"Socialism promotes the formation of a classless society in which equal

opportunities are provided to all, this also helps in maximising the

potential of each individual, and this view is shared by technocratic

socialists. EQUALITY OF OUTCOME:"

This is why capitalism is better. Brain drain. When everyone gets treated/paid = then smart people leave to capialist countries becasue their work will yeild success, and the dumber people will enter the country because sociaism ewards te poor and the lazy, not the smart and the hard working. Also you have proved no benifit to your case.

"The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or none. Capitalism advocates

the concentration of wealth, resources and power in the hands of few

people."

This is used against capitalism all the time, and no it doesn't advocate that at all. It advocates if you work then you get rich. If you don't you become/stay poor. Also what benifit is there to having all having the same money? explain this. Also Karl marx: "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Well he naver answrs one question: Who gets the money? And why? Why do they deserve it? So soialism has unanswered questions that lead to uncertianty.

"The values of kindness, honesty and goodwill for all, are what set

humans physiologically apart from animals, these values are showcased

throughout the system of socialism."

This is an economic type debate. Why do we want this! Econmically those points are a failure, lets look at history:

USSR-failedVietnam-failed when the USSR didNorth Korea-people sarving in the streets, their economy is less than missisipis. FailedCHina- when they where socialist they failed. Now they reformed the system allowing enterpenurship. So they saved themselves through capitalist reforms. Cuba-failing

etc. History repeats itself, socialism sucks.

"Capitalism causes the degradation of artisans and craftsmen, to routine

machine-like work. Capitalism has absolutely no space for the natural or

acquired talent of people."

Actally its the opposite. In capitalism you get rewarded through hard work and talent. In socialism you get neither. You get paid as much as the guy next to you, so it creaes laziness because you will still get that pay check. So capitalism actually has moreroom for that then socialism.

"In a socialist system, society is ruled and controlled by the people"

Really? So why did in Nazi Germany (yes economic socialists) give no freedom. Ho about east germany? USSR? Cuba? Canada is taking them away slowly? Vietnam? Capitalism is FREEDOM OF CHOICE! in soialistic societys the goverment owns you, your supplies, and eerything you know. What they say goes. Also capitilism is parially run by money, as that is why it succeds. Benifits, and incentives are capitilist. Would you rather make things and make more money, or make things and receive the same amount of small wages your dumb neighbor gets. In economy incentives make you go round and round. In socialistic countries you have No

freedom of choice, or incentives. Your argument is a fallacy.

"Socialism has provisions and rights for the welfare of people, like the

right to work, the right to education, the right to free health care at the

point of use etc"

Well ecoomically it doesn't work. And free health care isn't free, it involves huga amounts of taxes. The right to work doesn't economically hold up because the employer won't have enough money to pay the employees, especially if he gets paid as much as them. Right to education is in this country to. public schools, the goverment makes you goto school, homeshool, public, private. So in a capitalist society you get that benifit. And for those of you who like that healthcare then obamacare will give it to you, in a capitalist society. This argument too is a fallacy.

"Capitalist monopolies lead to certain individuals earning obscene

amounts of profits, by selling products and services at exorbitant prices."

False, monompiles have never occured for long periods of time in our country. They are short lived. In a socilist company the goverment is the monopoly, and they will do what u said above, raise prices. So do you want goverment beurocrats or yourself dealing with economic needs? I choose self. So should you.

"Socialist economies are well planned and focus more on human

happiness and unity rather than the glorification or gratification of a

relatively small group of the population of a nation."

COrrect nice over economy. Fail of an argument because profit = money, oney = good economy. Happiness = great. but = well how about the economy? Sure the

poor are happy, but our economy is in the tube look at greece.

"America is a capitalist nation and is now in a great debt crisis"

Actually so is greece. And their sami-socialist economically. It is not an economic system that does this, its the goverment. Socialism calls for more spending, capialism doesn't. Obama has tried kesyian and socialist economics. It has failed. And increased the debt. Also at least we arent like greece, riots. Italy-brink of riots.

Greek GDP:$304.87 Billion US dollars at current prices - 2010

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators

their debt: 341, 424, 616, 718 and rising, in euros too. The number above is in US dollars, lets multipy it by divide teir debthttp://nationaldebtclocks.com...

their debt in $: almost the size of their economy. Also their inflation is higher then ours, yes a socialist country is worse off.

