Instigator / Pro
14
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#617
Marx's analysis of capitalism was mostly accurate.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1476
rating
2
debates
25.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#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.
Round 2
Pro
#3
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.
Con
#4
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Completely unproven by both sides. I found no reason to even remotely regard one single argument.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
1.) pro must outline what the analysis of capitalism is by Marx (he only vaguely does this).
2.) pro must show this analysis matches the reality of actual capitalism (he barely - if at all does this).
Con points out that pro hasn’t established his position - and I agree. Therefore I cannot award arguments to pro. However con has to make a case also that marx was not accurate - this was marginal only by con. Con argues that the objections Marx raised are issues with humans in general not with capitalism.
As he mostly just asserts these, just as he accuses pro of doing - I have scant reason to rule in cons favor either. As a reader I’m left with not knowing whether Marx was mostly accurate or not - so I’m forced to award arguments as a draw.
Conduct - I normall award points automatically for the forfeit - but as con was petulant, and didn’t raise an argument in round 1 - this balances out, so I am forced to award conduct as a tie.
Hey, I just discovered PragerU. An insignificant historical footnote. That's exactly the language I'd use for Marx. Capitalism is as useful as it is and is always present even in the communist utopian world constructed my Marx's enlightened religious dogma.
There is nothing fine about treating Marxism like an insignificant historical footnote which is easy to debunk. I can already tell she has no understanding of Marxism or even capitalism for that matter, she is going to spew a bunch of crap that you'd expect to hear on PragerU most likely.
If I can't even present her with a brief synopsis of why capitalism sucks without her complaining about deviating from the debate title I can tell this is going to be a shit fest.
that's no way to speak to this fine lady.
Disagreeing with Marx is one thing, but anyone who thinks they can "destroy" Marxism is an idiot. Only a brainwashed moron with a completely warped view of Marxism takes it so lightly. Marx's analysis of capitalism is extensive, far too extensive to entirely cover in this debate, and if you had one tenth the intelligence that it takes to attempt to "destroy" something that is in large part objectively correct then you would understand why participating in this debate requires you to at least understand what capitalism is. This first round was an IQ test and you've failed it. I expect you to regurgitate a bunch of fallacies and propaganda you absorbed from mainstream media now so get on with it.
your title was heavily dependent on Marx. I only need to destroy his view to get a win.
How am I not sticking to my debate title? I am explaining why capitalism is crap and showing you how Marxists see capitalism.
Cool, you're not sticking to your debate title. Personally, I think capitalism is helpful and necessary. I'll try to castrate Marx in my argument as I don't think he was particularly thoughtful in general. Remember, your resolution is about Marx and his view.
I'm not a fan of Marx's Communist Manifesto, which reads like a religious document, or am I convinced his demonization of capitalism which is essentially confirmed as the most efficient system to utilize market resources no matter what general form of government is used. Still, I am looking forward to your response.
That's a long story and if you have to ask this probably isn't the debate for you unless you're looking for a strictly educational experience rather than a debate win. The short version is that capitalism necessitates exploitation, benefits the corrupt at the expense of the innocent and is prone to all sorts of problems that can only be fixed with Socialism. If you have any questions I will try to answer but if you want a truly thorough understanding you will have to read mountains of books. I can recommend some to you if you'd like.
What was his vision of capitalism?