Instigator / Pro
2
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Liberalism is inherent with Socialism

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
6
1636
rating
55
debates
74.55%
won
Description
~ 53 / 5,000

this is the first debate i came up with so that's fun

Round 1
Pro
The statement above is quite a bold one even I'll admit, however the justification of it is very much clear.
To start we must look at Robert Owen one of if not the first Socialists. His ideas may well have transferred and moved into Socialism however in the modern sense he was more of a social liberal, allowing his employees to reach greater potential at the cost of his own freedom from regulation, This was most famously shown in New Lanark Mills which he owned whereby he would improve conditions, giving education to both the children of workers and the workers themselves. and although he did impose these restrictions upon himself, they create the basis of the modern liberal, Welfare states of western Europe post 1910.
Similarly Paternalistic Liberals are  close to Owenist Social Liberalism, with Owen being often confused with a heavy paternalistic employer by his contemporaries, because his ideas were so well tied to Liberalism.
As such we can immediately see that a predecessor and therefore inspiration to the modern socialist ideology was very much a liberal, even opposing Slavery but in imposing his own moral beliefs working off of the classical liberal mindset he had, would have heavily inspired social liberals of the early 1900's such as John Rawls. 
the expansion of ideas into Socialism would naturally bring about sub-ideologies, however with the absence of a contradictory descriptor such as in Marxist-Leninism Socialism at it's base liberal, and in most instances democratic.
This is reinforced by the core tenants of socialism, believing that all are equal regardless of class, race or other such categories, which is similar to liberal ideology which believes all humans are equal at birth, it's just in skill they differ.
Con
Resolved: Liberalism is inherent with Socialism

(This argument is drafted by LibreOffice because MS Word is Janky)

Definitions
According to Merriam Websters dictionary, a reputable source:
Liberalism[1a]
Socialism[1b]
Inherent[1c]

Burden of Proof
Pro, as the instigator and claim-maker, must prove that, without exceptions, that ALL examples of Socialism contain liberalism, in order to win. Pro did not define his terms and Pro did not set boundaries for the ideologies, such as defining the ideologies as Leninism and Social Liberalism, et cetera.

Argument 1:Socialism without Liberalism

A source and I can pretty muchagree that Stalin-era Soviet Russia is socialist[2], since Communismis a variation of socialism[3]. If you wanna critique these twoexamples, please use sources to do so, as Pro holds the BoP bydefault.

Stalin
The definition of Liberalismstates that Liberalism stresses Individual freedom[1a], and Stalindidn’t do that.

[4]

What Stalin did was constructGulags, which isn’t respecting individual rights at all as laborersin the gulags are treated like slaves. People are collectivized,which is authoritarian and not liberal. In fact, part of middleclass(the richer peasants) was obliged to partake in mandatory laborand others of the same class were killed because they are seen as athreat to the rule.

What is more, Stalin attemptedto rid everything that could potentially harm him. This resulted tothat hundreds of thousands of people being arrested and 83 of thehigh-ranking officialed being punished. People are terrified and aconsiderable proportion of the party is wiped, resulted in anotherfamine. Not even the leader of the police was spared and when he isexecuted, he was deleted from the pictures.

Within the late stages of WW2,Stalin issued the Order 227, which illegalizes any act ofpanic-making and cowardry. This is not respecting individual rightsat all. This is oppressing the citizens

With all that is done withJoseph Stalin, who runs an authoritarian Socialist nation, we canconclude that there is at least one example of Liberalism not beinginherent with Socialism. Thus Pro’s point is disproven, I win.

Argument 2: Liberalismwithout Socialism

Classical Liberalism
We can pretty much agree onthat Classical liberalism is “liberalism” by definition becauseit:
  1. Is progressive
  2. Works towards the whole humanity
  3. Stresses for economic freedom[5]
This agrees with thedefinition[1a].

[5] also shows that ClassicalLiberalism is capitalist, as it favors a laissez-faire economy andpeople can open businesses freely. That is not socialist as Socialismfavors corporations to be controlled by a government[1b], which isnot what is going on with Classical liberalism. Since this is a typeof liberalism without socialism, the other interpretation of theresolution is also proven false.

Conclusion
  • There are examples of socialism without liberalism
    • Liberalism needs the stress of individual rights
    • Stalin, while running a socialist nation, did not stress for individual rights
    • Stalin’s example is socialism without liberalism
  • There are examples of liberalism without socialism
    • Classical liberalism fits the definition of liberalism
    • Classical liberalism is capitalist and not socialist, it is an example of Liberalism without socialism
  • The statement "Liberalism is inherent with Socialism" is disproven by facts and logic
  • Vote Con.



