My Socialism Is The Best System
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I have made this debate for the purpose of describing the economics and politics of Socialism and Socialist communes.
Definition of Socialism:
The definition of Socialism here is not the same as the one that google will give you.
Here, Socialism means each individual owning a piece of land where he produces more than enough food for himself, society being made up of small communes of maybe 20-30 people each, every individual in the commune produces food for himself while also taking part in the production of non-food products which can be produced either by individual alone either people in the commune working with joint effort and sharing the gain according to work.
Karl Marx did say "To each according to his work"
But Socialist communes bring that into life as when individual produces food for himself, he will eat what he has grown. If he has grown food using pesticides, that is what he will eat. If he has grown organic healthy food, that is what he will have.
Producing food is actually easy, its not much work if you only produce for yourself and family, it wont take a lot of daily time.
This leaves time for other activities, such as work in the factory the commune owns, or maybe work in education.
With this, another Karl Marx message becomes reality:
"...makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening..."
However, commune brings this message to the next level, as when capitalist competition and exploitation is removed, people work for themselves. Which means they only work enough to sustain their own needs and not the needs of the rich. Hence, they have more free time.
With the diversity in activities, life becomes more interesting.
Communes can trade with each other allowing more advanced production.
These communes can exist under capitalism too and trade with capitalism. They are still one version of Socialism as long as worker controls the necessary means of production and isnt exploited by the capitalist state.
In communes, workers not only have the incentive to produce in higher quantity, but also in quality. As you want for the food you eat to be the best possible, it is best for you to produce the food by yourself for yourself. No need for certificates or inspection, as you know what you have produced.
I will explain further the benefits of these communes and their union into a socialist state.
Basically, these communes are one version of Richard Wolfs socialism.
The opponent in this debate simply has to find a better system than this one, which can be just a different and better type of Socialism than the one I presented.
When it comes to burdens in a debate like this, I'd usually treat them as split if both sides are defending a single system, though this case is a little different as Con is defending the status quo, whereas Pro is presenting an untried system. That does place the burden firmly on Pro, which isn't good for him.
Pro's system has a lot of holes in it, and in his attempts to explain them, there's nothing beyond claims of evidence to go on. The closest Pro gets to providing evidence is listing details of a bunch of different crop types and explaining how they would fit within an acre, which is interesting, but should be supported by actual sources and not just stated by Pro, especially when there's a source on Con's side that contradicts those claims.
In general, though, Pro seems exceedingly optimistic without cause. He gives all these numbers, but doesn't show that they're likely to happen if someone is just beginning farming for the first time. He doesn't engage with issues of disease or famine of any sort (in fact, he dismisses all claims of poor food quality as not adding poison to it, rather than reflecting on the aspects of food quality that go beyond actively seeking to harm yourself), and when it comes to very basic issues of managing this feat, Pro kind of just spends the debate shrugging. He shrugs off the temporal and monetary costs of moving people across the country as though they're extremely easy to manage.
However, I think it's the following statement that got to me the most:
"If everyone wanted to implement my Socialism, those who own too much land would gift most of it to those who have none.
If half of people wanted to implement my Socialism they would have to find some way to buy land. If they cant do this, then its not possible."
Pro says something along these lines several times, arguing that it's everyone's choice to join his system. If that's the case, then Pro should be giving pretty good reason why there would be mass buy-in, especially if he's banking on rich people giving away a lot of land for free. Yet, at no point in the debate does Pro show that any rich person, much less enough rich people to make this feasible, would join into his system. And it's that second line that really does him in because he's actively admitting that he has no solvency if only "half of people wanted to implement" his system. Where's the money going to come from? Where is any support going to come from? The central government has no power in this system, so I have no clue where it would come from. So, it's unclear whether Pro can even secure the land to make this possible. Even if he's right that everyone can grow everything they need on one acre, he gives no basis for believing that he can secure even that much, much less the housing required to ensure these people aren't homeless, the base resources to ensure that they can start farming, the training required to get started, the transport required to get them to these sites, or even access to all the other jobs that he says these people will maintain in a brand new part of the country with likely few established hospitals, law firms, etc.
There's just too much that Pro assumes will happen to make his system successful that he doesn't ever substantiate. Con, by contrast, only has to show that the existing system works better than one that has no feasible path forward. It does, ergo he wins the debate. Sources to Con as well for providing them, since Pro actively eschewed their usage.
The description confused me at first. I assumed that Pro wanted to legislate such a system, but he later argued that no force would be used. Nothing in the description specifies this, so I think it's fair to interpret this as arguing: if everyone conformed to this system voluntarily, would we be better off? We obviously have problems with feasibility, and Pro's premise ignores it entirely. Granting this to Pro seems to be unfair to Con, but I'll allow it for now and see what Con has to say.
After reading Con's argument about the costs of such a system, I'm inclined to agree with their empirical approach. Not having links doesn't do Pro any favors, and Con tends to win on speculation as well; Pro's argument for exploitation isn't very well developed and doesn't address the risk employers assume. Without a strong point for Pro and several strong counterpoints (weak governments resulting in strife, for example) it's not really relevant what the premise of the debate is. Whether or not force is used, Con seemed to effectively argue that the proposed system would have more weaknesses than benefits. A lot of this ended in "no it is, yes it isn't" back and forth, but overall, Con came out on top.
Pro basically forfeits the source point. They probably should have put something in the description negating this point if they weren't planning to use sources, but whatever. I'm going by the rules here.
I'll vote on this one, please vote on mine
I'll vote on this one. Please vote on my debate.
