Instigator / Pro
Socialism VS Capitalism
The voting period has ended
After 2 votes the winner is ...
Time for argument
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The implications of capitalism are as follows:
A) The wealthy will own the means of production, because it "takes money to make money"
B) What is produced is only produced to profit the wealthy
C) The rich get richer, and wealth is inherited leading to a system which is barely better than feudalism
D) The poor are forced to work for the wealthy to survive, and thus society is designed to enslave humanity to a small cluster of privileged parasites who serve no purpose on this earth other than to make themselves more rich.
The implications of socialism are as follows:
A) There is equality of opportunity, because everyone has the same access to education and the things which are necessary for a healthy human existence. No one is born into privilege and no one is born into poverty.
B) Industry is managed by those who understand their respective industries. Engineers for example, will govern engineering rather than businessmen.
C) Everyone will benefit, because it is governed through democracy and methodology rather than the interests of the few.
D) Useless pieces of crap will not be able to acquire wealth or power, and intelligent and capable people will not be forced to use their talents to benefit the useless pieces of crap. Everyone must have a productive existence, because society is based on what serves the community rather than what serves some fat Jew on wallstreet.
"The implications of capitalism are as follows:A) The wealthy will own the means of production, because it "takes money to make money"B) What is produced is only produced to profit the wealthyC) The rich get richer, and wealth is inherited leading to a system which is barely better than feudalismD) The poor are forced to work for the wealthy to survive, and thus society is designed to enslave humanity to a small cluster of privileged parasites who serve no purpose on this earth other than to make themselves more rich."
A) Anyone can own all or part of a business. To do this, you merely have to:
-Start your own business, as what all these, "Fat Cats" have done. These captains of industry created jobs and lifted many people out of poverty by providing them with jobs. If anyone else runs their business, then the business would fall apart.
If that is too risky, a risk that the Captains of Industry had to work pretty hard to overcome, you may
-Simply own stock in an existing business or mutual fund, something that a majority of Americans take part in(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xnwdiyq-vkigopl2cn_mlw.gif). In other words, the workers can take over a business if they collectively buy enough stock for it.
I own stock in 4 different stocks and mutual funds, and I have managed to get pretty rich for someone my age from the investing. It takes money to make money, and these businesses have to either do the following to raise that money since they don't often have it themselves. They can do this by:
-Taking out a big boy loan from a bank, which they have to develop a lot of money to pay back, which is why they tend to hate taxes. They already have loans to pay back if they pick this route.
- Selling part of their company to stock holders. Not only is it wrong to take a business from someone in order to have it run by those who work the labor, but it's also impossible since these, "Fat Cats" only hold a minority of the shares in their company. They simply run it because it's their job, it's their craft. Just like a cashier is good at cashiering, just like a plumber is good at plumbing, CEOs are good at leading others to get stuff done within a business. Now although they get paid way more then other people while working comparably hard, it's not about work. It's about production to society. As an example, if you worked 80 hours a week on solving a crossword puzzle, you don't deserve any payment for it.
If a CEO gets paid 10000x more then a cashier, then it's safe to say that the CEO is 10000x as productive to society as the cashier. If you take away the CEO, your whole company is screwed. If you take away the cashier, then you can find a new one pretty easily and your company will barely suffer in the cases of companies like Shop Rite.
B) What is produced benefits everyone. The rich get money, and you get things like an Iphone. Multiply this by billions of people with Iphones, and you can end up with billionaire captains of industry.
"The rich get richer" The poor get richer too, just not by as much. Thanks to Capitalism, a poor person today lives better then someone from the middle class 100 years ago. The poor have Iphones for example and color TV. The middle class didn't have that stuff back then.
"The rich get richer, and wealth is inherited leading to a system which is barely better than feudalism"
One of the many differences between Capitalism and Feudalism is in Feudalism, the top .1% don't contribute to society much for that wealth. Social class is also not movable. In Capitalism, the 1% club is always open to new members, and you don't need to be in the top 1% to have a good life. The 1% tend to be very productive to society for their wealth and only about 20% of billionaires in the US got rich from inheritance. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for example, didn't get rich off of inheritance. They had to start a technological revolution in order to get very rich.
"The poor are forced to work for the wealthy to survive, and thus society is designed to enslave humanity to a small cluster of privileged parasites who serve no purpose on this earth other than to make themselves more rich."" Their purpose on this Earth is to make society better.
" Engineers for example, will govern engineering rather than businessmen." Engineers are good at Engineering. They are not good at governing. Businessmen on the other hand, are skilled at running businesses.
"Useless pieces of crap will not be able to acquire wealth or power" Do you think people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ellon Musk, or Warren Buffet are useless pieces of crap? They all made their businesses from scratch.
"Everyone must have a productive existence" With the exception of the unemployed, everyone does from Capitalism.
"because society is based on what serves the community rather than what serves some fat Jew on wallstreet." I thought you were against anti semetism. But I digress. Capitalism serves both. The rich get paid. Everyone else gets technological advancement.
The 1% contributed significantly to society for their wealth(with the exception of inheritance money). If it wasn't for the 1%, we would be living like the Amish.
Ok, I'll make another when someone accepts this one.
--> @Type1, @RationalMadman
Thanks RM, I try :-).
I'll consider it, but I have a debate going on right now. Maybe in a little bit I'll accept.
That just makes me want to debate him now. Perhaps I can make another one for Alec and he can take this one.
Blamonkey is the only debater who actually is on my level (if not above it) on this site that I know of based on actual thinking capacity and ability to put reason into words. You'd be buried by him on this even if you beat Alec. That's not a physical threat (have to say this explicitly for now).
Socialism, Alec wanted this debate though.
Are you for capitalism or socialism?
|Better arguments||✗||✗||✔||3 points|
|Better sources||✗||✔||✗||2 points|
|Better spelling and grammar||✗||✔||✗||1 point|
|Better conduct||✗||✗||✔||1 point|
Pro's opening argument was effectively a rant (with needless references to "worthless pieces of crap" and "fat jews") which seemed to only reflect his personal opinions, due to a lack of any sources being offered. Con provided a detailed rebuttal, using actual sources. Pro then forfeits the remainder of the debate with no further material offered. Basically a full forfeit (with bad conduct) from Pro, with Con at least putting in appropriate effort.
|Better arguments||✗||✗||✔||3 points|
|Better sources||✗||✗||✔||2 points|
|Better spelling and grammar||✗||✗||✔||1 point|
|Better conduct||✗||✗||✔||1 point|