Jump to content

Welcome to RR

Message of the day

If you don't do heroin, you're gay.

Join a club

Maybe even start your own. Just don't join the crazy cultist one. That one seems like one to avoid.

Click here to get started

Capitalism VS Socialism  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. Capitalism VS Socialism

    • I strongly agree with Capitalism
    • I agree with Capitalism
    • I mildly agree with Capitalism
      0
    • No opinion
    • I mildly agree with Socialism
      0
    • I agree with Socialism
    • I strongly agree with Socialism
      0


Recommended Posts

This is a debate on which political ideology is more beneficial for the economy, capitalism or socialism. 

Cast your votes before posting and then proceed to debate. In two weeks time this topic will lock, when that happens, we'll have another round where we vote again and see how this debate thread was successful or unsuccessful for each side of the argument. 

________________

Here are two people from the Oxford Union debating such issue. Hopefully this helps you get a footing within this debate.

Jeremy Corbin Against Capitalism:

 

Daniel Hannan Against Socialism:

_____________________________

I shall be posting my statement for the benefits of capitalism later on this day however I need some time to prepare my statement so it is as comprehensive as I can possibly make it. 

I wanted to start this debate thread first and see how people pre-vote on this issue first and I thought this thread needed to be made as soon as possible since it is the epitome of debates within our modern society.

 

Edited by The_Right_Honourable_Jimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ragreynolds    760

I'm just gonna keep this short for the time being, but if anyone else says something I adamantly disagree with, then I will be sure to respond in full. For me, this debate comes down to principles. The idea of capitalism is 'equal opportunity', whereas the idea of socialism is 'equal outcome'. I believe that forcing equal outcomes is wrong, and that is the main reason I prefer capitalism. Now, I think it's important to note that often times in capitalistic societies, there isn't always complete equality of opportunity, but it's important to remember that this is what capitalism aims for. The notion of 'equal outcomes' is preposterous to me. Not all people are of equal capabilities. To have equal outcomes, it is required that you punish those who do well in order to reward those who do not. This is how the equal outcome is created. I can understand the notion of taxing rich people a bit more than poor people, since sure, the rich people can afford to pay more tax. But it's the principle of it all that really bugs me. I think it's wrong to punish someone for doing well and to essentially reward someone else for doing worse.

Being entirely honest, I think that lots of socialist ideas are very good ideas. I like the idea of free healthcare, I like the idea of free education. However, it is almost never feasible to grant these things. In general, socialist ideas are good to think about, but they are not practical. Universal basic income is another example. In 50 years time when automation is far more prevalent, then sure, UBI could be a great way to compensate salaries and help people out. But right now? It's a ridiculous concept to even suggest. Unless you destroy all current benefit systems, there is no way to pay for something like that. Socialism can only work in a world where people have no ambition, where people have no competitiveness in them. Thing is, that would be the world with no humans because these things are human traits.

Capitalism most certainly is not perfect, but I think it is pretty easy to see that it is by far the best option when given the choice between capitalism and socialism. Socialism is nice to think about in many regards, but it does not work. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my opening statement.

I shall be arguing for the benefits of responsible capitalism, not the type that Blairites and Ed Milliband supporters suggest but the type of responsible capitalism that promotes free market values.

South Korea is the prime example of how an economy that is driven by private industry can thrive through the means of high employment that also pays well too. Just simply compare them to their North neighbours.

I’ve always been in favour of private industry because in my eyes it represents freedom. A libertarian rationalist would argue that we should have a completely private world however I am not a rationalist, I do not believe in what sounds reasonable to the ear. I am an empiricist at heart and I believe on what works and what doesn’t. If I was a rationalist with my ideas, I would believe that even parliament and governments should be private but I do not, I am not suggesting that.

I’m a realist and I look at what works and what doesn’t and from my very eyes I see that more private industry and less government is the best way forward however there are few things that a country needs to have public and that is that the justice department, police personnel and the army personnel. These are the most important aspects of a nation that should remain in the public sector no matter what happens. Don’t get me wrong the socialist idea for public healthcare is a marvellous one however mostly for the ones who can’t afford it. The NHS however is failing because it is a socialist policy after all.

We have an NHS that is failing and there are two solutions. We either solve it through Socialism or through Capitalism. The socialists argue that we should stop the private sector from easing the pressure of the NHS and tax everyone to put more money towards that same NHS. The capitalists here in the UK are arguing that the private sector should be endorsed for easing the pressure of the NHS. I fail to see what is wrong with a failing NHS that is helped by the private sector to not only bring itself back at its feet but still making sure it’s free at the point of service. Does it matter who runs it as long as it remains free.