I'll aim to get a vote up over the weekend.
I need vote for this, please.
Yeah, this debate is a forgone conclusion.
I published an argument with an actual calculations. Hes gonna have to try much harder now to complete this debate.
How so?
Its like watching a bunch of 4 year olds trying to figure out advanced math.
You're right, it just felt hyperbolic until i did the calculations myself, as understandably it sounds like a lot for so little people.
"3 acres is barely enough as you said vegetables alone take up the entire space and more, this isn't even factoring fruits. So Cons case is pretty doomed either way with even a vegan diet as you still need 10 per person."
Oh absolutely, it should be fun to watch his response.
Examining your line of reasoning, I think you functionally misunderstand the distinction I am creating between the average amount of land and the amount of land required for lasting self sufficiency concerning food production. This is not only a critical, but imperative reason as to why you are incorrect with your assessment. You posit that selecting everything for two people only goes up to 15. This is immaterial as the average American family is composed on 3 people.
3 acres is barely enough as you said vegetables alone take up the entire space and more, this isn't even factoring fruits. So pros case is pretty doomed either way with even a vegan diet as you still need 10 per person.
You can literally do the calculations yourself on the site, and change family size etc. I'm not disagreeing with you but even if i put it to two people and click literally everything available it only goes up to 20. We dont need all the different types of animals to survive. Admittedly its still too much for con to probably argue against it still being viable but your sources are still likely highballed but they're still in the same range of course so its not much of a complaint.
I gave a range of 15-41 (should be 51) and used the lowest number for my calculations. Do you personally see such a difference as highballing or ridiculous, or is it a case where you did not fully read my argument and observe the figures I used for calculation of the minimum land requirements? Regardless, your source is speaking specifically about feeding one individual " for a year," something we can ascertain is irrelevant to the current predicament as my figures illustrate the amount of land required for for food self sufficiency permentantly.
Here's a calculator you can use to see.
https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-feed-one-person/
"To produce enough food to feed a family of four for a year, provided you have a suitable climate condition, you’ll need about 13 acres of land if you’re growing all sources of meat on your farm and 7 acres if you’re raising just pigs. Remember pathways are necessary for easy farm access, and at least 0.5 acres of land should be invested in that."
Novice admittedly highballs it massively with 40 acres, that's ridiculous in most cases unless you're trying to be more than self sufficient but sell to others.
Even for a vegan diet for 1 person you still take up over 3 acres per one person.
I have no clue how I didn't see that second sentence. That's my bad.
Right, which is why to be the most charitable, I made a range from the lowest value of the general consensus (5) to the official estimate of the FAO (17). Thanks for giving this clarification. I believe going off the general consensus is most sufficient for this engagement.
I agree that his claim is misleading... the source doesn't necessarily agree with his claim. The source clearly states that the calculation is being debated, but the general observation is that a person needs 5-10 acres to sustain themselves. It literally says, "The General Consensus is 5-10 acres to be self-sufficient."
Socialism cannot be yours. It belongs to the people. 'My socialism' can literally be argued as something that does not exist.
No, he provided a link to the site that has 20 different contradicting informations.
From his site:
"According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person. "
"An infographic by 1BOG.org breaks it down to about 2 acres of land for a family of four. This includes approximately 12,000 sq. feet for wheat, 65 for eggs, 2640 for corn, 100 for dairy, 207 for meat, and 77,000 square feet for vegetables."
"Proponents of aquaponics say that 90% of our dietary needs can be grown in 50 square feet."
"Permaculture advocates say that ¼ acre per person is adequate when permaculture is combined with poultry, fruit trees, and possibly aquaponics."
"Clive Blazey in his book The Australian Vegetable Garden (Amazon Link) claims that 42 square meters of space is enough to support four people."
"John Seymour in his book The New Complete Guide to Self-Sufficiency (Amazon Link) says that 5 acres is enough to be food sufficient in high-rainfall areas of the UK."
And then the site cocludes that if you are a vegan, you need at least 5 acres of land for yourself...
On 5 acres of land, every year you can produce 50 tonnes of food if you are a beginner. So basically, unless everyone in america eats 100 kg of food every day, this is not a valid source.
I mean, just googling the sites that make claim without providing evidence is the same as if he himself made that baseless claim.
I simply asked for calculations, the source of the claim. His sources are just claims unsupported by calculations.
They provide the link in their case.
"the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person."
Can I get the link as I cant seem to find the idiotic site that claimed something like this.
1 acre of land produces, in bad conditions, 10 tonnes of food per year. Average person eats 1 ton of food per year at best.
he just doesn't know how to respond against your galaxy brain economic system.
You got about 2 hours to post an argument or you forfeit. I dont mean to be annoying, if you want to forfeit i dont care. This is just in case you forgot about debate.
I dont know exactly how to name this Socialism. I can find some similar examples of it in worker coops around the world, but it doesnt seem to have some special name.
It is very similar to Kim Jong Ils Juche system of self reliance in food production in its general principle. However, instead of applying it to a country as a whole and dividing a country on those who produce food and those who dont, I applied it to every individual so that every individual produces food for himself and as such achieving self reliance in food production.
It is based upon some principles of Juche. But the organization itself is based upon something like union of the workers coops in combination with equal distribution of the land to ensure food production. Basically, instead of dividing society on those who produce food and those who dont, in this Socialism everyone owns a piece of land and produces food for himself.
This saves resources, gives the incentive to produce quality and quantity, as the more you produce the more you will have.
What is "My socialism"? Juche?
Good luck to both debaters, seems like a fun topic!