Capitalism

I am glad I can offer a worthwhile debate for you, I see you are also offering quality arguments, which is good. I would like to state one thing though, DDO has in its official guide to debating, that unless specified in the introductroy round, burden of proof would be shared between pro and con[11]. It appears that in this round, you chose to rebut all of my statements. To fulfill your burden of proof, you would need to do more than just rebut my statements but offer arguments in favor of capitalism too. Just rebutting my statements(if all of the rebuttals are founded and people agree with them) would be reason to vote for a tie between us, because all of my arguments would have been illegitimate and you didn't offer any of your own in favor of your position. I would recommend offering arguments of your own in the next round in favor of Capitalism, otherwise it may be clear to voters that they should either vote for me(if at least one of my arguments is sound, and you don't offer any arguments that are pro-capitalism yourself) or make it a tie(if none of my arguments are sound, and you don't offer any arguments but rebutted succesfully everything I say). I'm just basically saying it would be in your interest to offer an argument or two that is pro-capitalism before we reach the last round(as one of the rules of this debate is you can't use the last round for new arguments, only rebuttals). However, if your goal is to make the debate a tie, then I suppose you don't need to offer arguments of your own that are pro-capitalist, but I think it would still put you at a disadvantage.Now, I will begin a defense of my original arguments that my opponent rebutted:Capitalism is not as Productive as Cooperative Individualism/EconomicsYes, I know worker cooperatives can exist within a generally capitalist economy, However, because the property of the business is cooperatively owned, as opposed to privately owned, it wouldn't fall under the definition of capitalism itself. Even if the property was privately owned, and then transfered to be cooperatively owned, it would still be outside of the capitalist system. I would argue that, the more worker cooperatives there are which make up a percentage of the economy, the less capitalistic the economy is. So, most economies in the world are capitalistic because they have a vast majority of capitalist businesses as opposed to worker coops or state-owned businesses. But, some economies are less capitalistic than others and more cooperative individualist. For example, Italy is a country with a higher percent of worker coops(possibly the country with the highest percent of worker coops), and so their economy would be less capitalistic than the US who has an abysmally small amount of worker coops.Now, I do have an issue with you using the economic individualism definition that you provided. I honestly don't know about the reason why Cooperative individualism was chosen for the name of this economy type, but I feel like the individualism part of it came from individualism in general: the idea of doing what benefits the individual. Private property wouldn't necessarily be in that definition, because cooperative individualism argues that cooperatively owning things is more beneficial to the individual than private property. Again, cooperative property is different from private property. Capitalism is Immoral and the Antithesis of FreedomA side note: I'll be quoting my opponent a number of times in the defense of this contention. I will put their quotes in italics, and that will be what I'll do for all quotes from here on out.As unethical as it is for management to keep an unfair portion of the total earnings a business generates, this system is voluntary.I wish to ask this question: how voluntary is it when there is no other option in improving your lot in life? Capitalism, currently, is the predominant system in the world and most countries. There is no other option but to work for someone, or make other people work for you. Either you're the one who is being stolen from, or the one doing the stealing. Increasing the amount of worker cooperatives in an economy, would, at least, give people another option to the capitalist system that we live in. While you can say people do have the choice of joining a worker coop, I argue that most people don't have that choice, since, as pointed out before, most people don't even know what a worker coop is. To have choice, you need to know that there are other options first. If you don't know there are other options, do you really have choice?So, I argue it is not actually voluntary. On the surface it appears voluntary, because a person seems to choose what person they work for, but all of them are the same: all of them prevent the workers from owning all of the fruits of their labor(a fruit of the worker's labor is the growth of the company, and that would give them right to own the company jointly with everyone else who contributes to the company growth). I argue that, denying the person the right to have the fruits of their labor, is stealing from them de facto. Capitalism Pretty Much Always Has an Unemployment Rate & Capitalist Businesses Are Not as Succesful as Co-Ops and Pay Their Workers LessThere has never once been an economy, capitalist or not, with 0% unemployment; for that reason, we can safely conclude that unemployment is not the result of capitalism.The problem with concluding that, actually, is that it's possible that every single type of economy that has been tried results in an unemployment rate. Just because other economic forms result in unemployment, doesn't mean capitalism isn't a reason for it. All of them can be a reason for unemployment, which would make capitalism a reason for it. It should be noted, however, that cooperative individualism has never been attempted on a nation-wide scale. We can't conclude whether it would have an unemployment rate, but we can conclude it would likely have a lower one(though maybe non-existent) for the reasons I said previously. We could deregulate markets and grant businesses more freedom...I actually completely agree with this. If you've ever read a number of my debates, you'll see in them that I actually advocate deregulation. It might seem odd that I do, given I'm a socialist, but socialism isn't necessarily about regulating the market to death like some on the right would have you believe. Socialism is a very broad term that encompasses many things, and I would argue it would encompass cooperative individualism, but that would be an argument for another debate.So, I would suggest implementing both ideas: deregulating the market and increasing the amount of worker coops. I would actually want to increase the amount of worker coops to the point where capitalist businesses are a thing of the past. Capitalism Needs Government Intervention to Survive as well as Special Favors from BanksRecessions are a natural phenomenon of all markets and nothing is going to solve that, not even cooperative individualism.I would argue recessions would be minimized if we had cooperative individualism, though I wouldn't necessarily argue it would get rid of them entirely.Rothbardian economists argue that government interference in the market is detrimental to an economy and that bailouts only create harmful dependency. I normally take a more Austrian/Rothbardian approach to economics due to its success.I would agree to this notion too. I would likely apply Rothbardian economics to cooperative individualism. That is where I think GDP/capita would be increased the most and we would have the most stable market there is: applying both ideas. Again, I'm unsure if recessions would be completely out of the picture if both ideas were implemented, but I think it would keep the economy much more stable than it usually is under any type of capitalism.Re: libertarian socialism (you didn't mention this, but I thought I'd bring this up to give you a better idea about myself)I imagine you've probably never encountered an individual like myself. I'm not trying to brag, it's just that I'm probably very unusual. I agree with you at times, such as where we agreed on deregulating the market, but I would still be considered a leftist in that I support a left-wing economy. I identify as a Libertarian Socialist. As a Libertarian, I oppose government involvement in just about everything. As a socialist, I support the democratic control of the means of production. Having an economy of worker coops would be the democratic control of the means of production. It would just be a very decentralized democratic control of the means of production, for every business would be democratic. I don't support the centralized forms of socialism: where everyone in a society gets to vote on the decisions of every company. I only support the idea that the workers of that company, themselves, should get to vote on the decisions of that company. Thus, the form of socialism I support is decentralized. Usually libertarian socialism is a decentralized form of socialism. Many people may not even consider us socialist or libertarian, but I would argue we are. Sources:[11] https://docs.google.com...