"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. EQUALI TY 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-failed
Vietnam-failed when the USSR did
North Korea-people sarving in the streets, their economy is less than missisipis. Failed
CHina- 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.

"I n 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 debt
http://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 capita
USA = 46,860
vs
China = 7,544

Uk (economically capatilist, not socialy) = 35,059
vs
laos = 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 freedom
5. Created ou rights
6. 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
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.
[ ]
[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
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
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]
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
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 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
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.

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.