Socialism is better for communities than Capitalism

DEFINITIONSTo debate, we must define socialism and capitalism.Because Pro has failed to provide any definitions, I provide two here:Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole," [1].Capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state," [2].CONTENTIONSPro makes two unproven statements.CONTENTION 1First, Pro argues that citizens of socialistic countries are happier than in capitalistic countries.Pro provides no evidence for this claim. This is sufficient to negate said claim.However, there's contradicting evidence that citizens under socialism have been very unhappy. Consider the Iron Curtain [3], a wall designed not to protect citizens from external threats, but to keep them from leaving. Why would the USSR, one of the largest (and most "successful") experiments in socialism, need to keep its citizens in, if they were happy? CONTENTION 2Second, Pro argues that citizens of socialistic countries are better off materially than in capitalistic countries.Pro provides no evidence for this claim. This is sufficient to negate said claim.However, there's contradicting evidence that socialism is a far less efficient mechanism of producing goods. I quote from [4], "The more moderate arguments of Hayek and von Mises have been supported by the historical evidence. When they argued that socialist production was doomed to be more inefficient than capitalist production, they were surely right. And when they argued that the market and state ownership, as general characteristics of a whole national economy, were incompatible, they were on to something. .... China, since the late 1970s, had developed a strange duial economy, in which a de facto capitalist, market economy coexists with a planned, state-owned economy - and growth comes mainly from the former. .... People's lives in the Soviet Union were characterised by a secure, humdrum poverty. There was a general regime of job security - that is, of security of tenure in existing jobs - aw well as a very low level of unemployment. This job security was the product of labour hoarding in a shortage economy, by enterprises whose managers had nothing to gain from reducing their payrolls. This was inefficient, but comfortable. ... Money incomes were less inequal than in the West, but the dispersion of money incomes understated material inequality. The latter rested on access to often unobtainable items in a shortage economy. 'To each according to his official rank' was the principle[.] .... Maddison's figures of per capita GDP show the Soviet Union never coming close to 'catching up and overtaking' the US."Socialist economies are inefficient. Even if unemployment and real poverty are low, the system is rampant with actual poverty, corruption, and shortage.VOTE CONVote Con, because Pro has provided no reasons to vote Pro, and Con has provided two reasons to vote Con.REFERENCES[1] https://www.google.com...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://phobos.ramapo.edu...