Instigator / Pro
4
1264
rating
357
debates
39.64%
won
Topic
#3568
My Socialism Is The Best System
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
I have made this debate for the purpose of describing the economics and politics of Socialism and Socialist communes.
Definition of Socialism:
The definition of Socialism here is not the same as the one that google will give you.
Here, Socialism means each individual owning a piece of land where he produces more than enough food for himself, society being made up of small communes of maybe 20-30 people each, every individual in the commune produces food for himself while also taking part in the production of non-food products which can be produced either by individual alone either people in the commune working with joint effort and sharing the gain according to work.
Karl Marx did say "To each according to his work"
But Socialist communes bring that into life as when individual produces food for himself, he will eat what he has grown. If he has grown food using pesticides, that is what he will eat. If he has grown organic healthy food, that is what he will have.
Producing food is actually easy, its not much work if you only produce for yourself and family, it wont take a lot of daily time.
This leaves time for other activities, such as work in the factory the commune owns, or maybe work in education.
With this, another Karl Marx message becomes reality:
"...makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening..."
However, commune brings this message to the next level, as when capitalist competition and exploitation is removed, people work for themselves. Which means they only work enough to sustain their own needs and not the needs of the rich. Hence, they have more free time.
With the diversity in activities, life becomes more interesting.
Communes can trade with each other allowing more advanced production.
These communes can exist under capitalism too and trade with capitalism. They are still one version of Socialism as long as worker controls the necessary means of production and isnt exploited by the capitalist state.
In communes, workers not only have the incentive to produce in higher quantity, but also in quality. As you want for the food you eat to be the best possible, it is best for you to produce the food by yourself for yourself. No need for certificates or inspection, as you know what you have produced.
I will explain further the benefits of these communes and their union into a socialist state.
Basically, these communes are one version of Richard Wolfs socialism.
The opponent in this debate simply has to find a better system than this one, which can be just a different and better type of Socialism than the one I presented.
Round 1
Let us start.
There are three types of Socialist communes:
1. Basic commune
This commune is economically self sufficient and isolated as it doesnt trade with anyone, could have existed in the past and maybe some tribes today have similar organization.
It consumes what it produces.
It consists of about 20-30 people.
Being a small community, its production level is low and only sufficient for basic needs.
Each individual in it owns a piece of land where he produces food for himself and his family. At other times he engages in production of basic houses, storages for food, basic tools like primitive shovel, pots, clothes, hunting tools, fence for cattle, house for cattle (this varies as to wether they are vegans,vegetarian or not). Commune has to be near a water source, and have safe location.
2. Half advanced commune
This commune is more suitable for advanced life. This commune can exist in capitalism.
In this commune, every individual owns a piece of land where he produces food for himself and his family just like in the basic commune. He also produces extra food or non-food to trade with the capitalist world. If he cannot produce the product alone, commune can join up to produce as a collective if some serious factory work is in question. The wages are of course according to work.
The main idea still is that every individual produces his own food which is best for him, while at the same time trading with capitalist world recieving all the advanced products.
3. Advanced communes
Just like the previous two types of communes, in this commune each individual owns a piece of land where he produces food for himself and his family. However, these communes dont trade with capitalism but with other communes as society has become union of communes. This allows for advanced production without the need for capitalism. One commune produces houses, the other extracts resources, the third makes parts, the fourth commune turns parts into a final product...and so on. The participation in production is not forced in any way, but you only get something if you produce something.
This creates an advanced socialist society free from exploitation while having the incentive to produce not just the quantity but also the quality of food and other products.
Communes are self governed in a sense that moral issues are decided by direct democracy where commune calls for a meeting and the decision is made by vote.
This type of democracy is superior to most todays democracies, as in communes people vote for decisions directly and dont spend millions of dollars on elections, courts, judges and so on.
There can be a central government for all communes, but such government shouldnt have any great power over communes. In fact, it should merely make sure every individual in every commune produces his own food for himself and his family, enable economic deals between communes, and perform education on issues such as global warming.
This type of society solves almost all todays big issues. Bad food quality and expensive food? Produce it yourself! Moral debates? Self-managed.
Law? Self-managed by the commune. Rich getting too rich and ordinary people have to work for them? Not anymore. Inflation? That only happens if communes decide to decrease production, which they might decide to have more free time, or they might increase the production to have more stuff!
I will continue writing tomorrow. You have the last word. If you have a better version of society, please present it.
Resolved: My Socialism Is The Best System
x. Default to con
- Obviously enough, pro bears a massive burden in this debate. To prove that his system is the best out of every economic or societal system. If this isn't upheld in its entirety beyond rational doubt, pro has self-evidently lost the debate which defaults to the contender position.
y. Overview
- I am interested in the mode and scope of analysis that will take place in this debate. Fundamentally, I see socialism as an incoherent economic and societal system at best. Pro's preferred method of socialism upon reading through it does not give the system any more credence. Let's make some key notes:
- There is no scope-related specification made in the description. To be clear, this debate is over the entire world. Pro must argue that currently, his economic system would be the best system for every country in the world.
- My system of choice will be mixed market regulated capitalism, the economic system of every developed country in the world.
a. Food production as an impossibility.
- In each commune type, according to pro, "every individual owns a piece of land where he produces food for himself and his family." This is the fundamental basis of pro's system. If I can simply show this to be impractical or poorly designed, pro's case falls apart in its entirety. I will show that it is untenable.
