Socialism is a step backwards in human evolution

Before I advance my argument I will provide some basic definitions for the benefit of the readership and (especially) for the benefit of my opponent, Sadolite. Socialism: An economic system in which the most important goal is to provide a high-quality, relatively equal standard of living for all. Two major variations are Marxist-Leninist socialism and democratic socialism. (Danzinger, 488) Communism: An economic system closely associated with the command political economy. The key to communism is the socialization of of resources - the notion that the state must maintain control of society's land, labor, and capital. It also emphaizes an ideological commitment to economic and social equality among all of its citizens. (Danzinger, 483) Capitalism: An economic system that corresponds loosely to a market economy. In this system, private economic actors are generally free from state constraints. (Danzinger, 482) Command Economy: A type of political economy in which the state assumes total control of virtually all significant factors of production. The state replaces or eliminates the role of private owners of land, labor, and capital; makes all production decisions; and determines the value of all goods. (Danzinger, 483) Market Economy: A type of political economy in which there is near-total private control of land, labor, and capital. Every actor has direct control over his or her own factors of production, and production decisions are essentially the sum of all private actors' decisions. The exchange value of goods is decided by the market. (Danzinger, 486) Mixed Economy: A political economy that attempts to combine the strengths of both market and command economies while also minimizing their shortcomings. Control of the means of production is shared between the state and private actors. --------------------- What Socialism is and is not: There is no specific socialist ideology because socialists vary widely on how much central planning is ideal. For instance, Democratic Socialists desire worker control of the means of production, not private owners OR the state. Social Democrats, on the other hand, support a mixed economy in which the state regulates some key institutions such as education, the police force, and others. Market Socialists advocate government control of production, but operate it on the principle of supply and demand, not equal distribution. There are many more forms of socialist ideologies than the three mentioned. As you can see by the definitions above, socialism is not communism. The terms are not interchangeable as my opponent, Sadolite, is known to do. The more moderate forms of socialism are perfectly combatible with capitalism. Moderate forms of Socialism are not in favor of a complete equality among citizens. Some will be rich, some will be poor. -------------- I affirm: The more moderate forms of socialism are a step forward in human evolution. MINIMIZES SHORTCOMINGS OF CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM CAPITALISM Capitalism creates an unstable society when the gap between rich and poor become too great. This is especially true when the poor are not gaurunteed a minimum standard of survival. Violence, riots, and rebellions are most likely to occur when a population is not well fed or well entertained (or neither). This minimum standard may come in the form of a minimum wage, a welfare or workfare system, unemployment benefits, or a other moderate economic policies. A moderate socialist system provides regulation of the private sector to ensure no group oppresses, takes advantage of, or violates the rights of any other group. Socialism can also be a useful tool in ensuring order and stability in a nation. This can be achieved by providing a minimum standard of life so as to discourage violence, food riots, or rebellion from poor or disaffected classes of citizens. COMMUNISM Moderate forms of socialism reject the command economy ideology that is espoused by communism. The economy is largely run by the private sector, except some restrictions are enforced to maintain a minimum standard of living, and to ensure that the gap between rich and poor does not become so wide as to be dangerous. Communism creates an unstable society because it limits personal freedom to achieve its ideology of social equality. Moderate socialists are not in favor of complete social or economic equality. They accept that there will be a divide between rich and poor. They accept the idea that competition is vital to national wealth and prosperity. These ideals are fundamentally at odds with communism. -------------- REBUTTALS Pro claims that "socialism has been tried and tried over hundreds of years and history has proved [sic] that it brings all human life to the least common denominator as it requires in the end that everyone have no more or no less than the next person in order to be fair." In this claim, Pro is either inadvertantly or purposefully confusing socialism with communism. As I have shown above, the two are very different systems. Socialism, especially the more moderate versions, are opposed to "requiring" everyone to have an equal distribution of wealth. This is evident in the very basic definition of socialism. I agree with him that there are SOME examples of socialism failing for some nations in the course of history. He is, however, wrong that all attempts at socialism lead to a "least common denominator." I would also like to point out that there are also a number of examples of capitalism failing. Pro will need to reconcile this fact to win support his claim that socialism is a step backwards because it occasionally failed in the past. Pro also claims that "even poor people in capitalist societies are 10 times to 100 times richer than poor people in socialist or communist societies." Again, he is attempting to confuse the readers by purposefully coupling socialism with communism. I challenge Sadolite to provide evidence for this claim that poor capitalists citizens are "10 times to 100 times richer" than poor socialist citizens. He assumes all capitalist nations to be as wealthy and successful as the US. This is not the case, so to compare poor or middling capitalist nations to socialist nations would easily disprove his claim. Even if we consider only the US, Sadolite has grossly overestimated the gap. ------------- CONCLUSION Sadolite has deliberately or inadvertantly mischaracterized socialism in an attempt to make it synonymous with communism. I have provided a few simple, basic definitions for him in the hopes that he will not make the same mistake in the next two rounds. Sadolite has not provided any factual evidence to support any of his claims. I genuinely hope that he corrects this in the final two rounds so that we may have a meaningful and relevent debate based in reality. Good luck. --------------- 1. Danzinger, James N. Understanding the Political World, Ninth Edition. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009.