Communism in relevance to the American economic situation

Pro argues that Communist rule of Russia was an improvement over the rule of the Tsars. That would be relevant if the United States were suffering under the rule of Tsars. That is not our current situation. We do have Obama's tsars, but they are different. 1. I argued that having the government seize all private property is contrary to the US Constitution, and that there is no evidence that Americans seek seizure of their property as a "goal for relief." Pro made no counter argument, so the point stands. He seems to imply that the key to getting Americans to like authoritarian rule is to "re-educate the population on what our movement is." If a massive brainwashing effort achieves the goal of making authoritarian rule desirable, that would not meet the requirement of the resolution that Communism would fulfill our current desires. Our current desires do not include abandoning individual rights. 2. I argued that socialism has always led to economic hardship, especially in comparison to free market economies. I cited North vs. South Korea, East vs. West Germany, and the movement of India and China away from Socialism. The Capitalist alternative has in every case been dramatically more prosperous. How does Pro explain why capitalism is dramatically more successful in every case? He says, "it is hard to offer a complete solution without distorting previous efforts due mostly to my very limited knowledge of complete economic strategy." Fair enough, but if he doesn't know why Socialism has had such a uniform record of failure, he cannot rationally claim Socialism would succeed in the United States. Pro has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution that it would be successful, yet admits he does not know what the factors are that have resulted in uniform failure so far. Pro also offers a partial explanation of the record of failure: "In previous Socialist countries, individuals have taken power through the use of force to destroy the current heads of state." This is untrue. The dozens of countries in Africa adopted socialism as soon as they were freed from colonial rule. India adopted socialism democratically some after independence. Most of the western European countries experimented with socialism democratically, and backed off as economic failure loomed; they subsequently retreated to heavily taxed capitalism. Socialism fails no matter how it is derived. The factors that cause failure are well established: the establishment of a non-productive ruling bureaucracy, the inability of human planners to match the free market's ability to provide supplies equal to demands, and the gross incompetence of politically-determined management compared to competitive manager. Those failure mechanisms are inherent in Socialism; if they were removed, it would no longer be Socialism. 3. I pointed that Socialism necessarily establishes a ruling class. Pro did not contest the point. People do not want to be subjected to a ruling class, they want freedom. 4. I pointed out that Socialist countries cannot successfully compete with capitalist countries in world markets. Pro's only claimed example of success, the Soviet Union, never had competitive success beyond oil, gas, timber, and military hardware. The military hardware was sold to nations that the rest of the world would not deal with, so they had a protected market. Pro thus, so far, concedes the point that socialist countries cannot compete in free markets. Therefore Pro's claim that Socialism is necessary to compete in world markets clearly fails. 5. Pro claimed that workers can manage productive operation more efficiently than professional managers. I pointed out the large set of specialized skills needed for successful management, and that workers who spend their time on other tasks cannot be expected to learn the needed skills. Pro did not provide an argument as to how the needed skills could be acquired, nor did he argue that no special skills were needed. He merely claimed offensive "to say that the common worker could not control the means of production in the modern industrial workplace." It is not in the least offensive to say that specialized work requires elaborate, specialized skills. Would it be offensive to suggest that workers who have a full time job doing something else are not likely to succeed in being good doctors, lawyers, engineers, or scientists in their spare time? No, its a straightforward recognition of the difficulty of the jobs. Pro points out that workers do rise through the ranks to become managers. Yes, it happens when a worker shows both the ability to manage and the desire to learn the skills. Progression in management is done on merit, with skills gradually learn over many years. We also get management expertise from university training. Neither of those mechanisms are part of the socialist scheme, whereby non-specialist workers get to vote on complex issues of finance, risk assessment, and marketing. 6. I pointed out that greed is really a desire for security. Capitalists achieve success by efficiency and meeting market needs. Socialists achieve security by joining the ruling class and milking the working people to benefit of bureaucratic elite. Pro did not offer an alternative explanation for the obvious emergence of non-productive ruling classes in every socialist country. Pro claimed that Socialism has not been given a proper try. It has been amply tried, and every attempt met the definition of Socialism to which Pro agreed. The lesson of the Twentieth Century is that Socialism always fails.