Socialism is better than capitalism

I would now like to examine con's arguments, as per the rules of the debate.Con states: "It (capitalism) works in increasing economic growth and average income. It also works in increasing things like life expectancy, political freedom, and education."Refute: Con makes the point that the economies, and so the lives of the people under such economies are better. That statement without proof is only conjecture, but con has provided us with a source. That source states that the move to capitalism has driven the economies of foreign nations forward. I then must ask, what were they previously? The answer is that is cases such as China they moved from an authoritative dictatorship, to a more relaxed "controlled capitalism." It seems to me, and I believe I can safely say that con has the terms socialism and "ruthless dictatorship" mixed up. The article that he has cited, recalled instances of former dictatorships, and pseudo-socialist countries collapsing into capitalism[1]. For that reason the source is invalid, and therefore con's statement is also invalid. Con states: "Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange."Refute: The crux of con's argument, that capitalism is based on voluntary exchange, that is mutually beneficial. This is bluntly false in the actual world.Counterexample: For example the entirety of the lower class need materials to survive. The corporations, and businesses have the manufactured materials. The corporations need labor. The corporations then trade goods for labor. The worker receives the materials to stay alive, while the corporation takes advantage of the fact that they need their goods. In this case both people are subsisting, but the worker is not benefiting he/she is just being kept alive to provide labor for the corporation, while the employer is reaping all the excess benefit of the worker's labor. The worker's actions are not voluntary, because without the labor contract he/she cannot survive.Con states:"So long as they (corporations) don't get ties with the state, this is good for society."Refute: Con says that the corporations can only benefit society if they are not attached to the state. This statement is conjecture. A modern non-bureaucratic state can in theory, and actually be very well run by the state, so long as the statesmen have a vested interest in the welfare of the state. Since socialism would promote free elections, and ban "election rigging" by means of eliminating capital from the election process the state would actually be a far more trust worthy entity. Therefore in many cases the state would run corporations better, in that they do not have a profit motive.Con: "In contrast stands socialism. Socialism is basically a state run economy. The state uses coercion to forcefully take income from some to give to others. It runs industries not by free exchange and competition but central planning and force."Refute: Con's paints socialism as a ruthless domineering entity that destroys freewill, and eliminates free exchange and competition, then he also makes the bold statement that socialism is based upon central planning and force. Let us first examine when he says that the state would use coercion to take income from some and give to others. That coercion that is stated would be in the form of moderate taxation of the people, on a graduated scale. The state run economy, would be an economy of state run corporations, and small businesses propped up by the state, in order to be given the chance to succeed. That elimination of competition, would be the competition between various state run corporations not for profit, but for the best product. In short, socialism would have the beneficial aspects of capitalism, but would be contained within the state, instead of in the hands of reckless self interested citizens.Things to remember:1. Socialism does not equal either bureaucracy, or dictatorship.2. In most cases voluntary exchange is not voluntary.Works Cited:[1]] http://www.peterleeson.com......