Socialism ultimately fails for modern societies.

In this round, I refute both of my opponent's round two arguments, leaving them with no arguments to support their claims. If you are new to this debate, please review our definition of Socialism from round one. Refuting the "Absolute Power" argumentMy opponent's first argument is that Socialism requires granting the state absolute power--> Now, to begin I will admit that Socialism can work, but only if those running the state are> perfect, selfless humans, however, no such humans exist. The very nature of humans being in> control with such absolute power is to be corrupted and greedy."The president is not an 'elected king,' no matter how many bombs he can drop. Because the 'crude' Constitution doesn't trust him. He's just a bum, okay Mr. Pitkannan? He's just a bum." -- Simon Wilder in With HonorsThe United States of America does not rely on state administrators to be selfless; in fact, many provisions of the constitution are there to limit the power of the state. When presidents or other elected officials overstep their bounds, they resign, are arrested, or are impeached. When they fail to live up to expectations they are voted our of office or sometimes recalled. To help ensure the populace is well-informed there are freedom of information acts, a free press, and free speech. The US is hardly the only country that both practices Socialism and has limited the power of their government. Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, and the UK provide more examples.As a reminder--"For a point of reference, the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic that has long embraced both capitalism (free markets) and socialism (public schools and universities, and public works " parks, roads and highways, sewer and water, dams, harbors, as well as social welfare, such as worker"s comp, unemployment insurance, social security etc.)." [1]Clearly, nations can reap the benefits of Socialism long-term, without granting their leaders absolute power. Refuting the "Slippery Slope" argumentMy opponent's second argument is that adopting Socialiam inevitably leads to adopting Communism.> Now, Socialism is known as the gap between Marxism and Communism, it is inevitable that pursuing one of those will lead to the othersMy opponent is referring to Marxist theory. Marx believed that Feudalism, Capitalism, and Socialism were all stages of economic development that would ultimately lead to Communism. Specifically-- Primitive Communism Slave Society Feudalism Capitalism Socialism Communism I do not agree with my opponent that Feudalism, Capitalism, or Socialism inevitably lead to Communism, so if my opponent wishes to use that as a cornerstone of their argument, the burden of proof is upon them to prove that claim.As counter-examples, America has been practicing both Capitalism and Socialism since long before the Russian revolution and hasn't turned to Communism yet. The last member of the US Communist Party to run for president garnered only 0.04% of the popular vote[5]. Additionally, all the modern nations listed in my last argument are counter-examples.> After a time, Russia followed this patternThe leader of the Russian revolution was a Marxist long before the Russian revolution; they named themselves the Russian Communist Party and adopted War Communism within a year of taking power.Pro's example provides little if any support that choosing some Socialist economic policies (such as public libraries) will "inevitably" lead a nation to Communism and failure.. especially in light of my many counter-examples. Sources[1] http://www.class.uidaho.edu...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...