- The distribution of arable land is not favorable in the United States as an example. It concentrates in the center of the country in a trend of a straight line up from Texas up to North Dakota as the map indicates. This is to say, most areas don't even have adequate arable land that would be sufficient ot produce crops.
- Under con's system, in order for this to be even feasible, millions upon millions of people would have to move and relocate to more arable areas in the United States alone, vastly altering their lives. In addition, this mass relocation would place more extreme strain on the resources that exist in these areas.
a.1 Land requirements
- Let's take the United States, one of the most prosperous countries in the world, as an example.
- According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, "the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person." [1]. The same source goes on to say the general estimation is 5-10 acres per person in order to self sufficiently produce food for yourself permanently. But that is just for one person. The average American family size is 3.13 persons. So multiplying this figure by 3 we get 15-30 acres of land or up to 41 going by the FAO's estimate which in itself "assumes absolutely no land degradation, crop failures, or waste" [1].
- Conclusively, the number of acres of land needed to sustain the average family in pro's system is 15-41 acres of land.
a.2 Physiological density
- Can these demands be met? Well, we can analyze this in the United States. Bear in mind that the US has the most arable land—or land that is suitable for agriculture—in the world.
- Physiological density is the number of people per unit area of arable land. The United States barely has 0.48 hectares per person. That converts to 1.19 acres per person and just over 3 acres for the average family. This is far from enough, it isn't even close.
- Multiplying the range (15-41 acres) by the population of the United States (329.5 million), you need a minimum of 4.9 billion acres of arable land to support the population under pro's system. The United States only has 850 million, less than 1/5 of the land required for pro's system to meet the bare minimum to function.
- The rest is a truism. What happens next under pro's system? Extreme starvation, strife, hunger, famine, a collapsing economy, etc. perhaps far worse than under Stalin.
- As you can see, the model of food production described by pro is simply untenable and impossible and this is for the wealthiest nation on Earth. Now consider its implementation in much poorer countries.
b. The collective
- Principally, pro has organized into a system of communes in which people live and produce. The necessary question is, who enforces the confinement of individuals to these communes? Under capitalism, of course, you are free to form your own commune at any point in time. But under pro's system, the question becomes what are the consequences of not operating within this system.
- If people are forced onto the communes or forced to live in this system this would be no different than exiling a group of prisoners to an Island. I argue that such imposition of will is evidently unjust.
b.2 Individual rights and volition
- Under pro's system, people will have to be the permanent food producers for themselves and their families. "Farmers work a minimum of 40 hours a week. In fact, most farmers work far longer than 40 hours a week" [4] The average American only works 34.4 hours per week according to the Bureau of Labor statistics [5].
- Farming would have to become the sole occupation of millions of people where they would have to work significantly longer than used to.
- What about the aspirations and goals of individuals? Who shall become the doctors, technicians, engineers, etc? A far cry from the commonplace capitalist system, people will be confined to farming in order to produce food in an unstable and failing society in which pro says the government will "make sure every individual in every commune produces his own food for himself and his family," the use of greater degrees on unjust forced to coerce individuals into aspects of labor.
c. Empiricism
- Pro has not provided any empirical evidence of his version of socialism succeeding on a national level, it seems we would need some form of evidence in order to implement this system as the "best" of any kind.
@. Regulated capitalism
- My system constructive will be relatively brief as I am using the commonplace system of virtually every developed nation in the world. Increased Economic Freedom correlates with a better environment, health, and education. All around better quality of life. This makes by system inherently and objectively superior to that of my opponents where people are supposedly forced to live on communes and work as farmers. With Economic freedom also comes lower poverty rates.
- Conclusively, my system will have less poverty, better health, better education, a better environment, and a better standard of living if not already obvious. I ask voters what else could possibly refute my system as superior to that of my opponent whose system will lead to the literal collapse of society?
Quick Rebuttals
Bad food quality and expensive food? Produce it yourself!
- What a ridiculous statement. Just because you produce food yourself that doesn't mean it will be of good quality. This does not even logically solve the problem you assert it does. Regardless all the issues I show with food production lead to the literal collapse of society and the economy talk less of the quality and price of food.
Moral debates? Self-managed. Law? Self-managed by the commune.
- So slavery could be legal in one commune but not another? A commune of white supremacists could deem the lynching of black people moral and legal. Under your system as you have admitted, the "government shouldn't have any great power over communes," so they can't do anything.
- In a similar sense, what happens when communes engage in tribal wars, as very common in Africa. You have stated that the government has and should have no power with respect to the actions of communes so these disputes will naturally become more bloody and violent.
Inflation?
- A basic economic analysis can resolve this. Your food production system drastically increases the scarcity of products. Scarcity increases the prices of products and thus, under your system, inflation will occur at extreme rates.
Sources
Round 2
Fundamentally, I see socialism as an incoherent economic and societal system at best."
Yeah, this is going to be a long one. Next.
"There is no scope-related specification made in the description. To be clear, this debate is over the entire world. Pro must argue that currently, his economic system would be the best system for every country in the world."
I will argue that. If all people accepted this system, it would be best for them. Next.
"My system of choice will be mixed market regulated capitalism, the economic system of every developed country in the world."
Which countries are those? U.S.A.? Horrible country, full of violence. Japan? Yeah, that one might not be so horrible. So, since you didnt say exactly what country, I will use Japan as an example of your economy until you state otherwise.
