If true Socialism can be implemented properly throughout the world, it is better than Capitalism

My opponent says that Hitler was a National Socialist. I agree that towards his fellow Germans, he was a socialist. He did great things to the German society, such as defying the treaty of Versailles, the treaty which basically left Germany under foreign domination. http://www.johndclare.net... Hitler practically removed Germany from the great depression in three short years, bringing unemployment to 0%. The source given below states that Nazi Germany dealt with the depression far better than the US, a capitalist nation. Thus, it is fair to conclude that the socialist economy of Germany was superior to the Capitalist economy of the US in dealing with the great depression. In fact no country in Europe could have dreamed of bringing unemployment to 0% in the great depression era, but the socialist Nazis did, and in only three years. http://www.ihr.org... My opponent has himself/herself proved that capitalism is bad by his own quote of Hitler's statements, which is given below: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance" Perfect reasons why capitalism is not good. -Exploitation of the economically weak (poor) -Unfair salaries (I explained in earlier rounds how the CEO earns a 1000 times more than an avg worker) -Evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance (hardworking farmers who feed the population are looked down upon but the CEO who practically loots the poor has a high status) When Hitler would commit genocide or something of the sort, he is not being a socialist. What part of the economic ideology of socialism (or even extreme communism for that matter) dictates that you must kill people? None, if anything Hitler was being a Fascist which I explained earlier is the extreme right wing policy. Capitalism is right wing as well (proved by the source below). I leave this at that. http://www.markville.ss.yrdsb.edu.on.ca... Con said that since a CEO's job is more skillful and more stressful than a laborer's job since a company depends on them and their failure could result in a company losing millions of dollars. At least the CEO can eat clean food thrice a day (or more) and sleep on a comfortable bed. Many laborer class people do not have that. I hardly believe that the arguments con has given is reason enough to give CEOs a THOUSAND times more money as the avg worker (this is just the ratio between the CEO and the avg worker, if you take a CEO and the lowest class worker then the ratio will be even more astounding). Without workers, you cannot have a CEO. Without farmers, you cannot have a CEO. In a capitalist society, the ones who do the actual work and feed the population make far less money than those who simply oversee the work and give out orders. This is why capitalism is ridiculous. Con claimed that in the US a socialist program which is the AFDC dollars which is government aid was unfair: "Black Americans who are 14% of the American population are getting about 46 or 47% of all AFDC dollars. " This is because the average black American is much poorer than the average white American. Hence they receive more aid. Which is good because the wealth gap reduces which means that black and white kids will have an equal chance to succeed in life. http://www.tcf.org... http://money.cnn.com... Socialism is all about equality, what can possibly be wrong with this? Granted this does not work perfectly in real life, and the government can be corrupt and take the food away from the people. But if a comparison was to be made between a capitalist government (with no free schools, no free hospital etc) and a socialist government (with all people being equal in wealth), considering that both governments are not corrupt, the socialist government is bound to be superior. Look at Norway, Sweden and Canada. Those countries are categorized as socialist to some extent and they are not very corrupt but they are one of the happiest countries on earth (is that not the point of living, to achieve happiness?) http://psychcentral.com... Con made this remark: " But personally there's allot more unfairness toward the earners and the wealthy than there is toward the lower economic classes" How can con say such a thing? Is con even aware of the life of a lower class person? I will not even begin to go on about the lives of the millions in poverty. Con is basically saying that of all the people in the world that the ones living in the big mansions and eating gourmet food everyday are the ones without fairness in this world while the starving and the unemployed are treated relatively fairly. Let me ask con a question: Would you rather be a super rich person with a big mansion and the gourmet food etc. but pay 70% of your income in taxes or would you be a unemployed person with a terrible run down slum hut but pay nothing to the government and receive nothing from them as well? (if they received something that would be a socialist government).