Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5818
capitalism is the ultimate system
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
i want someone to try and prove that capitalism isnt the best system available
Round 1
Pro
#1
Capitalism is merely a natural concept that existed long before mankind itself. It began with the first cellular forms. How is economy related to evolution? Well, capitalism goes beyond economy and trade—it's the use of resources. The capitalist concept is the creation of wealth from existing wealth. For example, you have a cow and use its milk to buy a new cow. Now you produce twice as much milk, and so on. More cows mean more milk. It's a basic example.
Having this concept explained, we understand that capitalism, as it is, was not created by humanity, which makes it perfect in its own way.
Now, how do market laws apply? These are also natural. For example, consider your brain learning something new. The demand for information causes resources to move from one place to another. You might forget something you learned before, but you focus on the new thing. This is an example of market logic in how brain cells work.
An ecosystem is another example: a space where different entities work separately yet still influence each other while competing in their own markets. You also have the immune system and how different cells or supplies attend to the needs or demands from a pathogen. Notice how the immune system "innovates" or finds its way to handle situations by adapting itself to the needs of the pathogen or what the body requires to stay healthy.
This illustrates that everything in nature is also a competition. Market logic applies to all living things, big or small, because they act out of pure evolution—a form of capitalism where goods are created from existing ones.
Having said this, a healthy society should let everyone live as they choose while ensuring the classical principle of liberalism the principle of non-aggression is respected. This means enhancing liberty on both social and economic levels: no one is forced to do anything they don't want to, and no one can hurt or violate another person’s freedoms.
I can also explain how social freedom works through market logic. Ideas are valued by how many people believe in them, which resembles democracy in every way. This highlights another point: market logic is purely democratic. Social freedom is the capacity to believe in an idea (or not) and to exercise freedom of speech. It also includes actions that may not be socially mainstream, such as smoking weed or breaking traditional gender roles by being a feminine man or a masculine woman.
This ties into Darwin’s principle: living beings adapt to their environments in the most convenient ways possible while overcoming challenges. Social freedom works similarly, as people consciously or unconsciously choose the ideology that suits them best. This creates a common denominator, leading to overall societal change.
For example, conservatism, sexism, and racism have declined over time because they no longer suit modern logic or societal needs. Homophobia is another example—it has significantly decreased over the years. Gender roles have evolved, and science has become more widely accepted by institutions like the church, as seen during the Renaissance.
In contrast, during the Middle Ages, even reading the stars was considered sorcery and could lead to being burned alive. Many such shifts highlight how freedom has influenced the world since the Industrial Revolution. It remains a core value today and is seen as indispensable.
Having this concept explained, we understand that capitalism, as it is, was not created by humanity, which makes it perfect in its own way.
Now, how do market laws apply? These are also natural. For example, consider your brain learning something new. The demand for information causes resources to move from one place to another. You might forget something you learned before, but you focus on the new thing. This is an example of market logic in how brain cells work.
An ecosystem is another example: a space where different entities work separately yet still influence each other while competing in their own markets. You also have the immune system and how different cells or supplies attend to the needs or demands from a pathogen. Notice how the immune system "innovates" or finds its way to handle situations by adapting itself to the needs of the pathogen or what the body requires to stay healthy.
This illustrates that everything in nature is also a competition. Market logic applies to all living things, big or small, because they act out of pure evolution—a form of capitalism where goods are created from existing ones.
Having said this, a healthy society should let everyone live as they choose while ensuring the classical principle of liberalism the principle of non-aggression is respected. This means enhancing liberty on both social and economic levels: no one is forced to do anything they don't want to, and no one can hurt or violate another person’s freedoms.
I can also explain how social freedom works through market logic. Ideas are valued by how many people believe in them, which resembles democracy in every way. This highlights another point: market logic is purely democratic. Social freedom is the capacity to believe in an idea (or not) and to exercise freedom of speech. It also includes actions that may not be socially mainstream, such as smoking weed or breaking traditional gender roles by being a feminine man or a masculine woman.
This ties into Darwin’s principle: living beings adapt to their environments in the most convenient ways possible while overcoming challenges. Social freedom works similarly, as people consciously or unconsciously choose the ideology that suits them best. This creates a common denominator, leading to overall societal change.
For example, conservatism, sexism, and racism have declined over time because they no longer suit modern logic or societal needs. Homophobia is another example—it has significantly decreased over the years. Gender roles have evolved, and science has become more widely accepted by institutions like the church, as seen during the Renaissance.
In contrast, during the Middle Ages, even reading the stars was considered sorcery and could lead to being burned alive. Many such shifts highlight how freedom has influenced the world since the Industrial Revolution. It remains a core value today and is seen as indispensable.