"a. Food production as an impossibility. "
"The distribution of arable land is not favorable in the United States as an example. It concentrates in the center of the country in a trend of a straight line up from Texas up to North Dakota as the map indicates. This is to say, most areas don't even have adequate arable land that would be sufficient ot produce crops. "
So we simply move to the areas in the US that have arable land.
"Under con's system, in order for this to be even feasible, millions upon millions of people would have to move and relocate to more arable areas"
Yeah, all that takes one day to achieve. Also, there is no force. Next.
"a.1 Land requirements
Let's take the United States, one of the most prosperous countries in the world, as an example."
US is the most prosperous country? Thanks for making me laugh. Next.
"According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, "the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person." "
When you are lying, try to use more realistic lies. On 1 acre, you can grow 10 tonnes of food every year. One person only needs 1 ton of food every year. Hence, 1 acre of land could feed a big family.
Now, if the family is not full vegan, they can have animals like chickens. It still takes 1 acre in total. Chickens feed on insects, corn, snails... They give eggs and some meat. You would need about 12 chickens per family. Maybe 3 chickens per person.
If you dont like chikens,you can pick some other animal that lays eggs, or you can do fishing, or produce fish, or you can go hunting.
Now I have to say, animals such as cows, goats, sheep...ect are ineffective in food production as they dont fit well inside the socialism I propose.
Cows require lots of land. But 1 cow is enough for 10 people in terms of milk production. So giving just 1 cow to a person would mean that a person will have too much milk and be forced to trade.
Why is trade of food bad? Its really simple. Only when you produce food for yourself and family, you wish for that food to be great. When you produce for strangers, you care less.
Its obvious that vegan and vegetarian communes need much less land than meat consuming communes.
The exception are the animals like chickens that dont seem to pose significant difference in needed land.
I have to say I oppose to meat and using animals as food, but if people want meat, they have chikens, fish, and other small animals. Cows are ineffective, require too much work, too much land, and they produce too much milk.
There could be a system of trade within the commune, 1 person producing milk and meat trades with others who produce fruit and vegetables. But this is not the version of Socialism I described.
So I will stick with vegans needing 1 acre of land per family, and meat consumers using chicken or fish or small animals as food, needing also 1 acre of land per family.
So there needs to be about 100 million acres of arable land in the USA to support its population. You said there were 800 million?
"a.2 Physiological density
Can these demands be met? Well, we can analyze this in the United States. Bear in mind that the US has the most arable land—or land that is suitable for agriculture—in the world.
Physiological density is the number of people per unit area of arable land. The United States barely has 0.48 hectares per person. That converts to 1.19 acres per person..."
So 10 tonnes of food for every person every year. Next.
" The United States only has 850 million, less than 1/5 of the land required for pro's system to meet the bare minimum to function."
300 million of acres is enough to support over 1 billion people, so we solved that problem. Next.
"perhaps far worse than under Stalin."
Yeah, you are allowed to grow your own food and eat healthy. Thats definition of tyrannical dictatorship.
"b. Principally, pro has organized into a system of communes in which people live and produce. The necessary question is, who enforces the confinement of individuals to these communes?"
I already mentioned this before. Those who want to live in communes are the ones forming the communes. If you dont want to live in commune, keep living in capitalism.
"Under capitalism, of course, you are free to form your own commune at any point in time."
Yeah, this is assuming you have the land or the money to buy the land. If you dont, you cant.
"Farmers work a minimum of 40 hours a week."
No. Farmers work 40 hours a week when each farmer produces food for 100+ people.
To produce food for yourself and family, you need to work 20x less than that. So 2 hours a week. Also, I need to mention you dont work in winter if you are a vegan. Next.
"What about the aspirations and goals of individuals? Who shall become the doctors, technicians, engineers, etc?"
Already answered. Communes trade according to their needs. If someone becomes a doctor, he trades his services for products or other services.
"the use of greater degrees on unjust forced to coerce individuals into aspects of labor."
Nobody forces you. Nobody cares if you will work or not. The commune provides you with land so you could grow your own food. If you dont want it, they give it to someone else who wants it. Those who work, get the goods. If you dont want to work in the commune, you are free to live in capitalism and work there, if you think its better.
When I said that state ensures every individual produces his own food, you immediatelly concluded that this is to be done by force. No. Its meant to be done by education. If individual refuses, he can stay in capitalism. The job of the state is to educate him that only in commune kind of Socialism he can have the best life. If he still wants capitalism, let him have it.
My Socialism is the free union of the communes. There is no element of force present. It is self regulated by majority.
To each according to work.- This means slavery is not allowed in the commune.
You do understand you cant take one part of my system, and leave out the other parts I described.
If majority of the people want slavery, that no longer fits in the system I described. Also, if majority of people really liked slavery that much, you would have it in any system including the one you support.
"Pro has not provided any empirical evidence of his version of socialism succeeding on a national level, it seems we would need some form of evidence in order to implement this system as the "best" of any kind."
If people needed empirical evidence that something works in order to try it, they would never try anything new.
"Increased Economic Freedom correlates with a better environment, health, and education."
Yeah, thats why free union of communes is best. Next.
"Bad food quality and expensive food? Produce it yourself!
What a ridiculous statement. Just because you produce food yourself that doesn't mean it will be of good quality."
So if you were producing food for yourself, you would intentionally produce bad quality food because...?...
"Moral debates? Self-managed. Law? Self-managed by the commune.
So slavery could be legal in one commune but not another?"