I support the private industry because it thrives the economy. I also don’t believe that the private sector should be regulated unless when it comes to healthcare or if it violates the non-aggression principle I believe in. So you can sell a food product with poison in it but you have to make sure you disclose that the product has poison in it.

I shall play these scenarios in black and white of how a socialist and capitalist driven economies play out.

Socialism is the belief that favours nationalised services over private ones and usually keeping them free and paying them through your tax. So in the ideal radical socialist society everything would be nationalised and free and you’d pay for those services by being forced to work for the state. So in principle you would be paying for a lot of services that you won’t ever need. This principle violates freedom. I do agree that would never happen ever again in the west because we’ve got rid of communism and we know how bad it can turn out.

So let’s play out the scenario of what moderate socialists propose. We’ll tax businesses however big or small and increase the minimum wage. Let’s say I’m a business owner, if I’m taxed more I might be forced to let go of some people from my place of business. That person who’s fired will join the many who can’t find work because of those policies. They’ll be forced to go on welfare which is funded by taxes. Those people will not have to pay taxes however. There would be an a huge increase on the deficit. More people would lose their jobs and be funded by the state and less people would be paying taxes. Since of that increase of unemployment, the socialist government would be forced to increase taxes on businesses forcing a lot to go out business or leave the country. It will be an ever ending circle to the point of which the country will end up being a huge nation of unemployment and poverty.

What the capitalist would propose is let’s privatise non-essential services such as the royal mail and the rail services which would end up in a nation where people and businesses needing to pay less tax. You’ll be able to keep more of your income allowing you to pay for those services if you do so wish and your employer would be able to hire more people expanding his business. This business expansion could mean that you could be paid even more.

I particularly find it odd why someone who never sent a letter in his life because he uses e-mails should be forced to fund the royal mail through his taxes or go to prison if he refuses.

___________

In conclusion, it is a question of freedom from being forced to pay a service of which you don’t need. As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.

Do I really want to be forced to fund an ideology that will eventually fail like it always does?

Socialists cry “Power To The People”, and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean; power over people, power to the state.

It is a matter of principles and morals that I reject this notion that socialism is somehow rightful, because it is the opposite, it means big government and owning everything including the public themselves.

freedom-gif.gif

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bryanna    202

Joined this just for a quick second because I'm not interested in debating this but I would like to say that my view on it is that because of capitalism there are people out there literally starving, don't have homes, unable to take care of themselves, etc. while there are people with excessive amounts of money that they don't need and will probably never spend a good chunk of it. I don't believe in like a communist dictatorship, but we really need an actual equal opportunity for everyone because everybody deserves the chance to live. I think capitalism does not entirely work and that a good balanced mix of the two would be nice, but I will honestly say that I am more favored towards socialism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ragreynolds said:

I'm just gonna keep this short for the time being, but if anyone else says something I adamantly disagree with, then I will be sure to respond in full. For me, this debate comes down to principles. The idea of capitalism is 'equal opportunity', whereas the idea of socialism is 'equal outcome'. I believe that forcing equal outcomes is wrong, and that is the main reason I prefer capitalism. Now, I think it's important to note that often times in capitalistic societies, there isn't always complete equality of opportunity, but it's important to remember that this is what capitalism aims for. The notion of 'equal outcomes' is preposterous to me. Not all people are of equal capabilities. To have equal outcomes, it is required that you punish those who do well in order to reward those who do not. This is how the equal outcome is created. I can understand the notion of taxing rich people a bit more than poor people, since sure, the rich people can afford to pay more tax. But it's the principle of it all that really bugs me. I think it's wrong to punish someone for doing well and to essentially reward someone else for doing worse.

It is my sincere belief that socialists believe capitalism as a notion is authoritarian because they are placed in a situation where there is a lack of business competition.

It is business 101 that competition within the market means better and cheaper services. To me a government that promotes competition means equal opportunity. Capitalism as an ideology promotes competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oppi    32
6 hours ago, bryanna said:

Joined this just for a quick second because I'm not interested in debating this but I would like to say that my view on it is that because of capitalism there are people out there literally starving, don't have homes, unable to take care of themselves, etc. while there are people with excessive amounts of money that they don't need and will probably never spend a good chunk of it. I don't believe in like a communist dictatorship, but we really need an actual equal opportunity for everyone because everybody deserves the chance to live. I think capitalism does not entirely work and that a good balanced mix of the two would be nice, but I will honestly say that I am more favored towards socialism. 