Con
#2
Alright! My first time doing this. Let's address your arguments:
As a way to start, I find your first paragraph to be a little odd. You claimed that capitalism is a natural concept that predates mankind itself. Yet, the argument you gave (the cow one) is directly related to trade and mankind, creating a little contradiction for the reader. you claimed capitalism is bigger than economy or trade, however, your definition of it (it's the use of resources) is exactly the center of economy and trade. What are they on? the usage of resources, both natural, and human. But let me address this argument itself, for I see it's very flawed. for first, according to the oxford dictionary, capitalism is an economic system rooted in competition, it is the act of letting the market rule economy, where everyone can do as they please with the recourses they have. Now, on first observation, it might seem like capitalism works under the rules of nature, but the difference between them is one vast word : survival. I find it ironic that the example of cows you provided does prove the striking difference between these two, Nature, is based on survival. Capitalism, on the other hand, is based on thriving. Animals, won't hunt for food unless they are hungry, won't stoke their recourses to make more (except for some insects like ants, but that is more an act to save themselves rather than to thrive, it's adaptation, we'll comeback to this later). A lioness won't hunt unless for what is enough for her and her cubs. One may expect that one cow's milk is enough, the act of seeking more than enough is the difference. Nature has a cycling quality that capitalism lacks, plants will grow to be eaten by a gazelle, it will then be eaten by a lion, the lion will die, become Fertilizer to the ground, and plants will feed on that Fertilizer and grows and the cycle continues. It isn't perfect, but far better than what capitalism has to offer. In fact, I may argue that nature follows a much more communist approach than that of a capitalist, a system where everyone is equal in a way, where everyone (no matter how strong) participates equally in the continuation of the world. But I am not holding into that point, for I believe nature to be the closest we have to a delicate balance between these 2 extremes, And I don't consider myself a communist. So no, it isn't perfect, for nothing is.
For your example around the brain, I will unfortunately skip on that one, for I don't have enough expertise to challenge it (I am not a neurologist, nor one who knows about brains all that much). So....Sorry, I can't answer it
For your example regarding the ecosystem, I can agree with you to an extend, it is true that different aspects of the ecosystem are influencing each other indirectly, and that is a thing that keeps the system going. I disagree with you in 2 points to this linking you made. First, they don't work the same way, an ecosystem is linked to what I mentioned earlier, survival. While animals are indeed competing to stay alive, they compliment each other rather than destroy. A pack of wolfs won't destroy a colony of bees for no reason, everyone in an ecosystem is giving their all, that's how it keeps on going. A market, on the other hand, destroys each other, if you find a chance to crush someone else, for even the thought that they may oppose you someday, you will do it. The owner of a business has no problem using all methods to be the one who benefit from something. It's because everyone thinks of themselves, not the market, those who have power won't let others join them, no one will be honest, no one will do their best. My second point comes from the aspect of origin. ecosystems need an origin, that is food, the greens. An ecosystem won't start, let alone even last without it's origin( not just grass, there are more thing, but you get the point). Animals, no matter how much they adapt, will rely on this origin. Pure capitalism ( the free market) is against that, is against an outsider factor being it's reason to last.
I find your most ironic example to be the immune system one. I get your point about innovation, but capitalism is far from the only one who holds it, it's just one of the most extreme examples of it. our immune system, again, fights in one common goal, no white cell will live better if it kills more pathogens. If you ask me, I'd say our body works better as a communist entity. Be a lazy cell or an active one, everyone is doomed if things don't work out, and all is good if things do, it comes back to honesty. But to stick to your link, I provide you with a problem, our immune system, needs time to adapt, it can't fight a lot of things on it's own, go back 5 centuries ago, and a simple flew or cold can kill you. And that's the thing, our immune system needs external help. It need medicament, injections, it's innovation isn't enough, for it often times comes too late. Just as the market is in need of constant help, for it suffers almost periodically, a free market with no external help is doomed to fail (take 1929 as an example). So pure capitalism, the idea of a market that runs itself, is simply impossible. You might also take the funny parallel that a market is closer to being a body with cancer rather than a healthy one
For your next point, you delve more in the aspect of free will and freedom, I am particularly distasteful of this topic, so I'll skip on it, the point I'll give before moving on is a question, where is the limit? I may not destroy you directly, but indirectly cause your downfall, is this allowed. What about the companies that, to gain profit, may intentionally put or do harmful things to make production cheaper? you may say that there should be following on these matters, but to what limit? A small dose of lead won't hurt, until 1000+ cars are doing it everyday. think of that.
....I truly don't understand your finale, you talk about evolution and freedom, a lot of other ideologies have that, there is no defense for your point in that paragraph, you brought the industrial revolution and it's difference from the middle ages. but while European people were chasing witches. The Muslims for example were thriving, capitalism was not the first to make the world better, it in fact, showed it's flaws very early, showed what uncontrolled freedom can do. Sure, the worker signed to be in the job that clearly is inhumane, but only because all owners have these rules. Capitalism is build on greed, it is the thought of having profit now, not thinking about tomorrow.
I think this is enough for now, what do you think, buddy?
Round 2
Pro
#3
very well the cow example only illustrated how the use of one resource leads to the obtention of a new one, bacterias do this using their energy to self replicate (mitosis) once they fed enough. or even by using the energy they have to obtain more of it by eating, predators do this as well, using their musculature and biological hardware that evolved along the years to hunt, using a current good, themselves and their energy/time, to finally hunt a prey, everything alive in the universe uses a resource that could be literally anything they find conveniant to create/find/get a new better one wich the consider more valuable, basically everything is an investment. John Stuart Mill builds on Smith’s foundation, defining capital as "wealth devoted to reproductive employment." In Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill underscores the self-perpetuating nature of capital: wealth used productively generates profits, which are then reinvested, creating a cycle of growth.