Slavery is already legal in all countries for anyone who doesnt have money or means of production, as he is forced to work additionally for the rich or starve.
Also, this is answered in the description.
To each according to his work. Hence, slavery is not possible.
"Under your system as you have admitted, the "government shouldn't have any great power over communes," so they can't do anything."
Communes are self managed by the opinion of the majority. Do the majority of the people think slavery is okay?
Naturally, if one commune does somehow end up to be consisted of mostly white supremacists, other communes will interfere.
Also, it should be noted that majority of the people are usually the ones that determine the laws in the country. Even in developed countries. So, if majority of the people in your developed country wanted slavery so bad, you would probably already have it and nobody would be able to do anything about it.
"In a similar sense, what happens when communes engage in tribal wars"
The same thing that happens in wars in capitalism. People die. Large governments dont always prevent wars. They sometimes do quite the opposite.
Now, since you proposed a system in developed countries to be yours, lets say why mine is better:
1) produces more food due to more effective use of the land for self sustain and not trade
2) creates incentive to produce food of better quality. If I grow my own food, I wont use harmful pesticides. I wont use anything except the most natural process to produce food. Same cannot be said about your capitalist market, hence you need inspections, but how effective are they?
3) If everyone accepted this system, people would be free not just from exploitation by the rich which happens in your capitalism, but they would be free to own a land, they would be free to work the amount of time they choose, at the speed they choose. If they want to work less, they will have more free time. If they choose to work more, they will have more stuff. They can do different jobs. For half an hour they are farmers. For two hours they are factory workers. For another half they are managers. Anything they want, they can. These are the greatest economic liberties which my system provides and yours doesnt.
Now, I will not bother to post sources. Those who believe me will probably be persistant and locate informations themselves. Those who dont believe me wont believe me even if I posted billion sources.
We are the masters of the farm!
Simple calculations:
One apple tree gives 50 kg of apples without any work.
Walnut tree produces 30 kg of wallnuts.
Planting 10 apple trees would take 20 x 20 meters. Would produce at least 500 kg of apples.
Planting 10 walnut trees would take 30 x 30 meters at most. So for apples 400m2, for walnuts 900m2.
Walnuts are high caloric, over 700 calories in 100 grams.
10 walnut trees would produce at least 100 kg of walnuts, hence enough calories for an entire year.
And thats just the 10 walnut trees on 900m2.
What if you plant vegetables?
Beans have a yield of at least 400kg per acre, and thats assuming you are a beginner.
70 kg of beans is enough for a year since you have walnuts too. So basically, you need 700m2 for beans, 900m2 for walnuts, 400m2 for apples.
Thats still just half an acre, and you already produced enough food for 1 person and there is extra of food left every year.
Other half of an acre can be used to plant 10 walnut trees and 10 different types of trees to get different types of fruit. Which is 1300m2.
So we still have 700m2 for vegetables.
So if half an acre assuming bad yields produces enough for 1 person,and the entire acre producing enough for 2 people... when good yields happen it could produce for more than 10 people.
Here, I assumed very low yields. I assumed that each walnut tree gives only 10kg of walnuts for consumption. I assumed that a big apple tree gives 50 kg of apples. And I assumed very low bean yields.
So even under these poor conditions, it seems 1 acre is enough for 2 people.
The average yields are actually more than double than what I assumed in my calculations. So you would have at least 700 kg of beans per acre if you are any good at farming. This alone is enough for 1 person for over 1200 days of food for calories.
And hazelnut trees? Dont they produce like at least 900 kg of hazelnuts per acre when you give very little care?
1 kg of hazelnuts has about 5000 calories. So enough calories for 2 days. 900 kg being enough for 1800 days. This can feed 4 people with calories for an entire year.
Now, lets move onto a solid harvest, as so far I assumed only the bad harvests.
Assuming solid harvest of walnut trees:
Basically, 20 walnut trees each producing 20 kg of walnuts give 400kg of walnuts. Enough to feed 4 people for a year. And thats only half an acre used.
50x40m used, 5x4 trees, space between trees is 10 meters.
Some people even plant over 60 walnut trees per acre, but here I decided to use 40 per acre as an example. So 20 per half an acre.
This half an acre can also be used to plant 50 hazelnuts trees.
With recommended spacing of 6 meters between hazelnut trees, you can plant 50 plants on half an acre.
50x40 m, 7x7 trees, 49 trees total. Each tree gives like 10 kg of hazelnuts, so 490 kg of hazelnuts. Thats enough calories for over 1200 days. Means there is enough on half an acre for 3 people, plus extra remains for supplies.
And these are trees we are talking about. They demand very little work.
What about vegetables and grains?
Pumpkins give a very high yield. Corn too. Peas as well. So the system "three sisters" can be used for these vegetables to produce best results.
You only need 2000 calories every day, which translates to:
Either 300 grams of walnuts
Either 400 grams of hazelnuts
Either 400 grams of peanuts
Either 700 grams of beans.
Either 500 grams of pumpkin seeds.
Either 2400 grams of peas
Either 2200 grams of corn
Either 4000 grams of apple
Either 10000 grams of pumpkin
Now, you wont be eating only one food. You will likely be eating all of these in lower amounts than those previously presented, so that you would gain vitamins.
Meat and eggs...
And what about the chickens? They eat insects and snails in the garden. They can be fed with vegetables. They give eggs and meat. You need like 10 chikens per family.
That takes much less than 1 acre.