Round 2
Pro
Firstly in response we should first recognise the phrasing of the statement saying that socialism is inherent with socialism not vice versa. The link being presented as such is from the specific sect of liberalism, which is inescapably liberalism just in a more "left wing" mindset. The link being made isn't from a socialist sect to all of liberalism (although that could also be viable due to owenism) or indeed all of liberalism to all of socialism, it is a portion of liberalism that effectively links to all of socialism.

Secondly the Contender looks exclusively at Stalinism as a sector of socialism instead of enforced Collectivism, making the link between Marxist-Leninism and it's sub-sects to Socialism is like linking Fascism and other Sub-sects to conservatism, it only works when you recognise the latter as a much "bigger tent" so to speak then it actually is.
Strangely enough however all sects of socialism with that actual name within the sub-ideology all emphasise formal, legal and social equality as opposed to authoritarian branch ideologies such as the mentioned Stalinism and Marxist-Leninism that did not have these crucial tenants of socialism, only adopting the collectivist ideas whilst subjugating specific groups, namely the Jews under stalin and former aristocracy in the post civil war period, to establish an inescapable hierarchy that usually follows with revolution, not necessarily socialism afterall the same happened in France in the later 1700's and  for a long period after the American war of independence.

I'm sorry I know this is quite a short response However I'd much rather skip formalities and just do the facts as is present, after all facts and logic don't care for feelings or formalities.
Con
My opponent did not properly source anything, so unless his common sense passes my check, everything, I repeat, EVERYTHING he said can be passed as an unsupported argument as Pro bears the BoP and...you know the drill.

Rebuttals

Firstly in response we should first recognise the phrasing of the statement saying that socialism is inherent with socialism not vice versa. The link being presented as such is from the specific sect of liberalism, which is inescapably liberalism just in a more "left wing" mindset. The link being made isn't from a socialist sect to all of liberalism (although that could also be viable due to owenism) or indeed all of liberalism to all of socialism, it is a portion of liberalism that effectively links to all of socialism.
"Socialism is inherent with socialism" is basically a truism and it proves nothing. As such, it is to be disregarded.  It is, in fact, untrue that Liberalism is just a "left-wing" mindset as I have proven that there exists a kind of liberalism called Classical liberalism, who advocates social progress for the world by stressing the economic rights of the individual[5]. Classical liberalism is capitalist as it favors individual economic rights and generally favors a laissez-faire economy instead of it being controlled similarly to the definitive socialist structure[1b]. There is at least one kind of right-wing liberalism.

I generally don't understand what Pro is trying to make when he says "It is a portion of liberalism that effectively links to all of socialism". However, whatever he is trying to make about it, I have proven that there is authoritarian and non-liberal socialism by Stalin[4] and non-socialist Classical liberalism[5]. That is basically written historical facts and I have yet to find proof showing that Stalinism doesn't exist or Classical liberalism isn't capitalist, at least of no authentic source whatsoever.

Secondly the Contender looks exclusively at Stalinism as a sector of socialism instead of enforced Collectivism, making the link between Marxist-Leninism and it's sub-sects to Socialism is like linking Fascism and other Sub-sects to conservatism, it only works when you recognise the latter as a much "bigger tent" so to speak then it actually is.
I have given evidence that Stalinism is communism[2] and Communism is socialism[3], which makes Stalinism a socialist ideology. Stalinism didn't care about individual rights yet it is still socialist. My opponent gave no authentic evidence that Stalinism isn't socialism. If you define "socialism" as its most barebone, skeletal form of socialism, then it is potentially impossible to define it practically as that there just isn't a working ideology with only a couple of outlines. If we define Socialism as any ideology that mainly practices the socialist ideology, then Stalinism, as I have shown by evidence, is socialist. My opponent did not respond to that Stalin is socialist, only responded by that he is collectivist, which, saying that socialism and collectivism is mutually exclusive is in itself unsupported, and I dismiss it as False Dichotomy.

As much Stalinism is a collectivism, it is also a socialism. Why can't you drop the false dichotomy and accept that it is both?

Conclusions
  • My opponent did not critique my definitions, as a result, they stand
  • My opponent dropped the fact Classical liberalism is a liberalism and it is not socialist
  • My opponent also dropped the fact that Stalin is a socialist
  • For what I interpreted, Pro moved the goalpost as the topic has shown no boundaries to the key terms yet in R2 Pro added "it is a portion of liberalism that effectively links to all of socialism." Even if it is not, the fact he dropped that classical liberalism is right-wing and Stalin is a socialist would lose him the win.
  • As a result, my opponent did not prove that Liberalism is inherent with socialism.
  • Vote CON.
Sources
The same as the last round.