"China, a socialist nation, owns the largest amount of foreign debt in The

United States Of America"

So? They are a 3rd world nation (they pee on the streets...ew) and also the only reason their economy is rowing is because they have had capitalist reforms allowing enterpenureship, after those reforms they econom boomed. So a few capitalist reforms saved them.

"The United States Of America also showcase a large number of bank

failures with their capitalist economy."

GOOD! the banks choose and did dumb things, their problem. May unds cruel, but when the economy was truly capitalist like 1900 and before) the banks rerely defaulted. And guess what, 2 goverment agecies and 2 no 3 people caused this.

Freddi mae, freddi mac. Their regulations fored the housing bubble and forced the banks to intervene. Goverment forcing a decline, socialist goverments do this all of the time.

Barney frank: his commitie passed other regulations on the housing and banks to, again, the goverments fault

Bill Clinton: Did what barney frank did

George W. Bush: Failed to react by killing the laws and regulations.

So the goverment made the problem, and guess what, socialist countries control the economy and make the same mistakes.

"So much for a capitalist economy being efficient!"

Then tell me why even in the case of this madness our economy is still the best? No govrment agancy is efficient, so under socialim it slows things down.

"The Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, etc.) are

consistently rated the best places to live"

It's cause those countries are small. Socialism works well in small countries, but in countries bigger than those then it fails. You forgot switzerland, the most capitalist country.

"ensure that anyone can receive the medical care they need"

my dad (doctor) says that their healthcare system is terrible.

Actully the only socialist countries are here: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Several Socialist organizations are thriving"

the countries in that wikipedia suck.

I am out of room, this article explains the arguments I would have made i I have room: http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Report this Argument

Con

rhea97 forfeited this round.

Pro

aw she killed her account, I will copy and paste my argument from my blog:

Frankly, it is socialist economics, though you can try to paper over that fact all that

you want.When a government intervenes in a market, it upsets the dynamics of a market and forces inefficiencies. In fact, I would strongly argue that government is responsible for the high health care costs today. [1]

(health care industry is a good example)

As soon as you get government involved, there are mandates of what plans have to include, it increases prices and consolidates supply. That is bad for the consumers of health care. [1]

Same applies to other industries

Not only that, but the government would require taxes to fund such programs. Lets think about that word. It has two meanings which are very closely related. On one hand, it means a government forcibly taking money from an entity. At the same time, it means to place an undue burden on an activity which ultimately limits it. In fact, taxation reduces your economic freedom, placing an undue burden on your ability to prosper while a parasitic government leeches from you. Time and time again has shown that a reduction in tax rates will stimulate the economy and a production of more revenue. [1]

So socialism raises taxes, ruins industry, and forces you to buy products.

The solution for the 21st century isn't more government interference in your life and less freedom, it is less government interference and more freedom. [1]

Socialism is bad because it is condescending, inefficient, and immoral.

Although it sounds appealing on paper, it just doesn't work in practice. for one big reason, brain drain.

In a socialist society smart people won't get rewarded for their efforts, they get the same pay as the cashier. So they move to places where they can get more money, so the smart people leave. Dumb people go to the socialist areas because they earn more there then they can in America. So in socialist states, smart people leave, dumb people enter. Hence, brain drain.

Socialism is bad because it is condescending. Socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money.

Socialism is inefficient because it makes economic calculation impossible. Although you can predict it well, how it's gonna end up in 30 years is harder to do.

Socialism is immoral because it takes the smart people's success and gives it to the poor, which sounds great, but this causes brain drain. As stated above.

Now this is a lets compare DP wealth per capitaUSA = 46,860vsChina = 7,544

Uk (economically capatilist, not socialy) = 35,059vslaos = 2,449

Source: international monetary fund (in US $)

So in capitalist countries you make more money, socialism = less money.

History:

Its sad, socialism was the most common system historically, sadly it doesn't work. The USSR, 3rd world country other than their military, then collapsed. Vietnam, socialistic, collapsed into semi-socialism, still struggling. China, where struggling, passed CAPITALIST reform allowing entrepreneurship. Without that capitalist reform they would still be struggling, socialism failed there, they fixed it with a little capitalism. Greece, semi socialist, look what's happening to them. Look at history, history repeats itself. And if that's true then socialism always fails.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" –Karl Marx

"…I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." –Barack Hussein Obama to Joe the Plumber

Both quotes call for the redistribution of wealth. Both quotes talk about who needs to give the wealth and who needs to get it. However, neither quote addresses the most important questions: Who gets the wealth ? Why do they deserve it ? [2]

So tell me: Why does Subject A have to pay for B, C, or D's crap ? Why does A owe B,C, or D anything ? [2]

So hard working person a, rich, should he give his money to B or C, or even welfare D? if he chooses to, but under socialism it is forced. Capitalism lets you choose, socialism just forces you. Also either way, why do they deserve A's money?