Mill's perspective aligns directly with my concept. For him, the reinvestment of wealth is not only central to capitalism but also a mechanism by which society achieves progress. By channeling wealth into productive uses, capital acts as the driver of economic expansion, improving both individual prosperity and collective well-being. and yes my concept of capitalism is indeed beyond just economy and trade, see everything that life is works on a supply demand logic, even psycology itself works throught this and actually carl jung describes how people restrict or opress themselves with shadow theory becoming less creative, intelligent or unhappy, this reflects on how freedom or non oppression with the principle of non aggression ultimately leads to improvement due to the darwinian principle of the search for improvement in ones context/environment.
and capitalism as i said is intrinsic not just to humans but to life, a free market, is a market logic working economy wich is also intrinsic, where there is no oppression, yet we cant escape either the market nor the concept they are there whatever we do like gravity is, wich was not created, discovered as capitalism and market laws were. also you say survival is the difference between nature and "capitalism" or as i say a free economy (where these things happen because they must), is survival, when actually the system itself is based on the survival of the companys and its competition, see if a company isnt good enough serving its costumers then they buy less, if the price is too high for them, they buy less, a series of bad decision that leads to either unjustified high prices or bad quality products leads to less consume so less growth so death or being broke or what starving is for a wolf. and also comparing it to nature is very simple see the wolves market has nothing to do with bees, it has to do with the wolves market where they would compete
Market Logic: Wolves are "consumers," and elk are the "goods." Wolves compete with each other for access to elk, driving the allocation of elk resources.
- Wolves with better hunting strategies or territories secure more elk.
- When elk populations decline (a "scarcity of supply"), weaker wolf packs or individuals die off or migrate.
- This reduces predator pressure on elk, allowing their population to recover.
- Wolves with better hunting strategies or territories secure more elk.
Result:
The competition among wolves leads to territorial balances and ensures that elk populations are not completely depleted, stabilizing resource allocation for future generations.
Elk Competing for Plants (Herbivores and Vegetation)
- Market Logic: Elk are "consumers," and plants are the "goods." Elk must compete for vegetation, especially in areas where resources like fresh grass or shrubs are limited.
- When plant availability decreases due to overgrazing, elk spread out to find better grazing grounds, reducing pressure on a single area.
- Healthier or stronger elk secure better access to plants, while weaker elk may die or reproduce less.
- When plant availability decreases due to overgrazing, elk spread out to find better grazing grounds, reducing pressure on a single area.
Result:
This competition prevents overgrazing in one location, allowing plants to recover and ensuring long-term sustainability of plant resources.
Plants Competing for Soil and Sunlight (Producers and Foundational Resources)
- Market Logic: Plants are "producers" that rely on "inputs" like sunlight, water, and nutrients from soil. They compete for these resources through:
- Adaptation: Taller plants outcompete others for sunlight. Deep-rooted plants access water others cannot.
- Diversity: Different plants occupy unique niches, reducing direct competition (e.g., grasses thrive in open fields, while trees dominate forests).
- Adaptation: Taller plants outcompete others for sunlight. Deep-rooted plants access water others cannot.
Result:
Competition among plants fosters efficient use of foundational resources like sunlight and soil, maximizing productivity and maintaining biodiversity.
or even for example how pine trees grow up and wide because they compete on who can get more sunlight, or even how some flower species kill other flowers to obtain other and more nutrients from the soil
all these different markets compliment each other such as in a human economy where intervention ends up hurting all the entire process
Feedback Loops Allocate Resources Dynamically
In market logic, price signals allocate resources; in ecosystems, feedback loops play this role:
- Wolf Population Declines → Elk Populations Increase: If wolves overhunt, their numbers decrease due to starvation, allowing elk populations to rebound, reallocating resources for future wolf generations.
- Elk Overgraze → Plant Recovery: If elk overconsume plants, they face starvation, reducing their population. This allows plant resources to regenerate and reallocate.
- Plant Scarcity → New Growth Patterns: Scarcity of sunlight or nutrients forces plants to adapt, fostering diversification and efficient resource use.
These natural checks and balances mirror how markets adjust through scarcity, abundance, and competition.
a great example of how markets are disrupted by intervention would be when in the 1920s on yellowstone they mass killed wolves leading to overpopulation of elks, that lead to deforestation, and unbalances on the "plant market" hurting other animals as well such as beavers or birds and even bees as you say in the end wolves actually helped the bees if you look carefully, see the competition isnt between different species its between their own species, a ferrari doesnt compete with macdonalds as Space X doesnt care about how well Louis Vuitton is doing, each and every entity uses its resources with its own kind creating an overall balance and harmony amongst the economy and when i say economy i mean entitys and how they use their resources for their own benefit.
any predator will hunt the most because it wants to be stronger so it reproduces and leads its pack it wont just conform.