If I had to blame excessive poverty on anything, it would be a poor education system and a pay-to-win job market. I.e. college. Job markets favor those with college degrees, those without them have a harder time so if you can't afford college you'll have problems. Something that needs to be corrected, but not something to blame the entirety of capitalism on. Besides, we DO have equal opportunity, those who are rich through their own means just did well with the opportunities given. There is nothing in our legal system that differentiates the poor from the rich. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/08/2017 at 8:22 AM, Oppi said:

If I had to blame excessive poverty on anything, it would be a poor education system and a pay-to-win job market. I.e. college. Job markets favor those with college degrees, those without them have a harder time so if you can't afford college you'll have problems. Something that needs to be corrected, but not something to blame the entirety of capitalism on. Besides, we DO have equal opportunity, those who are rich through their own means just did well with the opportunities given. There is nothing in our legal system that differentiates the poor from the rich. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. 

That doesn't happen here because only the best go to university because we have high standards. I needed to work hard to get into university but even if I didn't, I could have got a full time job the next day through a job agency and work my way up that way. It's that easy to get a job over here because of capitalism. I have friends who started as workhouse operatives, did an NVQ through that company and now are managers, earning more than what some university educated individuals do....especially the ones with gender studies-like degrees behind them.

If universities raise their standards what you're describing wouldn't be a problem. 

Edited by The_Right_Honourable_Jimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ragreynolds    760
56 minutes ago, The_Right_Honourable_Jimmy said:

That doesn't happen here because only the best go to university because we have high standards. I needed to work hard to get into university but even if I didn't, I could have got a full time job the next day through a job agency and work my way up that way. It's that easy to get a job over here because of capitalism. I have friends who started as workhouse operatives, did an NVQ through that company and now are managers, earning more than what some university educated individuals do....especially the ones with gender studies-like degrees behind them.

If universities raise their standards what you're describing wouldn't be a problem. 

 

"Only the best go to university"? I think that's just plain wrong. University is unbelievably easy to get into. There's a huge problem in both the US and the UK where it seems that everyone is expected to go to college/University, but in reality, it makes things harder for people after they finish.

More people go on to further education today than ever before, and that means that a degree/other higher qualification, is not as valuable as it once was. The biggest issue is most certainly how there are so many more courses today than ever before. Because things like gender studies exist, it makes qualifications less valuable. It's becoming a joke as far as I'm concerned, and in some colleges/universities, it literally seems like they're just making courses so that everyone can be included and so that everyone can have a degree in something, even if they aren't smart enough to take part in a real course.

Job markets definitely always favour people with degrees and whatnot, but since more people have them now than ever before, it's harder than it used to be to get ahead using your qualification. There are certainly many valid paths to getting good paying jobs without having to get a degree, just as you stated. The thing with not having that degree however, means that you have to start at that lower level, meaning that it will undoubtedly take you a while to get to the same point as someone who has a degree.

On 02/08/2017 at 8:22 AM, Oppi said:

If I had to blame excessive poverty on anything, it would be a poor education system and a pay-to-win job market. I.e. college. Job markets favor those with college degrees, those without them have a harder time so if you can't afford college you'll have problems. Something that needs to be corrected, but not something to blame the entirety of capitalism on. Besides, we DO have equal opportunity, those who are rich through their own means just did well with the opportunities given. There is nothing in our legal system that differentiates the poor from the rich. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. 

I agree mostly, but I really don't think a degree is necessary to do well. I really don't think going to college will decide whether or not you do well in life. If you have it in you to succeed, then you will, regardless of whether or not you go to college. It might take you longer, and it might be harder to get to where you want to be, but you will get there. The problem I think is that far too many people feel entitled to more than what they are. People want a $15 minimum wage. People expect to be able to feed their wife and 5 kids just by cleaning tables at McDonald's. Well here's a thought, maybe you shouldn't have 5 kids before you're financially stable. I think that a very large portion of poverty is almost self-inflicted via dumb choices and victim mentalities. You can't just have a bunch of kids when your partner is unemployed and you work in a fast food joint and then expect to be able to pay all of your bills, that's just poor decision making.

As far as what I was saying about entitlements goes, I think that a lot of people look at people doing well for themselves, and instead of saying "Well done" they'll say "Obviously they come from a privileged background and I could be where they are too if I had the same background as them". These are the same people who have no higher education, work in a low paying job, and just for some reason think that they should be entitled to just as much money/luxuries as a person who worked their ass off to get through college, or to start up their own business, or whatever else it may be. These are people who look around and think that if someone is doing better than them, then it must be because they cheated to get there. And I unfortunately believe that this is a growing mindset amongst the lower and middle class in both the US and the UK. They need to get it through their heads that they are entitled to nothing. No one is entitled to anything. You deal with your situation, and you do your best to get to where you want to be. And sometimes people can't get to where they want to be, but that's fine. If everyone got to where they wanted to be, everything would be shit. You need some people to fail in order to make success appealing.

