frame

Is Capitalism Evil?

Opening Argument

LogicLogic 230 Pts
It has killed nearly 8 Million people, If not more already. So what do you think?
ale5luzerjoecavalrySilverishGoldNovadude865Fascism
  1. Is Capitalism Evil?

    37 votes
    1. Obviously.
      21.62%
    2. Not even close.
      78.38%
«13

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Maybe if someone lives in north korea
    George_Horse
    Live Long and Prosper
  • inc4tinc4t 154 Pts
    many people don't fully appreciate notions such as capitalism, freedom of speech, and other costructs we take for granted.  
    Alternative to capitalism is socialism/communism, and while it offers promises of utopian society, it just doesnt work as we have seen with many examples in World History.  
    The notion of capitalism encourages people to do their best, which drives progress.
    George_Horseehall
  • Capitalism isn't good or evil by itself. It depends who is in the capitalist society. If it is full of charitable billionares who help out the poor and middle class, then it becomes good. If it is full of greedy billionares, then for sure would be used for bad.





    aarongAlwaysCorrectGeorge_HorseSilverishGoldNova
  • @CrispyMcnuggets, I agree.  many of US billionaires make a deliverate effort to donate much of their established wealth to charity - Gates, Buffet, etc.
    The most important feature of capitalism is that it ensures meritocracy, creativity, and hard work.  With other systems, people rely on someone else to carry them - and everyone loses.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • Capitalism is not evil at all.
  • The key benefit in capitalism is right to pursue happiness  - a right many of us take for granted, but its actually really special.  Knowing that you can make it big if you are takented and willing to work hard is not something one expects outside of capitalism.

    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • Capitalism is an economic system. the theory is based on complete freedom of the individual, allowing for both good and evil to manifest by chance depending on the government, country, etc; but the inherent economic system is not evil. communism on the other hand restricts individual freedoms, which in my opinion is an evil thing to do
    ale5
  • inc4tinc4t 154 Pts
    @melanielust, I agree on your point argument for capitalism not evil. I would say that communism is probably not evil, but misguided.
  • CovenyCoveny 399 Pts
    Capitalism, or any other economic system for that matter, can't be evil as it's got no morals... it's not a person. There could be evil people within capitalism, but there could be evil people in any economic system. It's like trying to say any inanimate object is evil, it's just not possible because inanimate objects don't do actions, or morals, or malevolent etc.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • It's a system that promotes people to seek after one's own profit rather than doing what is good for the most amount of people possible. It puts some people in a hierarchy at the  top of a business and subjects people to a owner.
    aarong
  • I'm sorry, but where exactly are you getting the 8 million death count statistic from? I do not think that statistic is accurate, and even if it is, it is nothing compared to the death counts associated, with Stalin and Mao, who are communist leaders. 

  • LogicLogic 230 Pts
    @henroybaggins Those 8 million-10 million are african children that can't have food.  Search for a video by hamza tzortzis he talks about this. I can't remember the name sorry. Just search : Hamza tzortzis on capitalism 
  • But why do people immediately jump to CAPITALISM to blame for everything? There are millions of other factors that could contribute to people dying if they live in a capitalist society. If the government is a dictatorship, for example, and they directly starve people and steal resources from citizens - such is the case in many African nations.
    islander507
  • LogicLogic 230 Pts
    @melanielust  I'm not jumping to attack capitalism. But from what you just said i can smell some hypocrisy.  You blame communism for the poor communist societies, While saying capitalism isn't fully to blame for poor societies. 
    DrCereal
  • luzerluzer 3 Pts
    Communism promotes non-equal opportunities and in some cases is led by a dictator. Although, it can be beneficial for some if not all classes.
    agsr
  • @Logic That's an excellent point, one I have considered before. I wasn't talking about necessarily being poor - I was talking about death tolls. Under capitalism there have been no structured genocides/democides carried out by the capitalistic government, whereas in communist societies there has almost always been a government that intends to hurt its people - genocide, starvation, you name it, by the theory of communism itself, people are just more likely to be worse off.

    In capitalist societies, there is disease, suicide, car accidents, murder, malnutrition, etc...those are all so many factors that aren't directly the result of the economic system in place. How could a truly free market affect those people dying when it could be literally anything else?