Adam Smith's Justification for Wealth Creation from Current Wealth The Principle of Capital Investment (The Wealth of Nations, 1776):
- Adam Smith emphasized the role of capital accumulation and reinvestment as the foundation of economic growth:
"Capital employed in agriculture, manufacture, or trade not only replaces itself but also produces a profit, which is added to the original capital and becomes a new source of wealth."
- In Smith's view, existing wealth (capital) generates additional wealth when reinvested into productive activities. This creates a cycle of wealth creation, as profits are reinvested into labor, innovation, or more productive ventures.
Alignment with my Concept:Smith explicitly highlights the process where current wealth, when intelligently applied, creates more wealth—a central tenet of capitalism.- The Invisible Hand and Resource Allocation:
- Smith's metaphor of the "invisible hand" argues that individuals pursuing their self-interest unintentionally promote societal prosperity:
"By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, [the individual] intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
- Wealth creation in capitalism, as per my definition, thrives on this dynamic. Wealth is reinvested into productive ventures not because of altruism but because individuals or enterprises aim to increase their own profits. This self-directed process leads to broader economic growth.
Alignment with my Concept:The "invisible hand" demonstrates how reinvestment of wealth (current wealth) into productive activities benefits society by expanding the economy and creating more opportunities for others.
here you can see how there is indeed a constant cycle of wealth that actually expands itself even further and how animals or non intelligent species do the same thing, wich is to look for their own interest creating a common denominator that causes a final result
, besides "dead companies" or animals have resources wich allocate to a better company or companys so the wolve dies and the plants eat it, the ice cream shop goes broke and the shoe store buys the place they had.
and in fact no one is actually equal both in nature nor economy enterprises in a same market have different characteristics, so as animals do, and you change the markets and actually see how
nature is survival of the fittest so is a free economy market.
and actually in "capitalism" as you say or a free market as i say, everyone is equal yet they are not, they are equal in potential yet their actions define how strong will they be, this is actually also highlighted on how liberalism also comes with the principle of "equality for the law" meaning regardless of gender, race or social class we all get to do the same, regardless of our circumstances so we must be and do as we must without breaking the principle of non aggression, without deviating from the subject, we are the same in potential yet not in action, fair isnt everyone getting the same, it is everyone getting what they deserve or gained, both on law and competition/economy or "capitalism" as you say
well also wolves will destroy each other at points or they will create packs. get together, companys will destroy as they will colaborate however they find reasonable wich will lead to a better resource allocation.
and there is a heavily disproved flaw on saying that companys dont care about the market they do either consciously or not, they know that if they dont attend demand or that if they dont catch it get it attract it they will fail completely so they do care about it
oh nonono my friend well the origin on capitalism or free market is the need of the people this is the very basic foundation of it, people will always need something no matter how or where they are and this makes the free market system work
" I find your most ironic example to be the immune system one. I get your point about innovation, but capitalism is far from the only one who holds it, it's just one of the most extreme examples of it. our immune system, again, fights in one common goal, no white cell will live better if it kills more pathogens. If you ask me, I'd say our body works better as a communist entity. Be a lazy cell or an active one, everyone is doomed if things don't work out, and all is good if things do, it comes back to honesty"
1. Decentralized Decision-Making
- Market Logic:Markets rely on the independent decisions of individuals or entities. Buyers and sellers act based on personal incentives, like maximizing utility or profit. No single entity controls the market, yet it often results in efficient allocation of resources (e.g., supply and demand adjusting prices).
- Example: Producers respond to consumer demand by adjusting production; shortages drive innovation or price increases.
- Example: Producers respond to consumer demand by adjusting production; shortages drive innovation or price increases.
- Immune Systems:The immune system operates through millions of decentralized cells (like macrophages, T-cells, and B-cells), each performing specialized roles. These cells "respond" to pathogens independently yet coordinate through chemical signaling to mount an effective defense.
- Example: When a pathogen invades, immune cells in the affected area release signals (cytokines) to recruit reinforcements without central oversight.
- Example: When a pathogen invades, immune cells in the affected area release signals (cytokines) to recruit reinforcements without central oversight.
Similarity:
Both systems rely on distributed components making localized decisions that, together, lead to a system-wide response or equilibrium.
2. Resource Allocation
- Market Logic:Resources in a market are allocated to where they are most needed or valuable, guided by price signals. Scarcity increases prices, incentivizing producers to create more of the scarce good.
- Example: If energy demand rises, prices go up, encouraging investment in production or alternatives (e.g., solar, wind).
- Example: If energy demand rises, prices go up, encouraging investment in production or alternatives (e.g., solar, wind).
- Immune Systems:The immune system allocates resources like white blood cells, antibodies, and energy to combat specific threats. When a particular infection occurs, resources are concentrated in the affected area (e.g., inflammation or fever) while reducing allocation to non-critical functions.
- Example: During an infection, the body diverts energy toward immune responses, often resulting in fatigue.
- Example: During an infection, the body diverts energy toward immune responses, often resulting in fatigue.
Similarity:
Both systems prioritize resource allocation to areas of greatest need, ensuring survival or systemic efficiency.
