The debate "Socialism is more sustainable than capitalism" was started by
May 30, 2020, 1:02 am.
34 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Allirix posted 13 arguments, safalcon7 posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 6 arguments, Yatumba posted 1 argument, safalcon7 posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
Allirix, safalcon7, Nemiroff, StrangeTime and 30 visitors agree.
jrardin12, Yatumba, EdgarQer, Darshil and 21 visitors disagree.
Already did, just open.
Ok I'll set up the thread. I dont want to stretch so we'll finish with 3 arguments each. I'm opening the thread. Join me there.
more like religion, valid or invalid from the perspective of God.
So is it like God vs Religion?
well you brought up religion, so lets discuss religion. im not talking about god. even assuming god exists. an omni god that is good. religion is senseless and contradictody to his qualities.
So, what do you suggest, brother?
im not as familiar with Islam as i am with the other abrahamic faiths. we can discuss god in abstract terms (omnicreator), but if you wish to use the Quran you must understand you will maintain the burden of proof. if we discuss science, i will maintain the burden of proof.
I Won't force you for an argument youre not comfortable with. But for me Islam is the most suitable one because it suits me. And even objectively it provides a system from personal to social and from familial to political level; so mesmerizing that one can't but be amazed. And Quran is not manmade; nor is Islamic shariah which is not present in. the current world not even in Arab. Arab is corrupted politically under Salman now and doesnt pertain to the laws and regulations set forth by God Himself.
About afterlife. It is just a part of our whole being as this life is. Just because there is no proof of it doesnt mean its not there. similarly no proof is present to denounce afterlife either. So a certain degree of faith has to be kept still if I claim to be a man of God. That's what makes me a servant of God. Faith is a strong phenomena that I as a person have embraced and will carry it till the end of my first phase of life.
When I am 50% with evolution, no point in debating another one with 100%. We can rather discuss over coffee.
unfortunately i lump islam in with the rest. it certainly speaks of an afterlife, which i stated a good god would not reveal. if any faith is closest to what i believe is truth, it is the baha'I faith. islam isnt the one truth, but a tailored message early arabs needed to learn. pre old testament, people needed to learn law. during roman empire, a message of tolerance was needed. for the seperate arab tribes, god sent a message of unity. although my interpretation is much more personal.
regardless, my theological beliefs are quite blasphemous. i respect the prophets, muhammed was a great leader, and jesus was one of the greatest humanitarians of all time. however i have little respect for the accuracy of human books. i try to avoid theological discussions unless you trully request it.
i could try to convince you that evolution is a certainty, rather than a possibility.
1. I don?t believe the Quran is vague in those terms.
2. I believe in both evolution (a possibility) and the big bang and the Quran doesnt contradict any of the theories.
3. I agree with you on the religion(s) stuff that there shouldve been only one system for one God. And I believe I know which system that is and I am practising on that particular path.
religion can be a very broad subject with many different topics.
you believe you said you are Muslim, i know the Quran is more vague than the bible in technical parts such as creation, which allows it to be more accepting of scientific findings. where do you stand on scientific conclusions such as evolution or the big bang?
if you want a straight theological discussion, i think god is a logical conclusion, but religions are silly. i wouldnt mind having a debate on whether a good god would even reveal the existance of an afterlife, taking focus away from doing good for the sake of good.
and I'll moderate
I reckon Nemiroff and salalcon should go next
Jrardin imposed an arbitrary definition, even while his own source provided clarification. He then refused to accept the fact that socialism comes in different extremes, just like capitalism. not all capitalist societies are pure free market, nearly none are. jrardin focused on the most extreme version of socialism and made the rest of the discussion worthless as the focuses needed to be shifted from a pro and con, to semantics.
i dont believe an effective pro/con occured here.
Why should the taxpayer have to pay for guaranteeing a standard of living above the poverty line?
The same reason the tax payer pays for anything. It benefits their community. Less crime, more small businesses, more humanities, more political and market participation, and so much more.
You don't need to change the nature of the market to uplift the people at the bottom.
>>Socialism is about government control of businesses to reditribute wealth
No. Socialism is about giving society control. The government is just one of many stakeholders in society. Workers & community coops aim to give control to society without handing it to a centralised government.