This is actually on beginners level of farming. What happens when you use advanced methods of farming, such as planting vegetables under trees and saving even more space? Or using Ruth Stout method on trees and vegetables under it? Or making fertilizer from grass so your plants grow even better!
There are really so many proper calculations done and none seem to end up with 17 acres of land per person. At most, its 1 acre per person.
Also, you have mentioned permanent self sufficiency being different to yearly sufficiency. That makes very little sense, considering that food is produced almost every year. At most, you would need supplies for 3 years, which still wouldnt exceede 1 acre per person being needed on the first year. Now, of course if you every year produce enough food for 3 years, that is too much as in 3 years of production you would have enough supplies for 6 years.
a. Food production as an impossibility
Con: "Under con's system, in order for this to be even feasible, millions upon millions of people would have to move and relocate to more arable areas"Pro: Yeah, all that takes one day to achieve. Also, there is no force. Next.
- An obvious incoherent statement. Pro has provided no evidence or methodology of how he will relocate millions of people to a single concentrated region in the United States, and situate them into varying assortments, and this is a posteriori applying pro's system on a national scale.
a.1 Land requirements
- Everything stated here can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims from my opponent. He ignorantly goes as far as arguing that all my sources are lies while going on to cite zero of his own.
- Extend.
a.2 Physiological density
- Everything stated here can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims from my opponent.
- Extend.
- Conclusively, food production is an impossibility under pro's system which will lead to the collapse and stratification of society.
b. The collective
I already mentioned this before. Those who want to live in communes are the ones forming the communes. If you don't want to live in commune, keep living in capitalism.
- Okay, good, so when people want to start a commune, as we are reasoning a posteriori, who will give them the land to make the commune?
b.2 Individual rights and volition
To produce food for yourself and family, you need to work 20x less than that.
- Unsubstantiated claim.
c. Empiricism
If people needed empirical evidence that something works in order to try it, they would never try anything new.
- People require empirical evidence for empirical claims. For example, pro is unable to show that food production is possible under his system, and to posit that a system would improve different aspects of the economy and society we would require such evidence. To quote pro, however, "I will not bother to post sources."
- That is to say, there are many forms of empirical evidence that can present your system as successful. We need evidence that it can succeed at all talk less of its real-world implementation.
@. Regulated capitalism
- @.1 Economic Freedom
Yeah, thats why free union of communes is best. Next.
- False, obviously your system would have considerably more inflation, as we have shown, which would detract from your score on monetary freedom which is calculated with such. Secondly with "the government making sure that "every individual in every commune produces his own food for himself and his family," we can rule out rule of law subsections that measure property rights so your system would have less economic freedom and thus, lower quality of life as shown in round one.
"why mine is better..."
- Unsubstantiated claim. Food production by the individual for himself is not economically or socially viable because it lacks economies of scale therefore will be on net, more expensive and less efficient. That is in addition to showing that food production would be impossible on a national scale.
- Individuals won't have the same means to produce food of better quality due to lacking economies of scale. There would also be more pests, crop failures, and diseases due to being less efficient.
- (in order)
If everyone accepted this system, people would be free not just from exploitation by the rich which happens in your capitalism
- The rich don't exploit people they create jobs and provide for people and the society at large thus contributing to a raised standard of living. You have simply defined this as exploitation, you need to make an argument for it. If not, we default to the commonplace.
slavery
- We are reasoning a posteriori. I am arguing that the best system to prevent slavery, abuse, and exploitation is under the government of a mixed market capitalist country. Because countries with weaker governments and more extensive subdivisions have more internal conflicts see Afghanistan, (and other middle eastern countries) African countries, etc.
Quick rebuttals
So if you were producing food for yourself, you would intentionally produce bad quality food because...?...
- Just because you attempt to produce food for yourself does not mean it will be of good quality. For more basic logic ask again later. Additionally, most people don't even know how to produce their own food and there is certainly a curve of experience to account for.
Dropped points
- Inflation
Sources
Round 3
"An obvious incoherent statement. Pro has provided no evidence or methodology of how he will relocate millions of people to a single concentrated region in the United States, and situate them into varying assortments, and this is a posteriori applying pro's system on a national scale."
To move people from one place to another, you use a transport. You can use train, bus, car, plane...
Now, building them a place to live would take extra time, yes, but your first argument about moving people is the easiest part.
"Everything stated here can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims from my opponent. He ignorantly goes as far as arguing that all my sources are lies while going on to cite zero of his own."
You know, there is a difference between a valid source and a site that contains bunch of lies and no actual knowledge of food production.
"Everything stated here can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims from my opponent."
Yeah, when do I get the medal?
"Conclusively, food production is an impossibility under pro's system which will lead to the collapse and stratification of society."
No, thats capitalism.
"Okay, good, so when people want to start a commune, as we are reasoning a posteriori, who will give them the land to make the commune?"
If everyone wanted to implement my Socialism, those who own too much land would gift most of it to those who have none.
If half of people wanted to implement my Socialism they would have to find some way to buy land. If they cant do this, then its not possible.
"People require empirical evidence for empirical claims. For example, pro is unable to show that food production is possible under his system, and to posit that a system would improve different aspects of the economy and society we would require such evidence. To quote pro, however, "I will not bother to post sources."
That is to say, there are many forms of empirical evidence that can present your system as successful. We need evidence that it can succeed at all talk less of its real-world implementation."
