Communism in relevance to the American economic situation

1. Pro provides a contradiction by way of explanation: "The seizure of private property by the government is contradictory to the foundation of socialism. In fact it would be a re distribution accomplished fairly by the votes of the educated society." The definition of Socialism requires that the government own everything. There are two possibilities, either each individual in the entire society will voluntarily turn over their personal property to the government, or if there are less than 100% who volunteer then those who do not comply must have their property seized. Pro admited that not everyone will voluntarily comply when he acknowledges it will be "by the votes of the educated society." If it were 100% voluntary compliance, there is no need to vote. The concept is to have the 51% take everything from the 49%. Moreover, the 51% must be ever vigilant against someone in the 49% ever possessing anything. Tyrannical rule must remain forever to prevent that from happening. The concept of human rights is that there rights immune to majority rule. The majority is not allowed to enslave the minrity, even by a "fair" vote. Socialism cannot succeed without suppressing the people who do not want to conform, and who believe they can do better by themselves than under the control of the state. North Korea has spent more than fifty years "educating" it's people as to the virtues of socialism, but they still must keep hundreds of thousands imprisoned. Their "education" involves authoritarian suppression of free speech and every form of control, and it still doesn't approach the 100% level. Pro insists that any state that is dictatorial it is not "true socialism." If so, Pro should demonstrate where in the definition, to which he agreed, it implies that dictatorial socialism is not socialism. The definition only asserts that the State owns everything. Moreover, clearly the only way that the State can own everything is to seize what individuals wish to keep. That can happen "democratically," by a majority repressing a minority by force, but it cannot happen while honoring the right to freedom. Socialism can only be achieved by violation of the human rights now guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Americans cannot abide that. 2. Pro offers "It is not impossible to maintain a free market in a Socialist community, if anything it would be easier." Pro should start by explaining how this is possible logically, and then give examples of how it has worked somewhere. The definition of Socialism is that the State owns everything. Free markets require that person or group A owns something of value and is willing to trade it for something of value owned by B. If the State owns everything there is no basis for A trading with B. Neither A nor B can sell something it does not own. Beyond that, the primary reason for markets is the hope of gaining greater individual security. If the government guarantees that no matter how hard one works, there is no chance of being better than equal, then there will be no striving for improvement. In a free market, if A drives down his costs, he will be able to get more of B's goods. Under Socialism there is no reason to lower costs, because there is guaranteed to be no net gain. Economic progress also depends upon taking risks in the hope of getting rewards. By abolishing rewards, there is nothing but risk, and the best one can do is to avoid risk. 3. Pro asks, "Do we not have leaders that control the rules and finances of this country in their favor regardless of the majority vote of citizens?" We have a representative form of government, so there is indeed some isolation of leadership from direct democracy on the issues. However, the isolation is minor compared to Socialism which, by definition, must own everything and thereby control everything. Capitalism requires contracts and enforcement of contracts, and there are prohibitions against criminal activities. That does not imply a ruling elite comparable to the ruling bureaucracy necessary in a Socialist system, where apparatchiks make minutely detailed decisions over every aspect of economic life. Under capitalism, free markets weigh supply against demand without a ruling elite. Besides, claiming that capitalism of some sort of elite, does not deny my claim that Socialism must have a ruling elite of its own. The Socialist ruling elite is based upon politics, not merit, and it is larger and more intrusive. Only Socialism claims not to have an elite,yet it always has the most extreme form. 4. I gave numerous examples of free market societies performing better than Socialist societies. Pro responds "The thinking that Capitalism is more successful in these examples is simply an opinion.." No, it is not remotely mere opinion. Per capita income in North Korea is $1700 while in South Korea it is $26,000. http://siakhenn.tripod.com... India and China had horrendous famines under Socialism, now they do not. It has taken decades for West Germany to rebuild the failed economy of East Germany. The saying is, "The most amazing achievement of Communism is that it made bad workers out of Germans." Pro says of failed Socialist states, "These economies were plagued by capitalists who built a following on ideals they never fully supported. Many countries had civil disagreements and quickly growing populations." What disagreements within East Germany and North Korea? What capitalists? I have no idea what his point is. Pro continues, "This creates an environment of unrest. With the execution of actual Socialism, the greedy individuals who fight for only personal profit should have been removed from influence." Indeed, repression of human rights, per "removed" is essential to the socialist state. In what aspect was that overlooked in East Germany, North Korea, or China? They promptly dispatched opposition. 5. Pro says, "Con is right in saying it requires specialized skills for management. It still remains that it is possible for the workers to attain the skills needed." So why stop at management? We have lots of high paid professions. Why don't we let workers try being surgeons or engineers in their spare time? The reason is that doing well at any profession is a full time job. In fact, mangers work many more hours than wage earners. "The latest Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index finds that small business owners today work an average of 52 hours per week. The majority, 57 percent work six days a week and more than 20 percent work all seven days." http://www.accountingweb.com... Few wage earners want the responsibility of running a business. If they did want the responsibility, they would choose to start a business rather than be wage earners. They also do not want to work the hours required. 6. Pro contends that there is no Socialists elite that milks the system. There *must* be a huge bureaucracy that determines economic choices done automatically by free markets. How many pencil sharpeners will be manufacture this year? The glorious state Agency for Pencils and Sharpeners must decide. That agency must exist, yet it does not exist under capitalism. Therefore all of those bureaucrats milk the system. They exist only because of the system, exercise extraordinary power, and contribute no real value. Pro should explain in detail how his Socialism would weigh supply and demand. Pro seems to have in mind a cult of idealists in which everything will be fine because everyone is a true believer. He claims that people will work long hours, take great risks, and sacrifice all for the sake of being no better than economically equal. The problem with finding examples of prosperous Socialist systems is that it never has happened and never will. It is contrary to human nature. A little socialism is bad, a little more is worse, and so forth. Pro has given no exception to that rule.