3. Feedback Mechanisms
- Market Logic:Feedback loops regulate market behavior. For example, if demand exceeds supply, prices rise, which eventually lowers demand and increases supply, rebalancing the market. Similarly, overproduction leads to falling prices, discouraging further production.
- Example: High oil prices may reduce consumption and encourage alternatives, stabilizing the market over time.
- Example: High oil prices may reduce consumption and encourage alternatives, stabilizing the market over time.
- Immune Systems:Feedback loops regulate immune responses. For instance, when a pathogen is cleared, regulatory T-cells signal to suppress the immune response, preventing excessive inflammation (like autoimmune diseases).
- Example: Cytokines amplify the immune response initially but are later suppressed to avoid overreaction.
- Example: Cytokines amplify the immune response initially but are later suppressed to avoid overreaction.
Similarity:
Both systems maintain balance through self-regulating feedback loops, ensuring efficiency without overshooting responses.
4. Competition Drives Efficiency
- Market Logic:Competition among firms and individuals encourages innovation, better products, and lower prices. Producers must adapt to consumer needs or risk being outcompeted.
- Example: Companies innovate to create faster, cheaper technology to satisfy market demand.
- Example: Companies innovate to create faster, cheaper technology to satisfy market demand.
- Immune Systems:The immune system uses competitive processes like clonal selection. B-cells and T-cells with the strongest affinity for a specific pathogen are "selected" to proliferate, while less effective cells die off.
- Example: When exposed to a virus, only the most effective antibodies are mass-produced to neutralize it efficiently.
- Example: When exposed to a virus, only the most effective antibodies are mass-produced to neutralize it efficiently.
Similarity:
Both systems leverage competition to optimize outcomes—markets create better products, and immune systems generate stronger defenses.
5. Adaptability and Innovation
- Market Logic:Markets are dynamic, constantly adjusting to new challenges, technologies, and consumer preferences. Firms innovate to remain competitive, creating entirely new industries or solutions.
- Example: The rise of renewable energy industries in response to climate change and energy demand.
- Example: The rise of renewable energy industries in response to climate change and energy demand.
- Immune Systems:The immune system adapts to new pathogens through mutation and memory. Once exposed to a threat, it "remembers" it, allowing faster and stronger responses in the future.
- Example: Vaccinations train the immune system to recognize and fight pathogens more effectively.
- Example: Vaccinations train the immune system to recognize and fight pathogens more effectively.
Similarity:
Both systems are inherently adaptable, responding to external pressures with innovation or learned improvements.
6. Self-Regulation
- Market Logic:Markets regulate themselves through mechanisms like competition and price signals. While imperfect, they often stabilize without direct control.
- Example: A monopolistic practice can lead to inefficiencies, which eventually invite competitors or alternative solutions.
- Example: A monopolistic practice can lead to inefficiencies, which eventually invite competitors or alternative solutions.
- Immune Systems:The immune system self-regulates to avoid harm. Overactive responses are dampened, and energy is conserved when threats subside.
- Example: Regulatory cells prevent the immune system from attacking healthy tissues (autoimmunity).
- Example: Regulatory cells prevent the immune system from attacking healthy tissues (autoimmunity).
Similarity:
Both systems rely on internal processes to regulate excesses and maintain balance without requiring constant external intervention.
Key Differences
- Human Interference:
- Markets are often subject to external regulation (laws, subsidies, or policies).
- Immune systems are biological and operate autonomously, though they can be influenced (e.g., through medication or vaccines).
- Markets are often subject to external regulation (laws, subsidies, or policies).
- Purpose:
- Markets aim to maximize utility, efficiency, and wealth creation.
- Immune systems prioritize survival and protecting the body from harm.
- Markets aim to maximize utility, efficiency, and wealth creation.
Conclusion
Both markets and immune systems are decentralized, adaptive, and self-regulating systems that allocate resources efficiently in response to changing conditions. They use competition and feedback loops to optimize outcomes, ensuring balance and resilience. and competition is seen in the fact that Market competition and the immune system both rely on decentralized, adaptive processes to allocate resources and respond to challenges efficiently. In a market, businesses compete to satisfy consumer demands, with the most innovative or efficient firms thriving, while less capable ones fail. Similarly, in the immune system, cells like T-cells and B-cells "compete" to recognize and neutralize pathogens. The most effective immune cells are selected to multiply and fight infections, while weaker ones are eliminated.
Both systems self-regulate through feedback loops: markets balance supply and demand via price signals, while the immune system modulates responses to avoid overreaction (like autoimmune disorders). Ultimately, competition in both contexts fosters efficiency, adaptability, and resilience, ensuring optimal performance in their respective environments.
and the communist thing you is actually a capitalist thing where if you dont do anything you dont make anything, if you dont satisfy anyone you are dumped away and completly.
and 1929 is actually a great example of how state intervention is the reason why it happened, see the government then did a money policy called liberty bonds that basically allowed the people to spend money they didnt have causing them to do things they didnt actually want to but believed they could, (here we find the truth=freedom principle) so they spent money that didnt exist because of state intervention causing the absolute "market failure" as some would say or as i say a complete dissonance of communication signal between demand and prices causing the devastating event that hurt the world by making americans buy stocks with non existing money, when they went back to get their money back the banks refused, a whole disaster occured because of intervention. and no markets dont suffer periodically if they do is in fact because of state intervention, the whole market logic is actually very very very sophisticated making it extremely adaptable as it became on covid, as it becomes on winter in ecosytems, as it became on wars, as it became on the discovery of oil, or the creation of cellphones wich lead to the death of monopolys too wich are intrinsic to failure, due to their own weight plus lack of competition and innovation wich leads to less consume and less growth, plus eventual death the best example is the greatest monopoly that ever existed wich is the ussr that actually surprise surprise was an enterprise, that didnt manage its resources well and eventually fell apart naturally on its own.