There are no answers to any of the questions that socialism brings up. Yes, we must

love our neighbor as the Bible commands, but "love thy neighbor" does not mean "support thy neigbor while he sips a margarita on a hammock while you work yourself into an early grave." Ethically, as a society, we have a responsibility to care for those who TRULY can not care for themselves, (wounded veterans, children, the very elderly, the infirm, etc.) but we have no responsibility to those who refuse to do so, like Subjects B, C, D. That's why socialism sucks. It can't answer the most basic of questions: Why[2]

Well I have proven that socialism is bad. Time for capitalism:

The Glass-Steagall Act was created in 1933 in response to the Great Depression and gets its name from the two main sponsors of the legislation. Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury secretary and the founder of the Federal Reserve System, and Henry Steagall, a House of Representatives member and chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, drafted and pushed to have this legislation passed. It created a separation of commercial banking and investment banking, by not allowing financial institutions to do both. Once enacted financial institutions had a year to decide if they were going to be one or the other. In the fallout of the Great Depression it was determined by many that large commercial banks became too greedy and speculative, and this act sought to tightly curb and control the activity of banks and investments by separating them, only allowing 10% of a commercial bank's revenue to come from securities. Many in the financial industry saw this as too harsh a judgment, and Glass himself sought to repeal the act shortly after it's passage claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis. [3]

Good example why governments should get out of business.

Overall, capitalism is good. The wealth and relative high standard of living we all

enjoy in this nation is evidence of that. There is nothing wrong with big business, big money, and big banks. They have enabled our country to prevail in times of war and threat. Pure grit and determination alone didn't enable us to simultaneously defeat the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II. Both were very savvy, with well planed tactics and engineering. The simple truth is we out spent them, and out produced them. We cranked ships out faster than the German U boats could sink them. After Pearl Harbor we rebuilt and rearmed our Pacific fleet in record time. Technology that was outdated for us at the beginning of the War quickly became state of the art, far surpassing the abilities of our enemies'. We had a ton of production capability with a big checkbook to throw at the effort.In the 1980s it was capitalism that defeated the Soviet Union. Yes Ronald Reagan had a high budget for defense, but it was still a fraction of our budget and very manageable. However, the Soviet Union had to spend a ridiculous percentage of it's GNP in an attempt to just keep pace. They couldn't do it because they weren't capitalists. It broke them down, forcing a collapse. Their population started demanding certain things from their government, and became more and more discontent with their standard of living. How is that for a war? Not a single shot fired! Zero troops mobilized! All capitalism and big money. Don't mess with a good thing. Money keeps a nation strong, people fed, and a military at the ready. [3]

Yep.

Let's look at history here:

1. Help lead to the industrial revolution, a huge economic growth time. Production increased end unemployment hit almost zero.2. Heavy mental was created by capitalism due to the industrial age and other research projects that wouldn't have happened under socialism.3. America is the richest country in the world

4. Capitalism creates freedom5. Created ou rights6. you should thank capitalism for everything you have earned. History repeats itself, then stick with this system, and all of these will multiply.

The prevailing interest among humans in this world is self-interest. Anti-capitalists call it greed. Religion calls it sin. Science calls it survival. In fact, few philosophies refer to self interest in itself as something good, but it is inescapable. You cannot educate people out of self-interest. It is the natural order of human behavior and the only way to tame this beast is to work with it. Dr. Walter E. Williams describes how capitalism works with self-interest: [4]

"Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man." 2

Don't take this as an argument that capitalism is perfect or produces perfect results. Far from it. However, capitalism is the closest thing to a perfect economic system we will ever see on this earth. [4]

Capitalism is the only economic system in the world that promotes voluntary excellence in individuals. Individuals are rewarded based on the amount of value they provide to the market. Capitalism provides incentives to be great and invent things that were never thought possible. It is a system that promotes growth among individuals and society as a whole. [4]

Some people call this greed, yes IT IS, I WILL NOT DENY. But, what do humans want most? Money. Capitalism gives them that incentive, socialism doesn't. Without incentive, nothing will work as well. Money=work hard make things. No

money=lazy. So socialism promotes lazyness because the people see that there is no benifit. Capitalism says "hey we have incentives" and the people say "If we work we get money! Yay lets work".