This system was never tried on larger scale, so asking for evidence doesnt make sense, as explained before. The only way for me to provide evidence that my system works is to convince a mass of people to try my system, but you said they need evidence in order to try it, creating unresolvable situation. So no, I dont need to provide any examples of this system as there are no exact examples of this system anywhere in the world.
"False, obviously your system would have considerably more inflation, as we have shown, which would detract from your score on monetary freedom which is calculated with such."
You didnt show anything except a couple of sites that dont have any evidence.
"Secondly with "the government making sure that "every individual in every commune produces his own food for himself and his family," we can rule out rule of law subsections that measure property rights so your system would have less economic freedom and thus, lower quality of life as shown in round one."
Less economic freedom? I think you meant less exploitation by the rich, more effective food production, better food quality, and less working time.
"Unsubstantiated claim. Food production by the individual for himself is not economically or socially viable because it lacks economies of scale therefore will be on net, more expensive and less efficient. That is in addition to showing that food production would be impossible on a national scale."
Actually, combining Ruth Stout method with fruit trees and vegetables is not only the most effective way of food production, it is also good for the environment.
"Individuals won't have the same means to produce food of better quality due to lacking economies of scale. There would also be more pests, crop failures, and diseases due to being less efficient."
Same means to produce food? All you need to produce food is shovel, scythe, possibly a pickaxe for digging holes for trees, bucket for water, bucket for fertilizer.
Do you need me to describe it how its produced? How to solve pests? If you want, I will describe it in great detail.
"The rich don't exploit people they create jobs and provide for people and the society at large thus contributing to a raised standard of living. You have simply defined this as exploitation, you need to make an argument for it. If not, we default to the commonplace."
Rich dont create jobs, just like the pharaon didnt create the pyramids. Almost everything is done by the workers. Rich guy simply gives the command for something to be done. Workers are the ones making factories, materials, stores, cars...ect. People had jobs before rich people even existed. So we dont need rich people in order to have jobs.
Also, rich do exploit workers, as workers need to work not only for themselves, but also for the rich. Capitalism is just a different feudalism. Who made the cars that rich people drive? The workers did. Workers have to work to produce for the rich and for themselves, which means that rich people exploit them. If I work 6 hours to produce for myself and then 2 hours I work to produce for you, its obvious that I am being exploited for 2 hours.
"slavery
We are reasoning a posteriori. I am arguing that the best system to prevent slavery, abuse, and exploitation is under the government of a mixed market capitalist country. Because countries with weaker governments and more extensive subdivisions have more internal conflicts see Afghanistan, (and other middle eastern countries) African countries, etc. "
Comparing capitalist countries to other poor capitalist countries has nothing to do with my Socialism. Also, your big governments are the ones enabling slavery and exploitation, so maybe work on that.
"Just because you attempt to produce food for yourself does not mean it will be of good quality."
Good quality food is easy to produce, as you simply need not to add poison during its production.
"Additionally, most people don't even know how to produce their own food and there is certainly a curve of experience to account for."
We can teach them, but I guess you havent thought of that.
Well, if you have any more arguments about why being exploited by the rich is so good and why being a slave is so good, please post them. I will be happy to reply.
x. Overview
- Highlights from Pro: "I will not bother to post sources."
- Extend all arguments.
a. Food production as an impossibility
To move people from one place to another, you use a transport. You can use train, bus, car, plane...
- No methodology is provided as to how one can facilitate the relocation of hundreds of tens of millions of people to a single concentrated region in one day.
- The national average cost of moving is about $1,400 with a range from $800 to $2,500. Take the average (1650) and multiply that by around 100 million (there are 39 million in California and 20 million in New York alone for reference, so likely more),
- That is 165 billion dollars just to move people. Also, this will undoubtedly overwhelm any transportation system. For example, a typical plane holds 415 people. There area around 210,000 airplanes. Every airplane in the country can only hold 8.7 million people, a fraction of those who need to be transported. Pro will likely continue to deny reality, however. I ask our voters to use basic judgement.
a.1 Land requirements
- Everything stated here can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims from my opponent.
- Extend.
a.2 Physiological density
- Everything stated here can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims from my opponent.
- Extend.
- Conclusively, food production is an impossibility under pro's system which will lead to the collapse and stratification of society.
c. Empiricism
This system was never tried on larger scale, so asking for evidence doesnt make sense, as explained before.
- I already said you could present any evidence that it could work, not even a real-world application.
- Pro: "I will not bother to post sources."
- Still no empirical evidence.
@. Regulated capitalism
- @.1 Economic Freedom
- Dropped. Extend.
- That is to say, no response to the analysis of the Index of economic freedom and how pro's system would underperform within it. Instead this comment:
Less economic freedom? I think you meant less exploitation by the rich, more effective food production, better food quality, and less working time
- Which is an unsubstantiated claim.
- Conclusively, my system will have less poverty, better health, better education, a better environment, and a better standard of living if not already obvious.
Additional points/rebuttals
Inflation
You didnt show anything except a couple of sites that dont have any evidence.
- If you need help reading, I can't help you. If you can't click on links ask a family member. Extend.
Economies of scale
- No response. Extend.
Actually, combining Ruth Stout method with fruit trees and vegetables is not only the most effective way of food production, it is also good for the environment.
- Unsubstantiated claim
Same means to produce food? All you need to produce food is shovel, scythe, possibly a pickaxe for digging holes for trees, bucket for water, bucket for fertilizer.
- Irrelevant to my argument from economies of scale as we are stipulating the inability to expand and cut costs causes inefficiency and waste.
