Capitalism (Pro) VS. Socialism (Con)

Due to time constraints, I will spend all of round four with rebuttals. I will not object if my opponent wishes to do the same. “This claimed ‘natural greed’ has been festered and has grown.” My opponent makes a very ambitious and generalized claim here. Greed has always existed and it has always grown. No matter the economic system, or even social system. Greed will take many forms, sometimes it is about power, or land or money. As I stated before, it depends on how the system works to treat it. Socialist systems frown upon greed, while capitalism, as proven earlier turns this greed into good. Even in socialist states, people were still greedy. No matter what the system is, there will be greed. “Greed is merely a human motive, but capitalism is an entire social system supported by a complex structure of laws, customs, and institutions. Moreover, greed is not unique to capitalism, but exists under both capitalism and socialism. The question is which system, capitalism or socialism, channels people’s greedy motives into activities that are more fair and just. In a brilliant intellectual breakthrough Moving from capitalism to socialism does not abolish greed. Socialism merely empowers politicians, bureaucrats, and cronies to indulge their greed by restricting the useful activities of others” {1} “There will be greed, but not towards money” Yes there will. Just because there is a redistribution of wealth means that it will eliminate greed towards money. Thievery and robbery will still exist. Socialism does not destroy greed towards wealth, despite what my opponent said. My opponent provided no example of socialism working by eliminating materialistic greed. Why did he not provide an example? Because there isn’t any! “Frankly, no it is not better to have a system were people who fall can't have a chance of getting back to the top.” Why could they not get back to the top? If they work hard they can make it back to the top, but sitting around all day, watching TV and eating chips is not a good resume for getting a job. If this person instead works hard, and contributes to society, then they DESERVE to be at the top. Also, I did explain how socialism would make everyone do “less than mediocre.” $7500 is not an amount that you can live life, and support a family on. Not to mention that the human population grows everyday, making that number even smaller. Could society undergo these change, say every year, to redistribute the wealth to the new population over and over? Could it? “In a socialist society, where money won't be of value as much (because of everyone getting the same amount), these ‘hardworking men and women who grow the economy’ will be acknowledged and rewarded in other ways than money.” How? “The lazy will make as much as the hardworking. Yet would you not agree that even if they are lazy, they still deserve a chance, and that is what socialism gives them.” Hold on, are you saying that a lazy person has as much value as a hard working man? Let’s say that there are two people. We will call them A and B. A is a hardworking man, that starts the day at 9 AM, and finishes work at 5 PM. He works hard to support his family and himself, and this job is very stressful, as he has to deal with mistakes that other people make. He works hard and always goes the few extra steps to make sure the job is done right. B is the opposite. He may work the same hours, but he slacks, doing the bare minimum when he could do more. He misses meetings and spends time he could be working by socializing instead. Yet A and B’s pay are equal. Is this fair? “Capitalism has no mercy, and socialism at least gives basic support” The world has no mercy. Capitalism or not, the world has always had no mercy, people are more than often cruel and unforgiving. But at least with Capitalism, many will have success. Socialism requires this massive change in society, but it also needs people mindsets to change, and as my opponent said, greed will still exist. But as proven, that greed will still apply to money. Can you simply make every single person selfless? “If the government owned major industries, they would realize that the people can"t pay for certain things with this small income. They would lower prices so that the money they give to the people is enough to live comfortably live on." This is how economies fail. These type of price controls undermine the fundamentals of an economy which can lead to inflation, black market activities and a mass shortage of goods. Look at North Korea. Because they are a Socialist state, they have a mass shortage of goods, which lead to mass starvation and poverty, something that my opponent believes that socialism would fix (despite having no example to prove it.). Devaluing currency leads to all of these problems. Furthermore, I feel like that simply saying that the government would give money to the people is an assumption. When the government controls the wealth, they may simply keep their money and not distribute it to the people. “Darth seems to like to make the whole point that the USSR could not keep up with other capitalist countries and failed to function. Yet ladies and gentlemen, that's because that was one country in a world of capitalism. The same thing would happen if a capitalist society was formed in a world of socialism. It would falter simply because that's not how the circumstances are at the time, not because it is particularly bad.” A) Prove it. B) If socialism isn’t so “particularly bad”, then why isn’t it the dominant system in the world? Plus, the USSR was not the only communist/socialist country in the world at the the time. I already pointed out in Round 3 the amount of socialist nations before. Only three “communist” countries still exist, and one of them is not even truly communist anymore! I will also add that all communists are socialists, so my historical examples are perfectly valid. My opponent strawmanned what I said, yet fails to realize that all communists are socialists. “A way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property” {2} That is the Merriam-Webster definition of Communism, not that much different from Socialism (as defined), now is it? “Because people want more money, they advertise.” So? This is simply a usage of freedom of speech by companies. I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying/expressing/showing what you want to sell. Is it annoying? Yes. But banning advertising would violate freedom of speech. Plus, it is up to the people to choose their reactions to these products. “There is a real problem called cycle of poverty. It is when you are stuck in poor conditions and can"t get yourself out.” As said, socialism brings everyone to the bottom, while at least with capitalism, people actually get to the top! Is the inequality sad? Yes, but would you be willing to give away money to strangers that you earned? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, on the google docs thing, while it would be nice to have the extra room, the rules have already been established. Okay, I need to get a drink now. My head hurts from the typing. DarthKirones. Sources: {1}http://www.governmentalwaysfails.com... {2}http://www.merriam-webster.com...