I too am not a statist. I think the government should be split up into competing institutionions where we elect leaders of each institutionion instead of a party (in Australia's case) or the president (in the USA) deciding who runs the government departments.
I believe we have had a sound debate on the topic with both sides engaging consciously. @Nemiroff, wanna make a comment on the debate?
Socialism is a morally bankrupt idea because wherever socialism is applied it results in poverty and conflict and clique of small number of despots ruling over majority. Socialism by its policies creates the kind of crony capitalism that it despises which ironically which is then used to justify more socialism. Weird.
Yes for a short time it seems things are improving because the jealous and incompetent people have productive people to loot from but slowly either the productive people leave, or stop being productive due to no incentives and then problems start.
It has been seen countless times.
Why should the taxpayer have to pay for the first one? Unionization is very corrupt today and is in the pocket of one party. I think people should be able to freely give money to a political campaign. But socialism is about government control of businesses to reditribute wealth (which you did mention in your first point).
1. Guaranteed standard of living above the poverty line (help with education, healthcare, utilities, accommodation)
2. Strong incentivizes for worker coops or unionisation
3. Limit to the financial contributions to political campaign per person
No. I'm advocating for more socialism.
You are not advocating for pure socialism. Basically, you advocate for what we already have.
The Nordic model of socialism is implemented by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Social Democrats designed this system to bridge the gap between capitalism and the more extreme socialist ideas.
Please give me one that is not run by dictators.
Not all socialist countries are run by dictators. Socialist countries that use Leninism are run by dictators. I literally proposed a socialist policy that incentivizes a free market to shift power to the workers without statism.
As I said, but you missed, in order to secure socialism one must coerce business great and small into following the steps of the policy. For that you need a Statist government to force by regulation to meet the social standard of the economy. Which is why all socialist countries are run by dictators.
Socialism isn't called statism. They're different things. I've presented a basic synopsis and a resource to further your understanding of socialism. The least you could do is listen to me when I say I am not arguing for the elimination of the free market. Just like the successful socialism seen in Europe.
Also, the existence of a class struggle has nothing to do with justice. It exists due to conflicting interests between owners and workers. All it is is wage negotiations between owners and workers
An owner wants to maximize profit. Ideally for the owner, if a worker creates $1 the worker receives $0.
A worker wants to maximize wage. Ideally for the worker, if the worker creates $1 the worker receive $1.
But, because the owner owns the capital the worker uses to create the value they have the power to charge a fee for its use. So for example, if a worker creates $1 of value they can pennies on the dollar and the rest goes to profit.
When this becomes an issue is the trend to replace workers with capital to reduce costs. As new technologies emerge this effect hits the working class in large scale waves. This creates periods of increased frictional unemployment while redundant workers reskill to be relevant again. While they are reskilling these unemployed workers have limited income and many look to the rich with envy. It's common sense to realize that if enough of society is displaced from work their envy can easily be transformed into revolution, especially if a foreign power interferes.
The socialism I support avoids the revolution by preemptively patching capitalism. UBI or guaranteed state work keep the working class distracted/satisfied enough to not revolt. It doesn't create equally, just a high enough standard of living to keep them satisfied.
I also support giving massive tax cuts and other incentives to companies that are more than 51% owned by their employees or other stakeholders with social and environmental interests instead of private investors who only have economical interests. Dividends are therefore distributed to stakeholders that care more about the overall sustainability of the organization instead of just the bottom line. I don't support statism, I support democratizing power over organisations via worker/community coops
None of this runs counter to your arguments because you're not arguing against socialism, you're arguing against statism.
Statists use words such as economic Justice and equality to create a perception of class struggle through a variety of inventions including the progressive income tax which has as its purpose the redistribution of wealth. This Statists refused to end the progressive income tax in order to keep a perception of never-ending class struggle. Statists, in order to keep up their manufacture class struggle use and redefined words such as Rich, middle class and poor in order to create Envy, all the while, even the most strict socialist countries have never achieved economic equality.
