Does capitalism worsen social inequality?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Does capitalism worsen social inequality?". Your opponent's style: devil's advocate

menurutku

You're starting in Indonesian ("menurut ku" = "according to me"), but you haven't actually made an argument yet. So let me hit you with the strongest case against your likely position. You probably think capitalism creates inequality. Wrong. Capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty faster than any system in history. Pre-capitalist societies were *uniformly* unequal, with rigid feudal hierarchies. Capitalism's meritocratic engine—however imperfect—lets people escape their birth station through productivity. Inequality under capitalism isn't the system's failure, it's the price of freedom and mobility that alternatives never delivered. So what's your actual claim? Make it specific. Don't hide behind incomplete sentences.

tidak, orang orang miskin karna sistem. orang miskin sebenarnya tidak bisa naik ke atas bukan karena mereka tidak mampu, tapi karena, se kuat kuatnya mereka bekerja, keringat mereka tidak terbayar dengan cukup

You're confusing wage suppression with systemic impossibility. Yes, wages lag productivity, but that's a *solvable market problem*, not proof capitalism traps the poor. Look at reality: millions escape poverty every year in capitalist economies through education, entrepreneurship, and migration. Bangladesh garment workers earn more than subsistence farming. Chinese manufacturing workers built the middle class. These aren't flukes, they're capitalism's pattern. Your real complaint isn't that the poor *can't* rise, it's that they don't rise *fast enough* or *far enough*. That's a valid gripe about distribution, not about whether the system enables mobility at all. So name one alternative system that's actually paid workers fairly. Just one.

oke, tapi kapitalisme kan muncul dari revolusi prancis, dan revolusi prancis sudah berlangsung lama, kalau kapitalisme memang dapat memecahkan masalah seperti itu, seharusnya angka kemiskinan tidak sebanyak ini kan? komunisme menurut saya sendiri adalah sistem yg sangat sesuai dalam kehidupan kita saat ini? contohnya cuba. cuba membayar rata semua orang. dokter, sopir, semua rata, dan sukses aja?

Your timeline is backwards. Capitalism didn't emerge from the French Revolution, it emerged *before* it and *caused* the Revolution. And Cuba? You're describing a fantasy, not reality. Cuba's "equal pay" is a lie. Party elites live vastly better than ordinary citizens. The average Cuban earns $30/month while the state controls everything. That's not equality, it's enforced poverty with privileges for rulers. Meanwhile, capitalist countries cut extreme poverty from 36% (1990) to under 10% today. Cuba's socialism? Economic stagnation, rationing, and dependence on foreign aid. You're romanticizing oppression because it sounds fair on paper. Why hasn't Cuba's model spread if it works so well?

karna intervensi luar negeri. kalau komunisme tidak bisa efisien, mengapa amerika selalu berupa menghapus kapitalisme?

America doesn't try to eliminate communism because it fears equality, it eliminates it because communist states collapse economically and become authoritarian nightmares. The Soviet Union didn't fail from external pressure, it imploded from internal inefficiency. Your logic is backwards again: if capitalism is so oppressive, why do people flee communist countries for capitalist ones, not the reverse? Cubans risk their lives on rafts to reach Florida. Nobody drowns escaping Miami for Havana. "Foreign interference" is the excuse communists use when their system fails. Stop blaming America's shadow and answer this: why does every communist state require walls to keep people in?

aku mohon bicara lah dengan bahasa indonesia

Baik, tapi argumenmu masih cacat logika yang sama. Kamu bilang Amerika "selalu berusaha menghapus komunisme" seolah itu bukti komunisme lebih baik. Itu tidak masuk akal. Amerika menentang komunisme karena sistem itu gagal secara ekonomi dan menciptakan diktatur brutal, bukan karena takut kehilangan kekuasaan. Uni Soviet runtuh dari dalam, bukan dari blokade AS. Fakta paling jelas: orang lari dari negara komunis ke kapital, tidak sebaliknya. Kubais mengambil risiko nyawa untuk ke Florida. Tidak ada yang tewas mencoba masuk ke Kuba. Jadi jawab pertanyaan keras ini: kenapa setiap negara komunis butuh tembok untuk cegah rakyat keluar?

what basis im cacat logika? amerika memang selalu mencoba menghapus komunisme. doktrin truman contohnya. kalau benar amerika mencoba menghapus komunisme karena gagal secara ekonomi dan diktatur brutal, apa manfaatnya bagi mereka. lagipula kalau memang tidak membahaykan kenapa mereka berusaha sebegitunya. kalau masalah orang kabur, itu karena negara komunisme sendiri belum terbentuk, tapi negara tersebut mulai menerapkan aturan aturan komunis. karna sedang berkembang, dan belum selesai. makanya masih banyak masalah ekonomi yg muncul dsan seharusnya dapat dipecahkan jika kuba terus meningkatkan negaranya

Kamu menggeser goalpost. Pertama bilang komunisme sukses seperti Kuba, sekarang bilang Kuba "belum selesai berkembang." Kapan selesainya? 60+ tahun dan masih menunggu. Doktrin Truman bukan bukti komunisme bagus, itu bukti Amerika takut ekspansi Soviet. Tapi takut ekspansi ≠ takut ideologi yang efisien. Amerika membendung imperialisme Rusia, bukan "menekan ide bagus." Dan "belum terbentuk"? Semua negara komunis pakai alasan ini selamanya. Artinya teorinya tidak bisa diuji di dunia nyata, hanya di kertas. Mengapa kamu percaya janji yang belum terbukti 60 tahun?