Food
Good quality food is easy to produce
We can teach them
- That is good. We could estimate the specific learning curve here as well. "USDA considers anyone who has operated a farm or ranch for less than ten years to be a beginning farmer or rancher." So it takes at most 10 years to become a beginner. Other farmers report it takes to 10 years to start an organic farm.
Slavery/conflict
Comparing capitalist countries to other poor capitalist countries has nothing to do with my Socialism.
- I am comparing government structures. Weak governments tend to have more conflicts, wars, chaos, and strife. This is called state fragility. One of its characteristics is "the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions," as well as "the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force"
- aka: pro's system.
Also, your big governments are the ones enabling slavery and exploitation, so maybe work on that.
- Unsubstantiated claim
Exploitation
Rich dont create jobs
- They invest capital into a firm or business and hire people thus creating Jobs. Some people call this common sense, but I prefer the ontology of basic logic.
Almost everything is done by the workers.
- They did not create their jobs. They also don't bear the risk burden of a business.
we dont need rich people in order to have jobs.
- You need people to create Jobs, the rich just tend to be good at that because they have more money to trade for labor. They also can achieve economies of scale easier (by virtue of having more capital) and thus grow and hire even more people. Also, you get average people who start a business (ex. Steve Jobs garage turned into apple) get rich, and hire more people.
Also, rich do exploit workers
- Unsubstantiated. You need to make an argument for this, not assert it.
Conclusion
- In my opinion, I see this debate as a forgone conclusion, regardless, pro has not upheld his burden of proof.
Round 4
"They invest capital into a firm or business and hire people thus creating Jobs. Some people call this common sense, but I prefer the ontology of basic logic."
Their capital was created by workers. The firm was created by workers. All parts of buiseness were created by the workers. Rich people dont create jobs. They simply own the place, and even that is thanks to the workers labour being exploited by the rich. Rich people hiring someone to work doesnt mean anything as workers could hire themselves. The only reason workers ask rich to hire them is because the rich made it almost impossible for a worker to create his own job. The rich stole the ownership of a job from workers, and then gave back the job to the workers under the condition of exploitation.
"They did not create their jobs. They also don't bear the risk burden of a business."
Workers did create their jobs. The rich took it away from them. Workers dont need rich people in order to have jobs. Rich people need workers in order to get rich.
"You need people to create Jobs, the rich just tend to be good at that because they have more money to trade for labor."
The rich are good at exploitation, yes. Are they good at creating jobs? In every society so far in history, almost everyone had a job except the rich ones. In slavery, people had jobs. In feudalism, people had jobs. In tribes, people had jobs. The only difference was who exploited the workers and how much.
In my Socialism, workers create their own jobs. So no one exploits them. So they have more wealth.
Now, you have also written something about needing money to start producing food. If you are a vegan, the only money you need is basically money for seeds, pots, shovel, bucket and scythe. Seeds are quite cheap, and you dont need a lot of them. 20 dollars at most.
Pots are cheap. About 20 dollars in total. Shovel? In my country, its about 8 dollars. Bucket? You only need two buckets. One for watering. The other for fertilizer. Maybe 10 dollars at most. Now, scythe is the expensive one. But it makes mowing grass much easier, so it is a useful tool to buy. Its about 40 dollars in my country. So in total you need less than 100 dollars. And thats not per person. Thats per family.
Now, as this is the last round, I dont have much more to add. I have described the basics of my Socialism. Anyone interested in it can seek the examples of worker coops around the world, but they are not exactly the same as my Socialism. They are just the closest to it.
If you are interested in how workers coops fuction, Richard Wolf describes them to some extent. Also, there seem to be thousands of examples of self-managed workers coops in China, Vietnam, Japan. These worker coops are not at their full power yet, they will be once they achieve more self sufficiency. Self sufficiency is important for every individual, hence individual-oriented self sufficiency Socialism seems to solve problems that previous Socialist systems couldnt or didnt want to solve. But of course, as always, the future will show.
x. Overview
- Highlights from Pro: "I will not bother to post sources."
- Pro's lack of any source wins me the debate already and the rest is a self-evident conclusion.
- This is a policy debate, policy debates require empirical evidence and as it stands, we can not vote for the system that will cause starvation and the collapse of society, in a similar sense, voters cannot vote for the side of the debate that openly refused to post any sources.
- I will not be responding to the last round of non-sequiturs from a pro, but will simply emphasize my dropped points. It should me made clear that pro's lack of cited evidence disqualifies any decision from going his way. As this continues into the final round, dismiss all claims purported as unsubstantiated.
- Extend all arguments.
a. Food production as an impossibility
- Dropped (any previous notions can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims)
a.1 Land requirements
- Dropped (any previous notions can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims)
a.2 Physiological density
- Dropped (any previous notions can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims)
c. Empiricism
- Dropped (no sources provided)
@. Regulated capitalism
- @.1 Economic Freedom
- Dropped (any previous notions can be dismissed as unsubstantiated claims)
- Conclusively, my system will have less poverty, better health, better education, a better environment, and a better standard of living if not already obvious.
Additional points/rebuttals
Inflation
- Dropped
Economies of scale
- Dropped
Slavery/conflict
- Dropped
I'll vote on this one, please vote on mine
I'll vote on this one. Please vote on my debate.
I'll aim to get a vote up over the weekend.
I need vote for this, please.
Yeah, this debate is a forgone conclusion.
