The class struggle is as important now as it ever was.

With thanks to my opponent for taking this debate, I would like to respond as follows: With regard to the oil companies' profits, 8% is actually quite a good return, and, indeed, represents a lot of money. For example the London-based oil company Shell reported profits of $7.8bn first the first quarter of 2008 alone. http://www.shell.com... Under a socialist regime, the oil companies, together with most of the country's industry would be taken into public ownership so that it would be the people that benefit from the profits, not just a few corporate fat cats, swindling plutocrats and tax-dodging tycoons. I must disagree with my opponent's assertion that dismantling the current Parliament and judicial systems would not be effective in devolving power and influence to the proletariat and that this has been demonstrated many times in history. For instance, there was one country that was ruled by a monarch who oppressed the masses by taxing them heavily and denying them their right to self-determination. Then in 1775 the people rose up and rebelled against the ruling classes and overthrew them in a glorious revolution. The name of that country escapes me for the moment, but I seem to recall it's located somewhere between Mexico and Canada! Anyway, that nation seems to have done reasonably well since and, according to a recent poll, very few people there think they would be better off now under their former masters. http://www.debate.org... However, I do agree that we must be careful not to simply replace one ruling class with another. That has happened in the case of the aforementioned country, where it costs millions of dollars to run a successful election campaign, thus effectively excluding the less affluent members of society from running for political office. Also, I cannot accept your view that a redistribution of wealth would lead to impoverishment. Socialism is often associated with dreary, faceless concrete buildings inhabited by poor, miserable people. Many parts of the former Soviet Union were, indeed, like this but that country was run under a communist regime, which is not what I'm advocating. I have in mind something nearer the socialism practiced in countries like Sweden and Finland where the standard of living is amongst the highest in the world. There are very few extremely wealthy people in these countries and also very few extremely poor people - happily for them, the vast majority of the people are prosperous. Furthermore, my distribution of wealth will not stifle research or innovation because it would be based on a one off windfall tax - assets over a certain value that are held by the wealthiest 5% will be seized, liquefied and the proceeds distributed equitably across the rest of the population. In Britain the richest 5% of the population own 58% of the nations wealth meaning that 95% of the adult population would each receive a cheque for $124.881.00. http://www.statistics.gov.uk... That's a lot of money. Those that I can't persuade to support the revolution for moral reasons I should be able to persuade with the promise of a large pile of cash! So, whether it is for moral reasons or for personal financial gain, I urge you to support this noble cause by voting Pro.