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests." -Adam Smith

So economically socialism sucks, capitalism rocks. Also if you look above which one sounds better? Support capitalism, support the economy, support money, support freedom. Socialism isn't good in practice, only on paper. Capitalism is good on both. This concludes.

Within a capitalist society people are free to choose how to utilize their money. They may save it, donate it to charity, or purchase products and services. For these reasons a capitalist society is described as containing a free market. The market is all those things that money can buy, and the people can act freely concerning whether and what they buy. Within a socialist society the means of production and distribution are either determined by all the people through a government, or else select individuals within government decide for the people what will be produced and in what quantity, as well as determine who is entitled to that which is produced. Both capitalism and socialism are systems that may be used to do "good" or "bad" by those with power. There are many different types of power people may have. However, when speaking about capitalism those who have the most money are considered to have the most power. A person who dislikes capitalism will view the rich as having power, whereas a person who likes capitalism will view consumers as having power. In a socialist society it is always those who are in the numerical majority who have the most power. This binary view of potential political and economic systems may be thought simplistic, but it is a debate that is extremely common. Necessarily, many other systems are not touched upon.

Socialism run by central bureaucracy, not

"the people" Michael Telzrow. "Socialism's broken promises." New American. December 25th, 2008: "In truth, the working classes had much to lose under socialism, and for later generations the shackles of communism would weigh heavy; for in practice, a central person or group had to control the redistribution of the wealth, and under communism power was

[ ]

[Edit]

No

In socialist systems, society is ruled by

the collective people. Under socialism, society is ruled by individuals collectively working together toward a common purpose to enhance the collective good. Socialism also

concentrated for the benefit of the few at the controls — at the expense of the masses, no matter the harm and the suffering visited upon the masses."

Socialism over-trusts government

bureaucrats Milton Friedman: "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it. [...] The power to do good is also the power to do harm."[1]

In capitalism, society is rightly ruled by

individuals. Only a given individual can assess what is to his benefit or detriment. Capitalism places responsibility for an individual's prosperity in his own hands. Socialism attempts to determine an aggrigate good defined as "the good of the collective" and apply that one "shoe" to all "feet".

Capitalism is about individuals

collaborating to supply needs. On the most basic level, capitalism allows individuals to organize and work together to supply services and goods that have value in communities, meet needs, and for which other citizens are willing to spend their money on to benefit from. There is no exploitation involved at this most fundamental level.

No transaction happens in capitalism

unless both parties benefit Milton Friedman: "The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."[2]

promotes democracy, self-management, solidarity, equity and other positive social benefits as well as greatly increases prosperity and equality (see the section on decision-making for more detail). This compares favorably to capitalism, where society is ruled by corporations and their pursuit of profit and power.

Capitalism does not guarantee societies

needs. This is because social costs, and everything that affects third parties in a transaction, are externalised (see discussion of market prices later in debate). This means that social needs and costs are not reflected in pricing. As a result of this, the needs of society are ignored in capitalist society unless they are profitable - which they usually aren't due to the externalisation of social cost. The pursuit of profit, that is necessary under capitalism, also promotes anti-social behaviour, punishes solidarity and means that all winning takes place at the expense of other. For more analysis of this see Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel.

In capitalism, businesses must put profit

before everything else. In a system (capitalism) with a built in need for growth and expansion (on every level) based on profit and on a level of competition such that every company that fails to achieve a level of growth and expansion on par with its competitors will go out of business, it is entirely intuitive that

Focusing on large corporation distracts

from fundamentals of capitalism. Capitalism is not about enriching large and powerful corporations. It was originally and remains largely about small groups of individuals in communities working together to supply collective needs. Critics who talk about big corporations in capitalism typically ignore the fact that the vast majority of businesses are small, community-based ones, and ones in which eye-popping profits are not made. Most businesses are just community stores and organizations that pay reasonable wages and that communities would sorely miss.

