Instigator / Pro

Marx's analysis of capitalism was mostly accurate.


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 2 votes and same amount of points on both sides ...

It's a tie!
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

Before we even get into Marx, a few things need to be said about Capitalism. Capitalism requires a state without exception and it creates and upholds a socio-economic hierarchy inherently.  It requires a state to protect private property and to mediate between the interests of the beorgiosie and the proletariat primarily, among other things. It always creates an established hierarchy (an aristocracy and peasantry essentially) because the means of production consist of finite real-world resources and the more land and resources are already owned the less economic freedom and opportunity there is for those who don't already own them.

This means that capitalism always ends up as a plutocracy at the end of the day. It doesn't matter if you're a libertarian, an anarcho-capitalist, or whatever else, capitalism in the real world is a system where rich people own everything and the masses work to make them more rich. If you try to deny this I will give you the same treatment a capitalist would give me when I try to explain the difference between communism and early-stage Marxian Socialism which has decayed into a bureaucracy. 

So what did Marx have to say about Capitalism? That it is based on exploitation and irrationality primarily.

Since private ownership means that there will be those who own and those who don't, and the more is already owned the less opportunity there is for those who don't own, that leaves the majority of people no option but to serve the wealthy and make them even more rich as a result. Thus the very system itself is based on benefiting the few at the expense of the many, and by it's very nature keeps those at the top at the top and those at the bottom at the bottom in most cases. There is room for exceptions, but most of the important land and resources have been controlled by the "robber baron elites"  since the beginning.
The above is more of a "big picture" observation, but the vast majority of businesses in general require some form of exploitation. Business usually entails paying workers less than the value they produce and the employer having the employees by the balls because the average person is forced to enter a "consensual contract" to make someone else rich with their own hard work just to put food on the table.

Capitalism is also irrational. Since the vast majority of economic activity is predicated on the pursuit of personal profit, and since the more capital you have the easier it is to generate profit, the management of resources is essentially left up to what rich people deem to be the most profitable investment. How the environment or civilization is affected is secondary to the pursuit of profit in capitalism. The environment takes a back seat to Mr. Rockefeller's oil stocks and to rampant, pointless hyper-consumerism. The lives of children take a back seat to western economic imperialism as America blows up civilians and invades poor countries to steal their resources.

waiting for Type1 to post his full argument beyond his introduction... Go ahead Typo, I'll wait.
Round 2
Voters, keep in mind the poor conduct displayed by con here. This lazy response is indicative of what kind of effort she has put into understanding Marx, yet she automatically rejects Marxism on no basis whatsoever other than years of western propaganda. Given that the vast majority of voters here are capitalists with similar biases, I do not expect to be voted the winner, but one thing you should keep in mind is that being a cunt is worse conduct wise than calling someone one.

Since con has so far provided absolutely nothing in the ways of an argument, and the argument I already posted does display a Marxist attitude towards capitalism, it is safe to say she has failed to even dispute, nevermind debunk some very basic Marxist ideas about capitalism. If you cannot even engage me on the most basic level of Marxist thinking, then you may as well just forfeit the entire debate. Your round one argument was already equivalent to a forfeit anyway.


So may criticism of Typo was direct.  He did not really post an argument. Reader’s should note this since that’s a requirement.  To win an argument you have to post one. He did throw out a lot of five dollar words and state some things that may sound intelligent but he recycled the most basic sum Of Marx’s position in my view.  This is all.

It was not a criticism of capitalism or Marx’s criticism.  It was just a rehashing on the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto which was one of the worst document I’ve read and and not one that really describes any proof for Marxs views.

No proof was included in his argument.

Trying to create an ‘Iron Man’ argument here as Pro did create a light case.

Here are the assertions he lays out without evidence:

Capitalism create a hierarchy, inhibits freedom, exploitive, irrational, Zero sum and is an initiator of the Hedonic Treadmill.  True to the religious form from Marx Pro just asserts these without explanation, makes no arguments to establish these statements are true and so insults the reader.

I’ll make an effort not t insult any readers.

First, my basic thoughts on the assertions Pro has spouted agressively are caused by capitalism: hierarchy, force to prevent freedom, exploitation, irrationality and the feel that life is just a zero sum game are all features of every primate collective here on earth.  As common as breathing, not features of capitalism. A description of reality. If this is Marx’s ‘analysis’ of capitalism what was it based on? Where is the data that confirms capitalism is the source of these features of human life.

To agree with Pro’s position you have to think both that Marx’s view of capitalism was an accurate description and that most things he said were accurate.  ‘Most’ is a broad taboo thing to say in many fields as it’s nearly impossible to establish.. Capitalism is less a system than a description of trade and markets.  It doesn’t exploit people since it’s just how they behave, rationality is only seen here from the outside since it was not a created thing and does not create a zero sum game since it is just a description and there are multiple markets to engage in not just one.  I’ll again encouge Pro to build a case about Marx’s opinion which is a large order, Pro has not bothered to describe it beyond the common cliches.

Round 3
Arguments extended.