I kinda went off on a tangent there, but what I'm basically just trying to say is that I think most poverty is self-inflicted via poor mindsets. Those mindsets being where people feel entitled to more than they have, or when people see themselves as a victim, or when people see others in a hostile way. People need to stop blaming others for their problems, and instead they need to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oppi    32
11 hours ago, ragreynolds said:

I agree mostly, but I really don't think a degree is necessary to do well. I really don't think going to college will decide whether or not you do well in life. If you have it in you to succeed, then you will, regardless of whether or not you go to college. It might take you longer, and it might be harder to get to where you want to be, but you will get there. The problem I think is that far too many people feel entitled to more than what they are. People want a $15 minimum wage. People expect to be able to feed their wife and 5 kids just by cleaning tables at McDonald's. Well here's a thought, maybe you shouldn't have 5 kids before you're financially stable. I think that a very large portion of poverty is almost self-inflicted via dumb choices and victim mentalities. You can't just have a bunch of kids when your partner is unemployed and you work in a fast food joint and then expect to be able to pay all of your bills, that's just poor decision making.

As far as what I was saying about entitlements goes, I think that a lot of people look at people doing well for themselves, and instead of saying "Well done" they'll say "Obviously they come from a privileged background and I could be where they are too if I had the same background as them". These are the same people who have no higher education, work in a low paying job, and just for some reason think that they should be entitled to just as much money/luxuries as a person who worked their ass off to get through college, or to start up their own business, or whatever else it may be. These are people who look around and think that if someone is doing better than them, then it must be because they cheated to get there. And I unfortunately believe that this is a growing mindset amongst the lower and middle class in both the US and the UK. They need to get it through their heads that they are entitled to nothing. No one is entitled to anything. You deal with your situation, and you do your best to get to where you want to be. And sometimes people can't get to where they want to be, but that's fine. If everyone got to where they wanted to be, everything would be shit. You need some people to fail in order to make success appealing.

I kinda went off on a tangent there, but what I'm basically just trying to say is that I think most poverty is self-inflicted via poor mindsets. Those mindsets being where people feel entitled to more than they have, or when people see themselves as a victim, or when people see others in a hostile way. People need to stop blaming others for their problems, and instead they need to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

Fair enough, agree for the most part. The glamorized western lifestyle is expensive and lots of people try to live that way when they can't afford it. Everyone has to have the latest iPhone and nice furniture and a big apartment/house. People refuse to live frugally when it's necessary for survival.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ragreynolds    760
5 hours ago, Oppi said:

Fair enough, agree for the most part. The glamorized western lifestyle is expensive and lots of people try to live that way when they can't afford it. Everyone has to have the latest iPhone and nice furniture and a big apartment/house. People refuse to live frugally when it's necessary for survival.

Exactly. Even the poorest among us seem to have an iPhone, a cable TV package, and WiFi, meanwhile they complain about not being able to afford food.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ragreynolds said:

Exactly. Even the poorest among us seem to have an iPhone, a cable TV package, and WiFi, meanwhile they complain about not being able to afford food.

That is a problem. The opposition do go on about people in the public sector complaining over using food banks but I do wonder how much of that money goes on things that are not necessarily essentials.

They also use nurse's starting rates and trying to brand it as they all get paid the same but excuse me, once you get into employment and start at the very bottom that money will be low. If you don't like it, the private sector offers more money so why don't you go and work there?

Also there is a taboo within the UK over people who use private healthcare but I see nothing wrong with it.

The NHS is a mess, I've been treated wonderfully by one trust and horribly by another.

I've discharged myself from mental health out-patient services as I feel my GP can do a better job because the GP does not do a job at all which is better in my opinion. 

I do feel that if I ever feel to a psychiatrist ever again that I'd rather pay to see one instead. I have had a second opinion from one before and they treat you with so much respect, you know why?

Because if they don't treat you nicely they can lose their jobs.

Doctors in the NHS can act horribly and be very rude sometimes and still not lose their jobs because they are needed. Public service personnel can perform at their very worse if they choose because they are less likely to be fired. I'm sorry but if I'm paying for a service (through tax), I expect to receive a good service.

