Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
this discussion shouldn't be based on real world anecdotes and instead actual theories of Marx and whether they're moral or immoral
A. I talked about the theory and its practice. My criticism of the Marxist theory was that it punishes hard working and inventive people.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
or more broadly how capitalism with all of its unintentional slave labor, ecological destruction and corruption is morally better or worse than the alternatives.
B. You just said we shouldn’t talk about it in practice but instead in theory. Also, slavery isn’t capitalism, capitalism as an ideology is defined by trade of capital and services. The problem with slavery is that legally speaking these people have been defined as property and thus open up an industry in which they can be bought and sold. You can have slavery in capitalism, slavery in anarchism, slavery in fascism, slavery in communism and slavery in socialism. It is not an inherently capitalist problem.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
"Socialism" in a western context means "democratic socialism", which is just strengthening the safety net.
C. Democratic socialism means socialism through democracy. It is still the same or similar policy, as a fundamentally socialist government just the leader is elected through democracy. The philosophy I assume you’re looking for is social democracy which is a left-wing liberal ideology. Not to be mistaken with socialism as it has a moderate government on the moderate left.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
The "look at Venezuela" rebuttal might as well be a cliche at this point because it's just over-done and it's very misunderstood by conservative pundits. Venezuela suffers not only because of failed socialist policies but because of a corrupt and anti-intellectual government which is tearing the country apart from the inside. To say that socialism caused its problems is a cop out:
D. Conservatives blame socialism for Venezuela’s downfall because it’s the socialist philosophy which makes it more applicable to corruption and dictatorship. This is simply because socialism is an authoritarian left-wing ideology, it gives government significant power over businesses, the economy and the people. I will admit the Venezuela rebuttal is a huge cliché, but that’s because it’s such pivotal evidence of socialist failure.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
"Socialism" bought Australia medicare, which for me is enough to justify Australian socialist principles. I agree that the health care cost is high but it's not a problem in a real world perspective.
E. What do you mean “not a problem in a real world perspective”? This argument lacks any substance or validity. A lot of Australian policies are unimportant in a real-world perspective, but these problems are highly significant for Australian citizens. Plus, this macro policy serves as another case study for socialised industry.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
If our country spent less money supporting the dying coal industry (which our government politicians primarily in the Liberal party have a personal stake in)
F. Despite this being an obvious strawman tactic of diverting the blame. I actually do agree. Our economy is overall dependent on mineral trade with Asia and this puts all of us at high risk if we ever run out or slow down.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
and stopped cutting tax for the rich it wouldn't be such a big issue.
G. I disagree. I think cutting taxes in general rich and middle class works wonders for the economy. This is simply because government does not invest or spend money as well as individuals. If you think rich people aren’t being taxed enough what do you suggest would be a more appropriate amount? Currently income earners above $180,001 pay 45% for every dollar made above this threshold. This high tax cost disadvantages small business owners the most who can’t afford to simultaneously run their business and pay the higher tax rates. Thus, the taxes are counterintuitive to entrepreneurialship, consumers and in many cases jobs (as business move production overseas to better compete with the increasing tax costs.)

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
Not to mention spending money on stupid stuff like sending extra chaplains to schools and giving money to privately funded religious and elite colleges.
H. I was initially surprised by this, so I did a brief fact check and you are absolutely right. I think this is a complete waste of government expenditure. But unfortunately, this has nothing to do with capitalism, government funding schools is more of a socialised system and certainly not a free market one. So, I’m not particularly sure why you raised this.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
In regards to whether or not I "understand" socialism as an ideology, that's an interesting thing to say because it assumes that your understanding of an ideology is the correct or most valid one. You identify as a libertarian conservative, which somehow gives you a keener insight into a philosophy you don't subscribe to. Your view of socialism is coloured by your libertarian ideas about what socialism is, and that's different from mine.
I. I would suggest you don’t make assumptions of people’s intentions or biases in a debate. You don’t know anything about me. I was a socialist Christian when I first got into politics and philosophy, but I’ve looked at the literature and have changed my mind accordingly. But to be clear, what do you define as socialism? Fundamentally speaking it’s a big government ideology that supports a centrally planned or mixed economy.



Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
"Socialism" directly or indirectly bought us the union movement, a minimum wage, disability pensions, welfare assistance for those who need it, public schooling and public libraries, all of which have improved millions of lives of people world wide leading to happier and smarter people.
J. Capitalism has improved people’s lives far more significantly. It’s improved medicine, technology, productivity and has helped hundreds of millions of people rise out of poverty. All of which would be slowed or non existent by socialism, because businesses would be less productive due to increased regulation and tax.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
in every economic model ever devised someone has to "win" more other people
K. Yes, but it is how you win which makes it moral or not. The people who win in communist regimes are the people with political connections. The people who win in capitalism are the hardworking and smartest people, who can sell a product or service consumers want. Everyone wins, the maker and the buyer. Furthermore, Marxists intentions are irrelevant, I don’t think he was evil but he’s ideas have most certainly lead to the creation of evil things. There is more to communism than Marxist ideology.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
Very rarely is an ideology implemented as it was supposed to be implemented. Capitalism is no exception, the current version of capitalism is different from Wealth of Nation's principles after all because it evolved as our technology did.
L. The implementation of capitalism is very different. Capitalism does not follow a set of guidelines, unlike the communist manifesto. It has slowly been created through the trials and errors of individuals and civilisations.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
I think this is an instance where the truth is more complicated than saying "I'm right" or "you're wrong" because ideology isn't as simple as that, everything is a spectrum and to boil things down to absolutes is a poor way of approaching it.
M. I agree to a certain extent. I agree that this is very complex and nuanced. But ultimately, the debate question was “Is capitalism moral” and through debate we can at the very least determine if it’s more or less moral then communism.

Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
I respect your views even if I don't agree with them.
N. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - Velyn Beatrice Hall