If true Socialism can be implemented properly throughout the world, it is better than Capitalism

Con stated that socialism has killed far more people than capitalism: 1) The atrocities that the 'socialist' countries committed were communist, an extreme form of socialism. 2) Even if con would want to talk about extremes, Nazi Germany was Fascist which is an extreme form of Capitalism (Fascism is the extreme right wing by definition), contrary to what my opponent has stated. This point is further proved by the fact that Nazi Germany's main ideological enemy was the USSR. And we all know the human rights violations committed by Nazi Germany. WW2 which lead to the death of 60 million was started by Nazi Germany, which was supported by the Fascist regimes of Italy, Bulgaria, Romania etc. http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu... US bombs Japan: Con argued that "It would have cost vastly more lives to not use the [atomic] bombs" Dead wrong, in my source it states that Japan was trying to negotiate peace talks in April and May 1945 THRICE, the emperor of japan kept trying to get a peace treaty signed. But the US ambassador showed no interest in signing a peace treaty. The US wanted to test their bombs on a populated city before they signed a peace treaty. The bombing of Tokyo (which took place before Hiroshima) by the US was more devastating than the bombing of Hiroshima. But in Tokyo, nuclear weapons were not deployed. Also it would not have been costly to invade Japan because their navy and air force was destroyed, the people were starving and their resource supply was all but diminished. http://www.ihr.org... I ask con to move away from the topic of how socialist governments are allegedly more cruel and genocidal than capitalist governments since I have proved this wrong and it is but a sidetrack of the debate. Government Ownership: Con stated that the government can do anything since they control the food, land and pretty much own everything. This is true and it does have the cons that my opponent mentions. But if a socialist country is democratic (which is very much possible), then people do have a voice indeed. They can protest, riot and even overthrow the government which is so corrupt that they starve the people. The only reason this did not happen in communist countries of the Cold War era is because they were not democratic and had no freedom of the press, so there was no way they could get together or be allowed free speech. Also, things like providing universal healthcare and free education are the agendas of a socialist. Is it bad for everyone to get free healthcare and education? Practicality of Socialism: As a theory socialism is excellent. But as con mentioned, it is near impossible for this economic system to actually work due to the selfishness of people. In socialism the only profit motive is the advancement of your country and possibly the human race. Self-advancement is not present in socialism. I will concede that as long as humans are selfish, socialism can never really work on a country wide scale (we are talking about millions, some cases billions of people). But tribal societies consist of only a few hundred people at most and in that situation socialism does work. The tribes-people share the food and water equally. Technically, their society is socialist since all the ownership is collectivized within the tribe. A man in the tribe has the incentive to work hard because his actions benefit the tribe, which is like an extended family. The only places socialist agendas can work on a country wide scale as of now is providing free healthcare and education, which it does in many countries. High taxes on the rich can also be considered a socialist agenda, which is good because that tax is used for improvement and maintenance of infrastructure. In a way, many countries in the world are in fact socialist to some extent. Economic Fairness: My opponent completely IGNORED my arguments on this topic. I will paste the very same words below and I ask con to reply to this argument. Well, is it fair that someone lazy was born into a rich family and had a better life than someone who is hard working but was born into a poor family and had a hard life with little content? Even if a rich person, say a CEO, does work harder than an average person, they surely do not work 1000 times as harder as an average worker, yet they make a 1000 times as much. Preposterous, is it not? http://www.businessinsider.com...