That is the problem with public services so I'd rather see a system that only helps people at the point of service like when they have an emergency. In order to improve the NHS, when people receive chronic treatment they should be expected to pay back the cost of that chronic treatment in some reasonable and affordable manner like when people receive student loans. If that'd be the best way of improving the quality of care then I'm up for that.

Edited by The_Right_Honourable_Jimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ragreynolds    760
15 hours ago, The_Right_Honourable_Jimmy said:

That is a problem. The opposition do go on about people in the public sector complaining over using food banks but I do wonder how much of that money goes on things that are not necessarily essentials.

They also use nurse's starting rates and trying to brand it as they all get paid the same but excuse me, once you get into employment and start at the very bottom that money will be low. If you don't like it, the private sector offers more money so why don't you go and work there?

Also there is a taboo within the UK over people who use private healthcare but I see nothing wrong with it.

The NHS is a mess, I've been treated wonderfully by one trust and horribly by another.

I've discharged myself from mental health out-patient services as I feel my GP can do a better job because the GP does not do a job at all which is better in my opinion. 

I do feel that if I ever feel to a psychiatrist ever again that I'd rather pay to see one instead. I have had a second opinion from one before and they treat you with so much respect, you know why?

Because if they don't treat you nicely they can lose their jobs.

Doctors in the NHS can act horribly and be very rude sometimes and still not lose their jobs because they are needed. Public service personnel can perform at their very worse if they choose because they are less likely to be fired. I'm sorry but if I'm paying for a service (through tax), I expect to receive a good service.

That is the problem with public services so I'd rather see a system that only helps people at the point of service like when they have an emergency. In order to improve the NHS, when people receive chronic treatment they should be expected to pay back the cost of that chronic treatment in some reasonable and affordable manner like when people receive student loans. If that'd be the best way of improving the quality of care then I'm up for that.

The taboo over private healthcare tends to be because people think you must be an entitled/privileged asshat if you can afford it. We live in a culture that is very toxic towards people who do well. Instead of saying "well done" people get uptight and jealous.

Having numerous family members who work in various sectors of health care, I can confidently say that the difference between the NHS and private healthcare is not one of quality. When you go through he NHS to say a psychologist, you are guaranteed a certain standard of medical professional, since they have to be trained to a certain point. However, you have no choice over who it is you see, and it is very likely that the person you are assigned to just isn't right for you, or hat you don't get on with them, etc... These people also have a set 'curriculum' if that's the right word. They have to stick to a certain way of doing things, and they aren't allowed to stray from that path, meaning that if your condition differs greatly from the average person with your condition, you aren't going to get the help you need. That is exactly what happened to me. I went to a psychologist for a very specific type of social anxiety, but they instead tried to treat me for a broad range of social anxiety, and they would ask me questions and have me report on things that just didn't apply to me. My doctor even told me afterwards that he thinks it's a waste of time for me.

Thats why private can be good, because the psychologist is more free to treat you however they deem best. They don't have that 'curriculum' that they have to 100% abide by. You also have the novelty of being able to choose who you want to see, meaning that you're almost guaranteed to get someone that works for you. However, private practitioners don't need to be held to the same standards as public practitioners. They don't need to have all the same qualifications to start working. So the starting standards for actually working private are far lower than working with the NHS. 

In most cases, there isn't a big difference between the two, and either works. The main advantage with going private is that it is MUCH faster.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ragreynolds said:

Thats why private can be good, because the psychologist is more free to treat you however they deem best. They don't have that 'curriculum' that they have to 100% abide by. You also have the novelty of being able to choose who you want to see, meaning that you're almost guaranteed to get someone that works for you. However, private practitioners don't need to be held to the same standards as public practitioners. They don't need to have all the same qualifications to start working. So the starting standards for actually working private are far lower than working with the NHS. 

In most cases, there isn't a big difference between the two, and either works. The main advantage with going private is that it is MUCH faster.

That is definitely true for psychologists but psychiatrists are a different bunch because they are genuine doctors.

I think any medical doctor has to have the right qualifications so yeah.

The people who need a psychologists could get a psychologist who might not be as good in terms of qualifications but people who want a psychiatrist they are definitely going to get a certain amount of beurocratic standard because they are still not allowed to over prescribe certain pills like the doctors in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more comprehensive look at Jeremy Corbyn's devastating socialist policies and how they can effect a nation.

When socialism doesn't work they say they didn't do it right but Jeremy Corbin won't even do that because he supported all of their policies from the start and now it's coming back to bite him in the back.

I know it's a political advert from the Conservatives but it still doesn't stop it from being right.

Edited by The_Right_Honourable_Jimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×