Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5071

Capitalism is no longer in the best interest of humanity

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1479
rating
316
debates
39.08%
won
Description

This is a classic debate subject but it can never hurt to do it again. Is it in the best interest of humanity to continue living under Capitalism, or should we strive to distribute wealth and ownership of property in an alternative way?

Round 1
Pro
#1
I'm going to break down my argument into two pieces:

A Natural Progression Away From Capitalism:

Capitalism is of course an improvement from what came before it: being feudal and mercantilist societies that were mostly to the benefit of the aristocracy at the time. However, as the feudal states liberalized, the lower nobility and affluent peasantry united to form the modern capitalist class and set the basis for the world economy. It is my belief that humans and their beliefs are always evolving and that with time most things will run their course. Capitalism has improved the lives of millions who would otherwise be serfs or peasants. Now, it's time to further progress into an economic system that benefits us all. By relinquishing economic power from the modern Bourgeoise and ensuring that workers have complete control over the places in which they input their labor, I think we will have created a more egalitarian and just society. There will be complications but with a steady pace and a commitment to democracy, I don't think a transition to Socialism or something like it would have to be treacherous.

The Complications of Capitalism and Its Late Stages

As a result of so much power being concentrated in the hands of so few, the rights of the worker have been trampled on time and time again. The exploitative nature of Capitalism is more prevalent now than almost ever before (save for the Industrial Revolution). The system incentives excess and waste through its prioritization of profit, which is held in higher regard than almost anything else. So much of this profit goes only to widening the pockets of shareholders and the corporate class, creating grotesque wealth disparities through the developed and developing worlds. What profit isn't used for this is given to the lower-tier workers as (often pathetic) wages or put towards expanding the corporation into other markets. This growth is entirely unreliable and unstable, as it's not always in the best interests of a corporation (when it cares little for its workers) to keep production in one particular area, as the corporation would rather export labor to another country for 1/3 the cost than to ensure the people in its community are employed, fed, and housed.

Summary

Capitalism is out-dated and does not prioritize human needs or wellbeing. Its gross search for profit has led to countless sufferings, and will likely lead to many more due to environmental impact, poverty, artificial inflation, and monetization of basic goods/needs. We should take it upon ourselves as a species to transition to an alternative system of economic organization before it ruins us further.
Con
#2
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
#3
I’ll give you this round to respond, sorry if the time is too short lol
Con
#4
Better late than never.

"I want to see the arguments for the continuing of Capitalism as a global economic system as well as a case against alternative systems like Socialism."

Without the continuation of capitalism, I can't continue to function inside my private business. I worked for my business, continue to work for it, I have entitlement to it. Not you or any other socialist does unless they can show otherwise.

On the flip side, if I'm offering for partner arrangement and that extends for an entire community, it offers flexibility where everything everywhere is not under a singular system.

"Is it in the best interest of humanity to continue living under Capitalism, or should we strive to distribute wealth and ownership of property in an alternative way?"

The two can interrelate. A capitalist such as I can give wealth as an investment and or establish a non profit organization with my wherewithal involving others to utilize what the organization offers. A capitalist such as I can give wealth of knowledge to communities of society to be capitalists in objective to establish what's called generational wealth. Again, wealth not just solely monetarily.

If noticed so far, I'm not dropping one system or making a one size fits all. I'm taking what's already in place and explaining how what's there branches out.

See the fundamental universal system is basically what it is regardless of any other social system anyone wants to add on to the universal system already there. That is, cause and effect, do's and don'ts to get a result.

Thereby what am I doing, why for what purpose?

That's the same formula, universal formula going on living in any type of economy,  currency or politics.

Round 3
Pro
#5
Wonderful! I'll respond to each point you made.

"Without the continuation of capitalism, I can't continue to function inside my private business. I worked for my business, continue to work for it, I have entitlement to it."

I'm assuming that you either founded this business yourself or with others. I'm also going to assume that this is a small business and that you're not secretly the founder and CEO of a Fortune 500. Going off of this, I agree that because of your input of labor towards the business, you are of course entitled to the benefits of your labor. However, you are not the only person to put forth your labor in this business and through a Socialist perspective, the workers inside your business should administrate it cooperatively alongside you.

"Not you or any other socialist does unless they can show otherwise."