Capitalism allows for greater personal

fulfillment. Socialism presents a "mob rule" where the collective (or whomever controls the government) outweighs any decisions made by individuals concerning their own lives. Individual "needs" are dictated by the state and so niche markets are prevented from forming. This causes a lack of innovation and social progress because major trends and even fundamental changes in society and technology start in niche markets with very specific needs that would not be considered "efficient" for the state to provide.

businesses can ONLY be about making profit and expanding - everything else is secondary to that goal. This is especially compounded by the fact that social costs are excluded from prices in capitalism (since they affect third parties) and so creating negative social costs is (practically) free and thus better for profit, while creating positive social costs or dealing with negative social costs is expensive and thus detracts from profits, and thus expansion and growth. In fact, corporations (the dominant business institution in modern capitalism) were designed (very consciously) to this end and that corporations must put profit before everything else is written into law! (information and evidence of this is given in the extended argument page). Information on the causes and effects of capitalism's need for profit to come first is scattered around this debate (you can easily find it), but particularly relevant for the effects are the discussions on how capitalism fosters imperialism, how profit is made through exploitation, the relationship between capitalism, militarism and war, and on the destruction of the ecosystem.

In capitalism, profit is made through

exploitation. There are many ways that exploitation is used bring profit in capitalism. The first is through the exploitation of the workers by the capitalist class. This was first described in Capital by Karl Marx and has yet to be disproved. Infoshop (an anarchist information website) describes this process

(the extraction of surplus value from workers) quite succinctly: "Under capitalism, workers not only create sufficient value (i.e. produced commodities) to maintain existing capital and their own existence, they also produce a surplus. This surplus expresses itself as a surplus of goods and services, i.e. an excess of commodities compared to the number a workers' wages could buy back. The wealth of the capitalists, in other words, is due to them "accumulating the product of the labour of others."" (Quote is from Kropotkin.) A second way is through the subjugation of people and societies on the peripheries in order to extract wealth from them (see the extended argument on imperialism in the history section). An excellent overview of exploitation in capitalism and its causes can be found here and more detail can be found in Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization by Immanuel Wallerstein, and other more, detailed work, by Wallerstein.

Capitalism is not ruled by individual, but

corporations Corporations are totalitarian structures and are completely unaccountable to the public. Capitalism was designed around the interests of corporations, after they were designed by monarchs so they could keep their power over the rising middle-class and make money just by virtue of having money. Far from being ruled by individuals, capitalism is ruled by corporations who must, by design, continue to expand and make a profit, no

matter how harmful this is to the individuals in society. And capitalism has always been ruled by corporations, to the point that they have become the defining feature of the capitalist ruling class. See here and here for explanation and analysis of how big corporations come to dominate capitalism and the effects on society as a result of it.

Capitalism has never been about groups

of people working together to meet

collective needs. It has always been about the ruling class enriching itself at the expense of the ordinary people, particularly at the peripheries of capitalism. The only society that is truly ruled by the individual is anarchism, a la the ideas of Kropotkin etc., which is a form of socialism. Anarchism is ruled not by a state or a group of corporations, but by all the individuals in society making decisions together on an equal basis through federated council structures.

Genuine socialism is not ruled by a

central bureaucracy! Genuine socialism means a classless society where everyone owns the means of production and income is still reward based (see the argument and argument page on examples cited against socialism are usually not socialism for more detail on how they are not). The examples of genuine socialism have not (!) been ruled by central bureaucracies (which are incompatible with genuine socialism) but have been ruled

by the people. See here for the example of the Spanish revolution, see here for the example of the Zapatistas and here for a general list of small examples. and see A Living Revolution: Anarchism In The Kibbutz Movement by James Horrox for the example of the Kibbutzim. Notice how none of the genuine examples of socialism have any bureaucratisation (and much less than capitalism).

Market transactions exclude third

parties. These third parties could be exploited workers, murdered trade unionists, people who suffer and die from pollution, people who are impoverished, whole species (including humanity) that could get wiped out from climate change. Since third parties are excluded from prices, capitalist prices cannot reflect social cost and end up being extremely destructive. See the section on market prices for more detail. And the idea that transactions in capitalism do not harm either party is a myth. See the argument on exploitation (in the inequalities section) and the argument on imperialism (in the history section) for a rebuttal.

Socialism is not about state rule, but

individual rule. In socialism, individuals are empowered as part of the collective. To understand how socialism maximises individualism see Soul Of Man Under Socialism - Oscar Wilde.

Government in capitalism is not

compassionate. It usually serves the interests of (and is comprised of) the elite. The elite in capitalism means the people who benefit from the system: the people who own the means of production and the people who have a monopoly on empowering jobs. They use government to protect their interests and bring themselves further profit and better conditions. The conditions for the poor must be worsened as a by-product because in capitalism to increase my wealth I have to take wealth from someone else. See here and here for explanation and analysis of government in capitalism.