Socialism

I think that we're having a good time. There are many problems with my opponents definition. However even my opponent defines socialism as "An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. " Note the term, "or collective. " Worker cooperatives collectively own and control the means of production. Hence the system which I described fits within this definition. There are other parts of this definition which must be jettisoned if we want to talk about socialism in the traditional sense of the word. "It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to healthcare. " That only applies to a system of public ownership and control, not a system of collective ownership and control. Therefore, my opponent's definition is contradicting itself. Furthermore, there are many different types of socialists. Granted, many socialists have wanted to expand the state, but many socialists have wanted to dismantle the state. I'm not arguing for either alternative. I'm merely arguing for collective, or cooperative ownership of the means of production, and democratic control. "China, Vietnam, and Cuba. .. Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and the U. S. S. R. " The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was as Republican as it was Socialist. The names are deceptive. The U. S. S. R. should have been called the Empire of Statist Dictatorships. You see, during the Russian Revolution in 1917, there was, at first, a potential for the development of true socialism. Worker's Councils were enabling Russian workers to democratically own and control the means of production. As I pointed out in round 1, worker ownership and control of the means of production is what socialists have traditionally advocated. However, by 1921, Lenin dismantled the worker's councils. Lenin himself said that Russia was not ready for socialism. The Bolshevik Party would keep the country ready for socialism, waiting until revolutions in more advanced societies. The Soviet model was not socialist since it didn't have worker's control of the means of production. The same could be said of China, Vietnam, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. None of these countries were ever socialist. It is easy for my opponent to argue against a straw man and to list all of the countries which called themselves socialist without actually being socialist. However, I think it would be far more productive for my opponent to argue against socialism as I defined it. This is, after all, a more traditional conception of socialism. Worker control and ownership is advocated by a wide range of Socialists, from Democratic Socialists to Anarchists to Council Communists/ Left-Marxists. Even if we go with my opponent's definition, the words "collective ownership" allow for an economy of worker cooperatives. I didn't have any space to present my contentions in Round 1. Now I do have space. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to put this in the first round, but since we aren't in the last round, it's okay to present contentions. Contention 1: Capitalism exploits workers; Socialism pays workers fairly. In order to make a profit, a Capitalist firm must spend less money than it makes. Moreover, the cost of producing and selling a product must be lower than the price of that product. I think we can all agree with that. This means that the people who produce and sell a product must be paid less money than the revenue which they generate through their labor. In other words, workers must be exploited if corporations are going to make any profit. This is basic logic, but maybe you still aren't convinced. If not, then I implore you to look at the numbers. Since 1948 average American pay went up 113% which sounds great until you learn that average productivity went up 254%. People are being paid less than half of what they produce. Socialism is more fair because when a worker cooperative spends less money than it makes, the profit goes back to the people who produced it -- the workers. Not only are wages voted on, but the excess revenue people produce goes to the people who produce it. Contention 2: Capitalism undermines democracy; Socialism strengthens democracy. In our Capitalist society, corporations and the individuals who get rich thanks to corporations have such a disproportionate amount of wealth that they can buy disproportionate amounts of political power. A Princeton study shows how damaging this is for democracy. "A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time. " Under the type of Socialism I describe, democratic institutions are not only left in place, they are strengthened because you no longer have economic elites dominating Washington D. C. Sources for stats in round 3.