The free market is the only economy that produces on a sustainable basis providing Americans with an abundance of food, housing, energy and medicine it creates large quantities of goods that add comfort, valuing security to the quality of life that recognizes and takes risks to innovate, to achieve, to compete and to acquire.under the free market man not only survives bike is also able to improve his circumstances. an individual knows better how to make and spend what he has learned from the sweat of his brow and provide for his family than some bureaucracy hundreds of miles away made up of millionaires who see classes of people rather than individual human beings. parents and churches teach that stealing is immoral. However, the statist wishes to impose an economic system by the government that parade stealing is the virtue by saying that it is for the public good or for the public interest. However, who is to say what is for the good of the public or in the public's interest? The Constitution has set boundaries that limit the federal government from violating those boundaries and it secures individual liberty for its people against the tyranny from an all-powerful central government. The State wishes to abolish the free market and pushes the country towad tyranny by extending government agencies and programs every year that interfere with the free market. In a free-market a man who was born into wealth could lose it all by spending it unwisely and the poor man by wisely using his money can become rich. When an individual or business makes a wrong decision it is not felt throughout the rest of the country, but when the state makes a wrong decision the whole nation will suffer. Even in places were the free market is not totally eradicated in a soft tyranny the nation still feels the economic decision made by the states which affects technology, product, medicine, jobs etc.
If you want to learn more check out:
In the 1940s socialism had over 40 definitions. Now more. And true socialism is not supporting any singular version. It is a democratic system so it is a mess. It is a war of ideas, and that is good. What I support is the underlying ideal that ties them together: justice for all members of society as decided by the members of society. What justice is, how it is implemented, and whether or not society must be transformed to deliver universal justice are not unanimously agreed upon. But as voters in a representative democracy, it isn't our job to answer these questions. It is our job to select the right people for the job. And socialist thought supports justice for the voter more than conservatism thought
Conservatism is all about keeping the status quo. It is an ideology without a backbone. I respect its pragmatism, and I identify largely as conservative, but conservative thought supports norms that hurt people. We need to realize our society is not perfect and to survive we must adapt to the changing world. In order for our culture to survive, we must plan around internal and external threats. China threatens out global dominance and, if we do nothing, technology threatens us via the working class. If they wake up and use their social capital they may revolt. Donald Trump was a democratic revolution against the system because so many people are not satisfied. He was change, while Hilary and now Biden are just the same old shit. Sanders had answers but so may Americans are indoctrinated to hate anything related to socialism because of the atrocities of Leninism. They're too proud to look at how Europe has used socialism to solve many of the problems threatening the democracy of the USA. The rest of the western world needs the USA to sort its shit out if we stand a chance against China
To clarify some points to make your job easier: my conceptualization of socialism is it enforces justice:
1. to each his due (free market, private property, ownership of labour, meritocracy)
2. justice is demanded, not begged for (democracy, referendums, riots, war, revolution, unions, worker coops)
3. justice is impartial, consistent, and perpetual (case law, rule of law, no forced transformation to society, applied equally to the rich and poor)
4. justice is a result of others' actions (legal system for punishment, separation of powers)
5. justice is equal opportunity (welfare, guaranteed living standards above the poverty line, disability support, affirmative action)
i checked jrardins definition in Miriam Webster, the dictionary he cited. he selected definition #2 while ignoring 1 and 3.
definitions 1 and 3 from jrardin's own source do not seem to contradict allrix with #3 calling it a transition period between capitalism and communism, and #1 refering to it as " any of various economic and political theories."
Since there are so many different types of socialism, according to @Allirix, he should have defined what kind of socialism he is defending since he is using a definition not used in dictionaries that I, as his opponent, know nothing about. I know what socialism is according to the dictionary and started to rebutt, but now I am dealing with a socialism only familiar to @Allirix. I ask him to define his term of socialism and his source and we'll go from there.
