Democratic Capitalism (pro) vs Libertarian-Socialism (con)

I agree to the resolution con proposed, that whichever system " benifits the populous, or at least the majority, to a higher degree is ultimately a better system."Anarcho-syndicalism and Revolutionary Catalonia.Now, since libertarian socialism is a fairly wide range of economic ideas, I would argue that anarcho-syndicalism would fall under the umbrella of libertarian socialism. The reason for this is because anarcho-syndicalism is also anti-state, anti-authoritarian, just like libertarian socialism is. Both are forms of socialism as well. While anarcho-syndicalism is not the specific type I want, I would be perfectly okay with an anarcho-syndicalist society as well. Anarcho-syndicalism, as I understand it, is basically when union leaders own the means of production. These union leaders are elected by the workers, and that is how there is democratic control of the means of production, and how syndicalism is still considered a socialist ideology. The reason why I decided to bring up anarcho-syndicalism, is because the type of libertarian socialism I argue for, has never been attempted before. However, there was one instance I know of where anarcho-syndicalism was attempted. Revolutionary Catalonia is the example of an anarcho-syndicalist society. In my research of the nation, there is not much data on how the economy of revolutionary Catalonia went, but what we do know, is that the standard of living went up significantly after implementing anarcho-syndicalism[2]. I understand that one example of the system working out well is a weak argument, however I don't know of any other country in history that implemented a form of libertarian socialism. Nonetheless, the one who did was a success, and the only reason it is not around today was because it was taken over by fascists. Losing a war more has to do with the poor military strategy or military in general, and not so much with the economy. We all know fascism does excellently well with orienting the economy towards a war economy, but that doesn't necessarily make it a superior ideology or make libertarian socialism an inferior ideology. Workers' CooperativesAs my opponent stated, cooperatives can exist in capitalist societies. I would also argue that capitalist companies could exist in socialist societies. What makes a society socialist or capitalist, depends on which type of business is the majority: worker coops or traditional/capitalist businesses(there are of course, other things that would make the society socialist, but for the purpose of my argument, this is what I'm arguing for since this is what I personally want). The more worker coops there are in an economy, the more socialist it becomes. Since my opponent already seems familiar with coops, I would urge voters and readers to look it up themselves to see what a workers coop is, here's a wikipedia page on them if you want a link on here to click to: [3] Now, while there are no countries that have a socialist economy wherein coops are the majority, I believe such an economy would be greatly beneficial to the population. I will argue this through examples and studies of coops. 1) Cooperatives are actually, in many ways, more successful than traditional business models. For example, 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model. [4] This suggests that coops are likely to get what consumers want right to begin with, more often than traditional businesses. The whole point of a business is to give the consumer what they want, and coops seem to do so more successfully, and I would argue this is the case because more people are involved in the decision making of the company, instead of a single disconnected-from-the-average-person wealthy individual. 2) Additionally, In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burden and Andres Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that Workers cooperatives employment index rose, while their capitalist counterparts fell in employment. [5, pg. 520] In addition to this, average wage remained higher in worker cooperatives than in capitalist businesses. [5, pg. 523] Therefore, I believe that coops would help increase the average wealth of people in society. 3) Coops make it so that there is no business owner at the top of a company taking a percentage of the profits. Because of this, workers get to split that income amongst themselves, thus improving many more lives of people than would be done with traditional business models. There is evidence that this happens in practice, and not just in theory, as it was found that "in Italy the median capital per employee is higher in worker co-operatives" [6 pg. 17]I believe this is all sufficient argument for having an economy of all, or mostly, cooperatives, and thus make the economy socialist in this manner.Why limited government?Now, since I am arguing in favor of libertarian socialism, this means I also need to argue for why small, decentralized government is best. Really, I have only one reason for this: to do the will of the people. If we have a stronger central government, what occurs is you will have millions of people in a system they do not agree with. Just look at the United States today: you have more than 50 million people who voted against the president-elect, Donald Trump, and millions also who didn't want a republican administration. Now, they(the republicans) are going to be able to impose their will, against the will of those millions. Now if you're a republican, that's great, but just remember the first few years of Obama's adminstration where the government was reversed: surely you weren't happy with what was going on there. If, instead, we had more power given to local governments, there would be fewer people who are having someone else's will imposed on them. If the president of the US had much less power, and the congress had much less power, it wouldn't matter that Donald Trump is going to be president. How much power would I take away from the federal government and give to local governments? Well, the only powers I think the federal government should have would be: minting coin/money, control of the military, foreign relations, and interstate relations/disputes. All else should be left up to the local governments. I would cut programs like Social Security, the EPA, department of education, etc. I believe local governments can better handle all of these issues. It should be self-explanatory as to why local governments would know your, individual needs better than a federal government. A worthwhile statistic to bring up is is that 72% of Americans trust their local(city) governments, while only 62% trust state government[7] and 19% trust the federal government[8]. I argue the reason for this is because people don't trust the federal government to get their desires met. Local governments are just better at meeting the wants and needs of the people, as is talked about in this ted talk[9]Sources:The sources will be a little time consuming to post again, as I'd have to open up each link and copy/paste them here. You can instead see the sources I used by clicking on the debate my opponent listed in round 1.