Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Precisely what makes you say that capitalist Iceland is socialist?Socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. Iceland is a democratic socialism -- a country that subscribes to the profit-driven model of wealth generation, with specific rules about what can and can't be "private property". A lot of infrastructure is publicly owned in Iceland. If you know about the country's history, you'll know they instituted widespread banking reforms after the 2008 economic crash that undid a tirade of previous privatisation of the country's banking and infrastructure that left it with unsustainable debts. They jailed the bankers and politicians involved in it, too.It's as close as any country has got to genuinely Marxist socialism, and it has achieved that through the kind of direct democracy where citizens get active and straightforward weight in the direction their economy takes.Socialism, according to Marx, is a broad spectrum, all part of a progression from outright capitalism towards working communism. The goal of their labor is insignificant to a point about how some people work harder than others, or are more useful because of qualifications and thus need to be paid more as motivationI don't think it's insignificant at all. Most life motivation comes from early education. If that education's instilled goals changed from self to community; and its methodologies from didactics to cooperatives; and its goals from preparation for the capitalism model to preparation for change and adaptation, moral analysis and criticism, and interpersonal growth; then I think we would see a tremendous shift in the ideologies of the coming generations, which is necessary for humanity to face many of the challenges that we face as modern citizens. You only need look at YOLO culture, extreme individualism, the breakdown of the nuclear family, the increase in debt, the stagnation of wages for the purposes of private profiteering of a small number of individuals, the sickening rise in property prices, the disconnect of millenials with the capitalist traditions of their parents and grandparents, and the general trend towards social withdrawal in modern people, to see that this individualistic culture is really, really harmful for our social cohesion and health.I'm not your typical Libernazi. I'm independent. I think there are a plethora of global problems that inter-relate and capitalism isn't the root of all of them, but certainly this predatory capitalism of this century and the debt and decay that the 70's and 80's generations have left this generation with: they need addressed.This is aside from the fact that an hour of their labor is of greater value than the average.Labour for pyramidal purposes is about as enjoyable and meaningful to most people as coal for the fire. I don't think that with all the intelligence of our species, this is how we should strive to life.Personal gain is part of it, because people are motivated best in this manner.I disagree. Many studies show that altruism motivates infants and toddlers -- the most elementary form of the human species -- more than personal capitalisation. I think it's fair to infer that selfishness is largely learned and in its negative forms, exacerbated by capitalistic culture and education.Moreover, if I am creating value then I should benefit from doing soIn our capitalist paradigm, the average worker almost always creates more value than he recognizes. Certainly he creates more than the share he receives in his wages. Again, I point to the fact that more than 50% of Earth's wealth is owned or operated by fewer than a hundred individuals or institutions worldwide. The creation of value serves common gainOnly if the common man sees his share of it. He doesn't at present.Every item and service you benefit from only exists because people created valueThis is a very gloomy way of looking at the world: everything in terms of capitalist value. Many of the things that I enjoy the privelage of: healthcare without the need to buy expensive insurance: free education (albeit of the very dogmatic variety, at least in elementary and secondary formats); the internet: weren't results of capitalistic endeavours. Mostly they were results of people whose desire it was to benefit the common good. The inventors of the internet never wanted to profit from it. Clement Atlee, who helped found and develop the National Health Service, didn't think it was fair or right that citizens should struggle to access healthcare (he saw it as a human right). So, I think this notion that good things only come from innovators with personal wealth as their motives, is wrong. There are many great strides made in humanity that came at tremendous personal losses and lives of relative financial hardship for those people who pursued their ideas. But they did these things nonetheless: from passion, empathy, and a desire to help people, to provide something good for humanity largely for its own sake.When it gets down to it, that's what I think humans really are. How do you propose to substantiate your claim that capitalism is of less benefit to people than communism or socialism?I said that the de facto most beneficial society is the one that actually benefits everyone, to the highest possible degree, rather than benefitting only a few at the expense of many. Would you not agree with that? Is that society not an objective we share?So communist/socialist societies have no desire or use for territory or resources?Again, I didn't say that. I said that territorial expansion is at its heart a profit drive enterprise. And yes, Stalinist Russia tried to expand its territory to gain control over resources. Which is, ironically, a distinctly NOT Marxist thing to do.Why is that? It's strange that the U.S.S.R. invaded Poland in 1939 then, for according to you it had nothing to gain.Where did I say that Stalinist Russia had nothing to gain or didn't want to expand??None of these events are related to capitalismMany historians and economists would disagree with you.If the U.S.S.R had won the cold war and became the world hegemon you would also see it flexing it's muscles worldwide and consolidating it's powerI'm not denying that. I agree. I think I have sufficiently justified myself already as being NOT a Stalinist. i'm not sure why you keep referring to Russia as a juxtaposition to your own views. I don't back Stalinism. These are arguments against your perception of what I've said. But your perception is incorrect.I am not a Stalinist.Obviously capitalism will always result in inequality, however as previously explained the magnitude of the inequality is caused by the fact that the rich can buy our politicians.I agree with this to an extent. But I would analyse it further. WHY can politicians be bought by the rich? How is it that the rich have gained more prominence and influence than our politicians? How is it that the rich an influence politicians more than we can?And as much as I hate it when other people answer their own questions: it is because pure capitalism is distinctly both predatory and feudal in its nature. Predatory in that it allows those with money, power; and feudal in that such power concentrates with time until the people ruling the nations of the world are the rich, rather than the voters.