If people were properly educated, capitalism would disappear

I would like to remind my opponent that whether cooperatives are private or cooperative property wasn't up for debate, and that I said that if you had objections to the definitions I provided, you had to say so before the debate in the comments section. You can see that clearly in round 1 after I provided the definitions. I hold, therefore, that voters have to go with the definition I provided, because I made it clear that if you had objections, you needed to say so before the debate began, not in the middle of it. When you accepted the debate, you accepted the definitions I provided, so we must go under the assumption that cooperatives are not private property, but rather, cooperative property.Now, I could leave it at that, but I do feel a need to explain why I don't believe cooperatives are private property:Private property, in my view, results in a person or group of people who own the company, and there is always a hierarchy due to that ownership. The workers of the company do not jointly-own the business under private property, and so it naturally results in hierarchy between the non-owners of the business and the owners of the business. This is why cooperatives are not private property: they don't have an inherent hierarchy. It is possible for cooperatives to still have hierarchy, but they don't have to have it and it's not due to ownership of the company. Next, I'll put in italics quotes by my opponent and I shall address those:I just realized as I am reading this, there is a huge run-on sentence in your paragraph. This is the sentence I want to address, but I'll divide it up into multiple parts by specific ideas that are presented in the sentence. Just keep in mind, it might be awkward since I won't be including the whole sentence at once, due to it being a run-on. Moving on, I wish to address this part first: ...in any case, if people where "properly educated" (which means being told that co-ops exist) will lead to some people to support co-ops and maybe even change to them, but this will not make capitalism disappear because companies need revenue to exist and if the people actually were "properly educated" they would understand that capitalism is a pro-company type of economic system...How exactly is capitalism a pro-company type of economic system and cooperative individualism(an economic system in which worker coops are the dominant business model) isn't? I don't understand how that makes any sense. Capitalism is a pro-private property company economic system. Cooperative individualism is pro-worker coop companies. Both are pro-company, but they are in favor of a different type of company. Capitalism isn't pro-worker coops, and that is a form of company, so if you're calling capitalism pro-company, well, it isn't in the respect that it is pro-all companies. It's against public and cooperative companies. So, if your definition of pro-company is being in favor of all types of companies, both cooperative individualism and capitalism fail at that. The only pro-company economic system is one in which has roughly an equal amount of public companies, private companies, and cooperative companies. ...now there could be co-ops in socialist systems but these are not as likely to thrive...If you're referring to socialism as the state control of the economy, then they are not likely to thrive, indeed. However, if we are talking about market socialism, then co-ops probably are likely to thrive. Market socialism is "a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy"[13]. So, market socialism can literally just be an economy of worker coops. In fact, cooperative individualism would be a market socialist economic system. I don't think I've provided much about cooperative economics and cooperative individualism yet, but you can look at the wikipedia page about cooperative economics if you want. ...but given the fact that one of your preferences would be making the government neglect the economy and mind their own business (although since the trade is being done in the country it is their business, because they need the taxation coming from those trades to run the nation)...I also would prefer that the government didn't use any form of taxation, but rather got its funds from fundraisers. I don't know how effective that would be, but we are not debating about taxation anyways, and this would be a tangent anyways. ...I see no possible way co-ops can eradicate capitalism...Worker co-ops would eradicate capitalism by simply becoming the majority business model in the nation, we would have become a cooperative individualist society as opposed to a capitalist one, and it would thus be a Market socialist society.do you understand that if we suddenly were to change to socialism and you were to be slightly more wealthy than the average (VERY low) you money would be seized by the government and given to you comrades?, not only the rich get affected, and they don't get affected on a wide scale because they can always use their influence to change their money to another country that isn't as deficient as a socialist one.There are many forms of socialism. I understand that equalist authoritatian socialist societies would do what you said(and I would be opposed to those), but there are many forms of socialism. Some can be done without the government, for example Revolutionary Catalonia had a anarcho-socialist/syndicalist society until they were beaten in a civil war. Socialism doesn't need the government, and many socialists are okay with income inequality to an extent. Many socialists recognize some people deserve more money, such as people who had to get a lot of education for their career, or careers that require higher skills to do. However, we don't like the idea of people getting rich off of other people's labor. We consider this exploitation and an unfair way of earning money. Sources:[13] https://en.wikipedia.org...