    In communist societies, there is also disease, suicide, etcetera - but there is also greater room for that government control which might allow for intentional mass killings. That is the difference, and every single long-term attempt at communism in history has proven it as such.
    agsrLogicale5AlwaysCorrect
  • LogicLogic 230 Pts
    I agree with most of your points here. But i really do think if there could be a strong communist leader, Unlike fools like stalin, There could be a pretty good communist society. 
  • @Logic Doesn't that, by necessity, mean that a communist party is only as strong as it's leader?  What happens when that leader can no longer perform the required duties?  That wouldn't seem to be the recipe for a lasting society.
    melanielust
  • @Logic That's an excellent point, one I have considered before. I wasn't talking about necessarily being poor - I was talking about death tolls. Under capitalism there have been no structured genocides/democides carried out by the capitalistic government, whereas in communist societies there has almost always been a government that intends to hurt its people - genocide, starvation, you name it, by the theory of communism itself, people are just more likely to be worse off.

    In capitalist societies, there is disease, suicide, car accidents, murder, malnutrition, etc...those are all so many factors that aren't directly the result of the economic system in place. How could a truly free market affect those people dying when it could be literally anything else?

    In communist societies, there is also disease, suicide, etcetera - but there is also greater room for that government control which might allow for intentional mass killings. That is the difference, and every single long-term attempt at communism in history has proven it as such.

    This is objectively wrong. Some capitalist states have carried out genocides and ethnic cleansing and some "Communist states" have not. Take Chile in the 70's as an example. Allende, a socialist president, was democratically elected and started to institute socialist reforms. With the help of the CIA he was overthrown a few years later and a military dictatorship pushing free-market Capitalism was installed with the USA's blessing. Guess which one had dissidents being rounded up and tortured, never to be seen again or executed en masse in football stadiums. It was the Capitalist one.

    Also how can things like malnutrition not be down to Capitalism? Capitalism is the method by which goods are allocated, with a focus on maximising profits. Malnutrition occurs when enough food has not been allocated to a person to keep them healthy. If maximising profits means exporting food to wealthy countries where it will go to waste or help people live lifestyles where they eat way more than is necessary but people in the developing world starve and die, which is what happens, then that is a direct cause of the competitive and profit-maximising nature of Capitalism.

    Any economic system can be governed by a dictator or a genocidal mass-murder, but it's only in Capitalism that the mass deaths are intrinsic to the very nature of the system. Millions of people will starve this year or die from preventable diseases not because we cannot help them, but because it is not profitable to allocate resources in a manner that will stop them from dying. There si no evil genius masterminding it, it's simply the nature of the system. The overall bodycount from Capitalism exceeds the collective bodycount of all the Soviet and Chinese dictators combined.
    DrCereal
  • Capitalism isn't good or evil by itself. It depends who is in the capitalist society. If it is full of charitable billionares who help out the poor and middle class, then it becomes good. If it is full of greedy billionares, then for sure would be used for bad.





    If you accept Surplus Valus and all that this entails, then it isn't possible for this to work and so this argument would hold no sway with a communist or some forms of capitalist.

    I'd recommend this video:  which helps explain the concept.

    Basically if you view Capitalism as inherently parasitical, with the capitalist using his command of the means of production to profit from the labour of others, then all a billionaire is doing is relieving a small fraction of the harm and inequality that he caused in the process of accumulating his money in the first place. The net effect is still detrimental.
  • Logic said:
    It has killed nearly 8 Million people, If not more already. So what do you think?
    How has Capitalism killed 8 million people? Just want to know.
  • @DavidDebates

    Capitalism is the system used to create and allocate commodities.

    It allocates resources in a way which cause millions of people each year, disproportionately children, to die from malnutrition and preventable disease. This is because the primary motivation for Capitalism, profit for the investors, incentives those actions. If it is possible to pay workers in Sub-saharan African countries tiny wages that put them below the world poverty level, why not do so? If they can't then afford to purchase medicine, why provide it? If this means it is more profitable to sell food in Western countries, why bother making sure they have enough to eat?

    The same drives which are often lauded as creating efficiency also result in millions of deaths. Also FYI the world produces enough food to feed everyone so that isn't an excuse.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch