WE made him rich. If we want Bill Gates to be less rich then there's a simple solution: quit buying his products.
To wrap this up, I will say that Capitalism allows the individual to exercise his will not only in an indirect, limited way as a citizen but in a direct and broader way as a consumer. Capitalism allows us to vote with our pocketbooks granting the people as a whole massive power to deliver popular mandates and influence the way that society develops. Socialism by contrast necessitates the surrender of popular control over institutions to the government which in turn removes nearly all of our control over those institutions whilst lending us the mirage of control.
For these reasons, I affirm the resolution.
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.