Communism in relevance to the American economic situation

Pro's case for socialism rests upon the notion that while a little bit of socialism is toxic, once it becomes universal it will suddenly become benign. The best example of socialism in practice that he can muster is that Communism was probably an improvement over the demented rule of the Tsars in Russia. The Soviet empire ultimately collapsed for economic reasons nonetheless. All experiments in socialism, whether a product of democracy, as in India and Africa, or of authoritarianism, as in East Germany and North Korea, have been economic failures. Socialism does not work incrementally, but capitalism does. A dose of free markets in China has, for example, brought extraordinary economic gains despite social repression and dictatorial rule. Increments of market freedom always produce increased prosperity, while increments of socialism produce economic losses. Is it possible that total Socialism might succeed while incremental socialism fails at every step? No, it is not possible. The laws of nature and of economics are continuous. We know why socialism fails. There has to be a huge non-productive bureaucracy charged with making millions of economic decisions that free markets produce automatically. That is inherently inefficient, and there is nothing in "ultimate" socialism that will make it efficient. Moreover, the bureaucracy necessarily becomes a ruling class. It isn't possible for the public to vote on how may pencil sharpeners to make, and if the public did vote on the issue they won't have a clue as to how to vote. Workers in the pencil sharpener factory don't know either; it is an issue of demand, not production. Consequently, success under socialism translates to becoming a member of the ruling class. In North Korea or anywhere else that socialism prevails, success lies in being a Party member or a government official. What might be productive talent is redirected to political scheming. The success of free markets ultimately derives from human nature. People naturally seek to increase their security and will work towards that end. There s nothing in ultimate socialism that will change that. Deprived of legal market opportunities, black markets and political scheming are the only alternatives remaining. A theory that does not work incrementally cannot be trusted to work ultimately. Let's suppose we found a brand new movement called "jabberwocky." The claimed properties of jabberwocky are that (1) every small step in the direction of total implementation produces economic hardship and loss of individual rights, and (2) when totally implemented it is incredibly wonderful -- no one will ever have to work at all and everyone will be completely happy. Jabberwocky is thus better than socialism because even socialists maintain that some work is necessary. The details of jabberwocky are unimportant, because we have already granted that they will involve economic hardship and loss of freedom. But it is ultimately better than socialism, according to its claims, so socialists should immediately jump on board. The reasons we should reject jabberwocky are the same as those for rejecting socialism: it depends entirely upon an irrational act of faith. The laws of human nature and economics in the current world must be subject to a miraculous revision in the ultimate vision, so that everything that does not now work will work after the miraculous event. The resolution is negated.