I need to clarify a few misunderstandings you have about socialism
(1) Coherency: Socialism has multiple meanings and interpretations, which must be disentangled before a discussion about its merits can begin. For example, Karl Marx predicted that capital will one day replace workers leading to a majority class of dissatisfied unemployed citizens with enough social capital to revolt, leading to capitalism’s demise. Lenin argued instead that a revolutionary vanguard should prematurely destroy capitalism instead of waiting for the majority to agree. China and the USSR forced Lenin's premature socialism on their people which I do not agree with. Nor do I agree that a revolution is needed if we ensure people have jobs and/or are satisfied with their economic status, ie UBI or guaranteed work
(2) Democracy: Socialism needs democracy to function successfully. Socialism is about democratising everything, even systems that are not democratized in capitalism. Democracy is the only way the struggle for socialism can be realized peacefully. It is actually a conservative view that democracy is the "tyranny of the majority". No wonder Republicans do what they can to weaken the USA's democracy.
(3) Free-Market: Not all socialists aim to abolish markets and private property. Subcategories of socialism such as market socialism, democratic socialism, utopian socialism etc. require free-markets. Modern Isreal was built on a Jewish form of free-market socialism. I support a free market that is genuinely free, including free of market manipulation, monopolies, and other failures. So your points about the benefit of free markets apply to the socialism I support too. What these socialist systems offer are systems to reward enterprises that are owned by the workers, customers, and other community stakeholders who have social interests in the success of the enterprise. Not just a foreign private entity or array of shareholders who only have economic interests
(4) Planned: Socialist ideas do not offer any ready-made solutions. It's a mess just like any democratic system. What socialist ideas do offer is a step toward solutions that are better for our long-term success, instead of simply maximizing economic power.
To summarize my point, socialism isn't about removing the free market, or destroying democracy, or maximizing state control, or taking away freedoms. It is an ideology focused on democratizing power equally instead of pinning it to how much stuff you own
Oh. Okay. No rush then. Prepare your next arguments with counters. Let's enjoy.
i think 24 hours per post is good, no need to rush things.
Great. Opening Statements are delivered from both the parties. It took us 11 hours. We'll try to finish within next 13 hours. So, we expect two more interactive arguments from each party. Brother @Allirix, next turn is yours. Brother @Nemiroff see to it. Its my sleepy time. Hoping for a hard battle. Good luck both.
Definitions from Merriam-Webster
Socialism: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property and a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and my prices, production and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Capitalism leads to individual freedom while socialism leads to government control and tyranny.
the free market promotes self-worth, self-sufficiency, shared values and honest dealings which enhances the individual, the family and the community. It doesn't discriminate against race, gender or religion. People do not care what the religion, gender or race is of the person who provided them with the product.
The free market is understood by private property which is a material manifestation of the individual's labor. Taxing and regulating private property, as socialism what have us do, reduces its value and creates servitude to the State.
Statists advocate for socialism using the same theoretical and rhetorical justification as Marxists: a class struggle formula that puts the working class against the wealthy merchants. However, the free market is about giving to the individual the power to make what he wants of himself and ends any class structures between the free market because the system of individual interaction and engages in all aspects of the human character. The free market is a vital bulwark against Statism and Statists agree and continually assault it.
lets try to keep this concise for everyones sanity. lets keep it to 1 post per round.
Ok, so my response is very large. Can I send it in pieces?
point made by Allirix. Jrardin12, you?re next to make your opening statement. you have 22 hours in hand.
We live in a time of growing inequality between the rich and poor, when the environment is being destroyed to the point of threatening our very existence, and when the balance of global power is swaying away from the west, all because we rely on a shortsighted system that doesn't prioritise us. Instead our system prioritises profit. It's even unlawful for managers and agents of corporations to make socially responsible decisions if it leads to a reduction in profit... see fiduciary duty.
Capitalism is great at developing technology, but it's too narrow-minded and short sighted to compete with an intelligent entity like China forever. We are becoming more and more culturally and economically vulnerable to China every day. They are using socialist ideas in a very intelligent way to expand their power and influence across the world. The west is losing and will continue to lose if we don't adapt. Shifting closer to socialism offers ways to patch up issues in our system and compete with China in the long term.
I don't want china to win because I hate China's style of socialism. It lacks compassion, it lacks democracy, it sacrifices everything good about socialism and keeps only the parts that make the state a well-oiled unstoppable machine.
So we should look to socialism with caution, but denying the benefit it offers our culture is suicide. This may be egocentric, but I want the west to usher in the new world, not China.