"where is the limit? I may not destroy you directly, but indirectly cause your downfall, is this allowed."
indirect destruction is caused by the demands choice not the enterprises choice. so if someone fails to succeed is a naturally democratic process and outcome
"may intentionally put or do harmful things to make production cheaper?"
anything a company does within the margin of the principle of non-aggression is permitted so this means, no robbing, stealing, or killing,
"A small dose of lead won't hurt, until 1000+ cars are doing it everyday"
well here it represents a potential threat to life so it is regulated, this isnt a contradiction, this is the following of the principle of non aggression wich is the only thing that the government should make sure its being done.
"I truly don't understand your finale, you talk about evolution and freedom, a lot of other ideologies have that, there is no defense for your point in that paragraph, you brought the industrial revolution and it's difference from the middle ages. but while European people were chasing witches. The Muslims for example were thriving, capitalism was not the first to make the world better,"
yes europeans were chaisng witches and capitalism was used in both of these examples,
trade within the Islamic world was highly encouraged and relatively free, supported by religious, cultural, and practical factors:
- Islamic Teachings on Trade:
- Commerce was highly valued in Islam. The Prophet Muhammad himself was a merchant, and his teachings promoted ethical trade practices.
- Usury (riba) was prohibited, but partnerships, credit, and other financial instruments flourished.
- Commerce was highly valued in Islam. The Prophet Muhammad himself was a merchant, and his teachings promoted ethical trade practices.
- Freedom of Trade:
- Muslim merchants operated across vast regions without significant barriers. The unification under the Caliphates (Umayyad, Abbasid, and others) created political stability and standardized trade practices.
- The use of a common language (Arabic) and currency simplified transactions.
- Muslim merchants operated across vast regions without significant barriers. The unification under the Caliphates (Umayyad, Abbasid, and others) created political stability and standardized trade practices.
- Low Taxes and Open Markets:
- Trade taxes were minimal compared to European feudal tariffs. Merchants paid small duties, usually zakat (charity tax) or specific tariffs, but these were not restrictive.
- Many cities established open markets (souks or bazaars) that welcomed traders from different regions and religions.
- Trade taxes were minimal compared to European feudal tariffs. Merchants paid small duties, usually zakat (charity tax) or specific tariffs, but these were not restrictive.
- Global Networks:
- Muslim merchants formed networks that spanned continents, allowing for the free flow of goods, ideas, and technologies. For instance, they brought Chinese paper-making techniques to Europe and African gold to the Middle East.
- Muslim merchants formed networks that spanned continents, allowing for the free flow of goods, ideas, and technologies. For instance, they brought Chinese paper-making techniques to Europe and African gold to the Middle East.
people had more autonomy than in europe and capitalism was used in europe but only for and by the church and nobles and kings yet not by normal people wich is what makes up today, besides freedom wasnt even a thing there because there was feudalism and slavery wich also existed in muslims but if you compare freedom in one system to the other you will see that the muslim were way freer therefore richer in average and as an empire.
and again understand that capitalism was there before anyone ever knew what an economy was or money, economy isnt about money is about human nature and resource handling. wich is explained throgh the capitalis concept and the market logic.
" it in fact, showed it's flaws very early,"
it doesnt have flaws because its natural thats my premise, its not a system is a concept of action, the market is a system that works through the concept i hope im clear about this.
" the worker signed to be in the job that clearly is inhumane, but only because all owners have these rules. Capitalism is build on greed, it is the thought of having profit now, not thinking about tomorrow."
the worker signed to do something he chose to but yes all the companies had inhumane conditions if by that you mean long hours of work then i dont see the problem unless its exploitation because inhumane conditions could be them being a threat to life, such as unsafe instalations or conditions that brake the principle of non aggression
".I truly don't understand your finale, you talk about evolution and freedom, a lot of other ideologies have that, there is no defense for your point in that paragraph"
and here i explain how free societys due to darwins law chase progress and advantegeus ways to live naturally, so basically freedom is to let things sort themselves out so they can progress as fast as they may their own way, adapting to their environment the most advantegeus way. wich is why i explain that freedom of speech enhances the idea market by letting people believe what suits them best. as an species, for survival and adaptation they do things such as rejcting racism because it clearly cuts potential on us as species, or gender roles, because it makes us less effective as a society, or the very fact that we naturally lean towards freedom because it allows us to progress further in any way. we do good things because they are good this is basic living nature.