I never said I did. I specifically stated the workers inside a corporation deserve to collectively own it, not a state or myself. This is a common misconception about Socialism: that Socialists want to steal your property or hate every entrepreneur. We simply think that the control over wealth and profits inside a corporation are hierarchal and unjust, considering most corporations are not run by just one person.

"A capitalist such as I can give wealth as an investment and or establish a non profit organization with my wherewithal involving others to utilize what the organization offers."

Giving to charity is an amazing thing and so is taking the initiative to start your own non-profit in order to help your community. I would never condemn you for this. However, we should consider why these communities need capitalists like yourself to donate money to them. The privatization of the means of production has lead, as a stated before, to a massive concentration of wealth. If we were to do away with this, workers would be able to use the profits to increase their wages and working conditions, thereby preventing them and their families from living in poverty. There would still be need from charity, I'm sure, but not to the extent we see today.

"A capitalist such as I can give wealth of knowledge to communities of society to be capitalists in objective to establish what's called generational wealth. Again, wealth not just solely monetarily."

This may be a benefit to having an upper-class pre-Internet, but I can assure you that there are literally thousands of ways of receiving financial education via the web and they're not going away anytime soon. Also, I don't know why you sight one of the benefits to capitalism being capitalists teaching poor people how to be capitalists to me: an open socialist. From my view, you're simply teaching these people how to exploit more and more workers. Now, they could take your advice to heart and in twenty years time become an ultra-rich rags-to-riches plutocrat. But they would be using the same system of exploitation to become wealthy that oppressed them. There would still be that unjust concentration of wealth, it would just be in their hands. Not everyone can be a capitalist, and therefore, there will always be a lower-class under Capitalism.

"See the fundamental universal system is basically what it is regardless of any other social system anyone wants to add on to the universal system already there. That is, cause and effect, do's and don'ts to get a result.
Thereby what am I doing, why for what purpose?
That's the same formula, universal formula going on living in any type of economy,  currency or politics."

Yes, the universal system is a basic form of input-output that almost any society would have to follow, but why does this justify Capitalism? Why not make the the processes of the input-output system more ethical and sustainable?

Next I think you should respond to what I said about exploitation in Capitalism. With you being a capitalist, I'd like to see your point of view on the matter from a historical and personal perspective. Please do not limit yourself to talking about small businesses either.

Sorry the debate isn't longer than three rounds. Thank you for taking the time to debate with me. We can continue after this if you'd like!

Con
#6
Too bad we just blew right threw this thing. If you desire a part 2 to this, just send me a message.

Everything you've said , capitalism can still work. If you don't look at capitalism negatively and decide to start a business and do well for yourself, what's wrong with that?

You make an honest living for yourself. You can teach others the trade. You can have ones that inherit your business and everything.

I go back to what I said about the universal formula which is the foundation. I'm doing what and why for what?

Taking the biased negative view out of things, we both want positive, constructive results, do we not?

This would mean no person is mistreated so non constructive exploitation would be out. Any kind of mistreatment, injustice and adversity would be out.

Do we think this is impossible with capitalism?

All capitalism means at least when I use the term is making it on you own in a financial matter with intermittent assistance from others.

Also as I've said or at least attempted to communicate, you can have socialism co-exist.

How ?

Social members, members of society can own part of a private business. They can be part shareholders. They can invest or they can partake in non profit organizations that offer goodwill type programs (education, shelter, housing, financial aid, job opportunities, other opportunities), dietary goods, clothing, books, toys, volunteering, etc.

These are things and programs not meant to mistreat anybody but things that can empower financial wise, health wise, knowledge wise, everything to build up an individual. The advantages are there for anyone to make better of themselves.

Now think of it. This is all started and was made possible with an idea, agenda, objective or mission from a capitalist that took proceeds out of his business.

See I'm giving you the constructive positive beneficial advantageous side of things. Things that will help, serve and correctly treat the community.

Teaching people how to do for themselves is not mistreatment. Giving them funds from one capitalist to another or an aspiring one is not mistreatment.

For the capitalists that are in the business of mistreatment which some may refer to as white supremacists, you're debate is not with me on that.

What you have in mind is ill will persons I guess.

But capitalism can be used in a constructive fashion.