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

Socialism and Democracy: "Socialism is not ultimately compatible with Democracy" Why not? A country where all land is public land and all people are in the same socio-economic class can have a system where the people elect their leader. Democracy and Socialism are from two VERY different topics. One is a form of government and the other is an economic system. My opponent also implied that Socialism is incompatible with Human freedom. I strongly disagree. There have been capitalist countries which denied/limited human freedoms, such as South Africa under the apartheid, or the US prior to the black civil rights movements. There are capitalist countries even practiced slavery. The best examples would be the European colonial empires and the US. Socialism or capitalism has nothing to do with human freedom. They are completely different topics. Human Rights violations: Con stated that "socialist" countries commit human rights violations. I have two points to say here 1) Socialism as a theory does not demand killings or genocide, the countries mentioned by my opponent followed deviations from Socialism such as Maosim and Stalinism. I am talking purely about the economic ideology of Socialism and Capitalism as defined in my opening statement . 2) Capitalist countries have committed human rights violence as well. The only country in history to use nuclear weapons on fellow human beings is the United States, the supposed 'leader of the free world', also a capitalist democracy. They also used chemical weapons in Vietnam and Korea, and the list goes on and on. This is just the United States, there are other countries such as the UK, which is a capitalist democracy, that have committed human rights violence as well. http://www.stateofnature.org... Economic Fairness: Con asked "How is it just to take away what one person worked hard for and earned and give it to another who didn't." Well, is it fair that someone lazy was born into a rich family and had a better life than someone who is hard working but was born into a poor family and had a hard life with little content? Even if a rich person, say a CEO, does work harder than an average person, they surely do not work 1000 times as harder as an average worker, yet they make a 1000 times as much. Preposterous, is it not? http://www.businessinsider.com... I understand my opponent's point that socialist governments taking away people's hard earned fortune is wrong, but it certainly is better than having millions of people in poverty suffering throughout their lives. This proves that socialism is a much fairer system than capitalism. After all, socialism is based on equality whereas capitalism is based on 'winner takes all' (the 'winners' are mostly born into a rich family, while those unlucky enough to be born poor, suffer). Poor vs Rich: Con stated that "Wealthy people are known to have habits that contribute to their wealth. They tend to be self disciplined, more moral, intact families, saving, inheritance (which helps build wealth)." It is true that wealthier people have better morals, but this is because they were raised in a secure environment (I mean with all their wealth, they are more likely to have a better environment). They also tend to have better education than poor people. Better education obviously trains them better for real life, hence their habits to contribute to their wealth. The people born poor however do not have the same opportunity that people born rich had and therefore they cannot help themselves really. Under socialism, such inequality will not occur. Government Interference: My opponent argued that "Socialism is imposed on people from the outside and requires a great deal of government interference in their lives. " Why does the government need to interfere? The statement is very blunt. I ask my opponent to be specific about what socialist governments would do to interfere with people's lives to maintain socialism. Thank you in advance. US house market crash: "...disastrous crash of the housing market in 2008. Socialists have always pointed to these troubles and then declared them as evidence of the failure of capitalism but the truth is they are evidence of the failure of socialism." Again, please specify how this is a failure of socialism.