last yet not least important i want to clarify that the capitalist concept and market logic are amoral wich means they dont care about exploitation, kids, slaves or death. freedom with the principle of non-aggression is what leads societys for a better outcome wich is why the state has to ensure these things for everyone so competition is real, communication of resources/prices is real so that everything works in our favour. the capitalist concept and market logic are tools that we dont choose to use but we naturally are forced to fall to so we must use them in the most beneficious way we can wich is through the classical liberal principles.
to prove myself, an anarchist society wich means no state, naturally and unnevitably leans to capitalism, but there is no principle of non-aggression so people get hurt.
i hope i was clear on the difference between of capitalism as a "system" and as a concept because they are not the same.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFV in comments 16 and 17 of this debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Having taken the time to review both positions. My vote goes to Con. While I do find the pro's argument about capitalism to be interesting, their argument that it predates humanity is both false and lacks common sense. While I am a supporter of capitalism myself, Con made great arguments when pointing out that capitalism is based on thriving rather than balance. Their claim their capitalism creates competition and destruction, while not entirely correct, had more bases in connection with reality than pro's "economy related to evolution" arguments.
I am happy you read my arguments! I wished I made a round too, but nonetheless, thank you for voting!
fair I guess, It's my fault, I chose a bad time in my life to start a debate, and couldn't get the argument before the deadline haha. But it's true, I was going to challenge many things he said in the second round. But time wasn't on my side. Thank you for the contribution! it was interesting to read
to resume what i mean in a few words, capitalism=investment system=market both are unevitable, i think i may have made myself way too long, and human economys work more like symbiosis where there is codependence like bees and flowers, consumers and companys.
RFV Part 1
Title and Description
Ultimate at what?
System for general use in all avenues?
Generally best system for Economics?
What are you defining Capitalism 'as?
Right this second, lacking a definition, I'll go with
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism#h1
befairbruh R1
Might be defining capitalism as
"The capitalist concept is the creation of wealth from existing wealth."
Which I 'suppose, one can use to argue one see's such an activity in many species, ants collecting resources, or birds collecting twigs. The acquirement of resources/wealth.
I'm not sure a 'single person on an island could be capitalist though.
Could they be capitalist if there was not another human, but an animal, that they gave food in exchange for the animal doing something?
Such as when a dog guards sheep, or a pig gets slaughtered?
Seems a bit odd, ge- (Well, these are 'my thoughts, not Pros)
I'm not sold on the brain example, to me it feels like saying the demand for free movement causes water to move from place to place when opportunity for movement is presented, such as a hole in a water bottle, therefore water is a capitalist.
Yeah I know Pro is talking about Capitalism 'Market 'Laws, which is different than just saying Capitalism.
. . . It's 'not that I disagree with using Capitalism as a lens, it just feels a bit forced to argue that 'everyone should see through said lens, or that various systems should be called capitalistic.
Cells in the body interact and have different paths, connect with one another, I admit.
Should I see,
"everything in nature is also a competition"
To mean that Pro is also defining Capitalism as competition?
Pro again uses "a form of capitalism where goods are created from existing ones."
I'm just thinking on how to define Capitalism for this debate, which 'maybe should be common sense, but I'm slow sometimes.
Shadowcritique R1
I think Pro is saying one sees the existence of wealth and trade can be seen in many avenues of existence. I think they use the cow and human examples as baseline, before expanding the concept to other avenues.
Which Oxford Dictionary
"Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary
To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content."
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/capitalism_n2?tab=meaning_and_use
Nooo! I hate having to sign into every (Redacted) website to use their (Redacted) services!
Well, anyway,
Con seems to be defining Capitalism as,
"capitalism is an economic system rooted in competition, it is the act of letting the market rule economy, where everyone can do as they please with the recourses they have."
I don't find the argument that nature is focused on survival, convincing.
Birds can collect shiny objects, cats sometimes play with then kill animals even if not hungry, extend their 'territory for reasons of comfort.
A main focus of capitalism 'is often survival, though it can be used more recreationally.
While I suppose nature 'is a community,
I'm not so sure about equality,
Else would one call some rich billionaire a Communist, just because he's going to die someday?
Capitalists 'can crush other people just for being competition, but so can animals,
Territory fights,
Also a bear might eat the bee honey.
Common ownership of the body, is an interesting view for the body, by Con.
Con argues the limits of Freedom.
Round1 Thoughts
I'm still not sure if Pro is arguing one can 'see Capitalism in everything, or if one should try to 'be Capitalistic in more systems.
I can a bit go either way so far, One can see degrees of Capitalism or Communism in various systems perhaps.
Though one might argue BoP is on Pro
RFV Part 2
befairbruh R2
Continuing with their definition of capitalism as,
"the use of one resource leads to the obtention of a new one"
This could be bad for Con, as I don't recall them defining or arguing against Pros definition of capitalism,
It 'wouldn't be so bad for Con though maybe, if they had posted a round 2.
Though one can argue they argued against Pros definition of Capitalism in round 1 by disagreeing on how Pro 'applied their definition.
I don't quite agree with defining Capitalism as the transformation/use of energy for various purposes and/or more wealth/energy.
One sees another possible definition of Capitalism by Pro,
"nature is survival of the fittest so is a free economy market."