I published an argument with an actual calculations. Hes gonna have to try much harder now to complete this debate.
How so?
Its like watching a bunch of 4 year olds trying to figure out advanced math.
You're right, it just felt hyperbolic until i did the calculations myself, as understandably it sounds like a lot for so little people.
"3 acres is barely enough as you said vegetables alone take up the entire space and more, this isn't even factoring fruits. So Cons case is pretty doomed either way with even a vegan diet as you still need 10 per person."
Oh absolutely, it should be fun to watch his response.
Examining your line of reasoning, I think you functionally misunderstand the distinction I am creating between the average amount of land and the amount of land required for lasting self sufficiency concerning food production. This is not only a critical, but imperative reason as to why you are incorrect with your assessment. You posit that selecting everything for two people only goes up to 15. This is immaterial as the average American family is composed on 3 people.
3 acres is barely enough as you said vegetables alone take up the entire space and more, this isn't even factoring fruits. So pros case is pretty doomed either way with even a vegan diet as you still need 10 per person.
You can literally do the calculations yourself on the site, and change family size etc. I'm not disagreeing with you but even if i put it to two people and click literally everything available it only goes up to 20. We dont need all the different types of animals to survive. Admittedly its still too much for con to probably argue against it still being viable but your sources are still likely highballed but they're still in the same range of course so its not much of a complaint.
I gave a range of 15-41 (should be 51) and used the lowest number for my calculations. Do you personally see such a difference as highballing or ridiculous, or is it a case where you did not fully read my argument and observe the figures I used for calculation of the minimum land requirements? Regardless, your source is speaking specifically about feeding one individual " for a year," something we can ascertain is irrelevant to the current predicament as my figures illustrate the amount of land required for for food self sufficiency permentantly.
Here's a calculator you can use to see.
https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-feed-one-person/
"To produce enough food to feed a family of four for a year, provided you have a suitable climate condition, you’ll need about 13 acres of land if you’re growing all sources of meat on your farm and 7 acres if you’re raising just pigs. Remember pathways are necessary for easy farm access, and at least 0.5 acres of land should be invested in that."
Novice admittedly highballs it massively with 40 acres, that's ridiculous in most cases unless you're trying to be more than self sufficient but sell to others.
Even for a vegan diet for 1 person you still take up over 3 acres per one person.
I have no clue how I didn't see that second sentence. That's my bad.
Right, which is why to be the most charitable, I made a range from the lowest value of the general consensus (5) to the official estimate of the FAO (17). Thanks for giving this clarification. I believe going off the general consensus is most sufficient for this engagement.
I agree that his claim is misleading... the source doesn't necessarily agree with his claim. The source clearly states that the calculation is being debated, but the general observation is that a person needs 5-10 acres to sustain themselves. It literally says, "The General Consensus is 5-10 acres to be self-sufficient."
Socialism cannot be yours. It belongs to the people. 'My socialism' can literally be argued as something that does not exist.
No, he provided a link to the site that has 20 different contradicting informations.
From his site:
"According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person. "
"An infographic by 1BOG.org breaks it down to about 2 acres of land for a family of four. This includes approximately 12,000 sq. feet for wheat, 65 for eggs, 2640 for corn, 100 for dairy, 207 for meat, and 77,000 square feet for vegetables."
"Proponents of aquaponics say that 90% of our dietary needs can be grown in 50 square feet."
"Permaculture advocates say that ¼ acre per person is adequate when permaculture is combined with poultry, fruit trees, and possibly aquaponics."
"Clive Blazey in his book The Australian Vegetable Garden (Amazon Link) claims that 42 square meters of space is enough to support four people."
"John Seymour in his book The New Complete Guide to Self-Sufficiency (Amazon Link) says that 5 acres is enough to be food sufficient in high-rainfall areas of the UK."
And then the site cocludes that if you are a vegan, you need at least 5 acres of land for yourself...
On 5 acres of land, every year you can produce 50 tonnes of food if you are a beginner. So basically, unless everyone in america eats 100 kg of food every day, this is not a valid source.
I mean, just googling the sites that make claim without providing evidence is the same as if he himself made that baseless claim.
I simply asked for calculations, the source of the claim. His sources are just claims unsupported by calculations.
They provide the link in their case.
"the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person."
Can I get the link as I cant seem to find the idiotic site that claimed something like this.
1 acre of land produces, in bad conditions, 10 tonnes of food per year. Average person eats 1 ton of food per year at best.
he just doesn't know how to respond against your galaxy brain economic system.
You got about 2 hours to post an argument or you forfeit. I dont mean to be annoying, if you want to forfeit i dont care. This is just in case you forgot about debate.
I dont know exactly how to name this Socialism. I can find some similar examples of it in worker coops around the world, but it doesnt seem to have some special name.
It is very similar to Kim Jong Ils Juche system of self reliance in food production in its general principle. However, instead of applying it to a country as a whole and dividing a country on those who produce food and those who dont, I applied it to every individual so that every individual produces food for himself and as such achieving self reliance in food production.
It is based upon some principles of Juche. But the organization itself is based upon something like union of the workers coops in combination with equal distribution of the land to ensure food production. Basically, instead of dividing society on those who produce food and those who dont, in this Socialism everyone owns a piece of land and produces food for himself.
This saves resources, gives the incentive to produce quality and quantity, as the more you produce the more you will have.
What is "My socialism"? Juche?
Good luck to both debaters, seems like a fun topic!