Socialism is a better system then Capitalism
Debate Round Forfeited
moogoo has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 1/3/2020 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 2 years ago | Status: | Debating Period | ||
| Viewed: | 390 times | Debate No: | 123791 | ||
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)
 Pro The workers own the means of production, Basically the workers own a part of the corporation. So if ten people work at a factory then each person would own ten percent of it.  Con |
 |
|
Pro If you google the definition of capitalism you'll find that it says that is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, Rather than by the state. " So no an enterprise owned by the workers who own them wouldn't be called capitalist. Now I am using the common meaning of the term if you have a different idea of what it means then please explain what you mean by capitalism. Now what you said about a socialist economy needing a large state to enforce it. As an example of a socialist style company would be the Spanish Mon Con But my definition of socialism seems to differ from what ever you think, I am working to the definition "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, Distribution, And exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. " - Oxford Dictionary You posited "Socialism is a better system then Capitalism" but are yet to put forward a position on socialism. The example of socialism you gave was the Spanish company Mon "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, Rather than by the state" 1 it is not state owned 2 It is run for profit 3 It is owned by private individuals 4 It operates in a economic and political capitalist system 5 It is regulated by the owners not the community as a whole 6 Not all workers are worker-owners I would agree Mon (I am not certain what you mean by this "So no an enterprise owned by the workers who own them wouldn't be called capitalist") I will reiterate my sentiment from round 1, Cooperation's are very much in use in the capitalist systems and have been for a very long time. I believe discussing them is another question than the one posited. I will state my reasons for not supporting socialism and thus supporting the best alternative we have so far which is capitalism- The government by definition will need to be authoritative, This will ultimately will mean less freedom for the individual, Including less freedom for liberties, To think, To act and protest. Socialism is a stepping stone towards communism (especially if you agree with Marx) Socialism and thus authoritarianism and communism been the cause of more genocide in the 20th century than even religion, From the USSR to Cambodia to China to Germany. There is no evidence that poor people have any more chance of raising there standard of living under socialism, And probably less chance. The question you ask about a small percentage of people controlling the wealth, I believe you would have to state why you think socialism would be an solution to that, Until you do all i can say to that is- "All animals are equal, But some animals are more equal than others" Animal Farm - George Orwell |
 |
|
Pro The definition of socialism you have shown is mixing up socialism with communism. Communism is when the means of production is owned by the community not socialism. If you ask other socialists (who use the marxist understanding of the these two terms) about the difference they would most likerly agree with how I am defining them. I believe that I already have given my understanding of socialism. A mode of production where the means of production is owned by the workers who use them. I believe that a worker cooperative is an example of a socialist style of production. The workers are the one who own it and management is democraticly elected not by some share holder who owns half of the company. 1 it is not state owned Yes 2 It is run for profit A socialist style company is run to increase the wellbeing of its workers even if it would make it less profit. A Capitalist Company seeks to maximize prfit for its sharholders 3 It is owned by private individuals How would you define something being owned privatly? Do you mean the owner can do what ever they want with it? To own a part of a socialist corparation would be to work at the company and if you stop working there then you would no longer own a part of it, You can't just buy some shares and do nothing. 4 It operates in a economic and political capitalist system Why would the mode of production used by a certain company be determaned by the one that is common place even if it is differant? 5 It is regulated by the owners not the community as a whole A socialist corparation is owned and managed by its workers not the community. The community may have rules in place determaning what is appropriate conduct. 6 Not all workers are worker-owners What do you mean by this? Under a classic worker cooperative all the workers would own a proportionate share of it, You wouldn't have some people working there who don't own a part of it unless they are just volunteering or somthing else. "I am not certain what you mean by this "So no an enterprise owned by the workers who own them wouldn't be called capitalist"" I messed up my words, I'm not sure what I was trying so say too. "The government by definition will need to be authoritative, This will ultimately will mean less freedom for the individual, Including less freedom for liberties, To think, To act and protest. " As I have said earler in the debate that socialism is when the workers own the means of production (a worker co-op) You've said that co-ops have existed within capitlist countries so you wouldn't need an authoritarian government as it has already been tried at a smaller scale. If you are calling the soviet union socialist then how would you explain how the state owning all the industry instead of the workers being socialist? The Soviet Union was taken over by stalin who turned the still young socialist state into a dictatorship. Now here are some reasons why I think that a socialist economy is better than a Capitalist one. 1. Worker cooperatives are more productive If you go onto the wikipedia page on worker cooperatives then you see that they are between 6-14 percent more productive then conventional ones and worker wages under these co-ops are 70-80 percent higher. 2. Real wages under Capitalist economies stagnate if you type up "real wages over times" you'll see that real wages have stagnated for decades. Your paycheck may be larger then it was 20 years ago but its buying power hasn't realy increased. Even though our economies are much more eficient 20 years ago! This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.
I'm fine with your small scale local companies. It's the larger scale ones that I have a problem with. The reason why I think wages are stealing is because workers are put at a large disadvantage when this contract is being negotiated since the economy is dominated by a few mega corporations who are able to drive down wages via out sourcing, Paying illegal immigrants far lower wages and using their power to bribe the government to wright new laws to benefit them (weakening the unions for example). The actions of these large corporations force the small corporations to pay workers the lower wages.
Did you know that if we had increased the minimum wage to keep up with inflation the US would have one of about 15 dollar! It could be even higher since our modern economy is more technologically advanced then it was back in the cold war.
If the average working class Joe didn't like how his boss is paying him then he could just go get a different job right? No the majority of entry level jobs can hardly even pay the bills! You need to get a higher education in today's society but to do that you'll need go into debt if you don't have the money.
Thanks for taking the time
Respectfully I don't think you were understanding what I was saying, Maybe that was my fault. Ill make another scenario. Suppose you create a carrot shop. You are the sole owner of the shop. You have employees. You ask them to give you labor, And in return you pay them for said labor. They accept. Now lets say the company crashes as 50 percent do. You now incur the massive, Capital m massive debt of going bankrupt (machines, Materials, The shop itself, Ect. ) The workers may have just lost their job, But they don't incur a cent of that debt. And I agree, They shouldn't carry that debt. But lets say on the flip side, The company does GREAT, And the owner gains a massive income. Why would the workers have a right to that income?
Just like I believe that the worker should not incur the debt of a company going bankrupt, On the flip side of the coin I believe the worker should have no rights to the manager's wealth.
Also, I don't understand how the manager is stealing money from the workers if they agreed to be hired for the price they were hired at. Just like I don't believe in slavery, The idea that the company can own the wealth of the workers, I also don't believe the workers can own the wealth of the manager.
One reason why such a huge portion of new entrepreneurs fail is because they have to compete with huge corporations that have far more resources to innovate and are able to build all the parts themselves instead of having to go to a third party thus having a cost advantage.