Pro makes various comparisons of how they see Capitalism in nature.
Pro argue Capitalism results in better overall situation, though I'm not convinced that humans couldn't control an ecosystem better than leaving animals and plants to themselves.
We usually want something 'specific out of nature,
And while nature may fall into niches and cycles, I don't think there's any 'Objective specific 'Good Cycle.
. . . I think back to Con argument about outside action, medicine for humans acting on their own bodies.
Which I can imagine Pro as arguing to be Capitalism again, because of humans using resources and their body as a resources, to increase resources.
An argument I am not convinced by, one can apply lenses over various situations, I think that Pro is using Capitalism too broadly defined.
But again, it's a problem for Con that they did not post a round 2.
I also think Pros,
Your Freedom to swing your fist, stops before it hits my face, definition of Freedom,
A bit of a cheat, cheap cop out.
It's not as though wolves don't eat the Elk.
Yes, Pro did not use the fist example 'exactly.
Shadowcritique R2
Missed, and missed opportunities for rebuttals or strengthening own argument.
My concluding thoughts.
I think Pro was better able to push their definition of Capitalism than Con was able to push their definition of Communism.
If Con had been around for round 2, maybe they could have hit harder against Pros definitions of Capitalism.
Pro used their time to further define Capitalism as a concept rather than pure human to human trade and control of private goods.
I'm not 'convinced by Pro,
But I think they won the debate by their definition pushing, with not 'enough pushback by Con.
Missing Round 2 hurt Con.
Both sides legible.
Conduct would go to Pro by Con missing a round.
Sources, Tie, neither 'quite used them.
Wel, my vote to Pro then.
hi, may i know wich point lacks any sense? perhaps i missed something on my explanation
I mean, he is arguing that capitalism is a natural process that does only need to rely on the market, I believe this to be pure capitalism?
Capitalism is better than any other economic system developed so far. While pure capitalism would be a terrible idea, you can never have a completely pure economic theory. Capitalism is as good as it's going to get.
thanks man
I think there might be an orange button between Pro (Green) and Con (Red),
That says something along the lines of publish argument,
I'd say click that.
great then lets go, btw its my first time in this site and i dont really know how to publish arguments so i will start doing most of it here, hope its ok, and well, my first argument starts like this, Capitalism is merely a natural concept that exists way before mankind itself, it began with the first ever cellular form, how is economy related to evolution?? well capitalism beyond economy and trade its the use of resources, and the capitalist concept is the creation of wealth from current wealth, example, you have a cow and use its milk to buy a new cow, now you make twice as much milk and so on, more cows more milk, its a basic example, having this concept explained, we understand that capitalism as it is, it was not made by humanity wich makes it perfect on its own way, now how do the market laws apply?? well these are also natural, for example, your brain on learning something new, the demand of information causes the resources to move from one place to the other, you learned something before but now you dont care so you forget but you still learn this new thing, its an example of a market logic in how brain cells work, an ecosystem is another example somewhere where different entitys work each separately yet still influence each other, whilst comepeting in their own markets, you also have the inmune system itself and how different cells or supply attending the need or demand from the patogen, see how the inmune system "innovates" or find its own way to handle the situation by adapting itself to the "needs" of the the patogen or what the body requires to be healthy, this is shown in how everything in nature is also a competition, market logic applys to all little and big living things everywhere because all of these act out of bare evolution from capitalism the creation of a good from a current one, having this said, a society a healthy one should let everyone be and live as they should while making sure the classical principal of liberalism wich is the principle of no aggression is respected, this comes with enhancing liberty on both a social and economical level, meaning no one is meant to do anything they dont want to and no one can hurt or violate a freedom from another person, i can explain as well how society freedom works, through the market logic,
I see, so you're point is mainly related to pure capitalism, emphasizing that it's the better way to run society. If this is the case then I am ready to accept your arguments!
yeah as long as it is a system where freedom of choice is respected, because this is what truly puts resources where they "belong" or should be at wich is where the demand asks it to be
i mean by ultimate as the best or the only functional one, the model society i mean to explain is one that is free both economically socially and politically, also one that does have a state a small one that only makes sure that individuals are able to be competent yet not to live for and by the state.
you are right it is vague, what i mean to say is that the use of pure free markets and the respect of owners free will to do as they must is the most optimal way to get a healthy growing thriving society, and i mean this not just in economics but also in politics and even to a social level
I do want to ask, can you explain your argument better? what do you mean by the best? do you speak of pure capitalism? this is too vague
well capitalism is a natural concept that stands to all living things to even a cellular level, the concept itself is to create a new good from an current one, the constant creation of new wealth it is, this is something that applys to even the wildest species, even non intelligent life, wich is also why the free market system is something that is also natural and non created by humans yet still unnevitably used because as i said capitalism and also market logic apply to human nature i can show more examples why both macro and micro level
Ultimate as in the best or a final system?
What do you mean by ultimate?
When do you consider a system to no longer be capitalism?
Many governments have a 'mix of economic systems I think.
Also, do theoretical systems count?
Such as a system where robots do near all the manufacturing and mining of resources.
Worked great so far.