Communism in relevance to the American economic situation

Welcome to debate.org. I will be interested to see the arguments you present. I assume that the resolution we are debating is "Communism and socialism can achieve the goal for societal relief we as Americans desire." Pro didn't specify what be believes to be the relief Americans desire, but he made it clear that at least includes "ease our economic problems." Pro does not explicitly define Communism or Socialism, so the standard dictionary definitions apply: Communism: 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. http://dictionary.reference.com... Socialism: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. Pro has initiated a long debate, five rounds. For this opening round I will present some of the general arguments against socialist and communist systems. For brevity, I'll use "Socialist" systems to mean the more general "socialist and communist." 1. Implementation of a Socialist system ends the right to own property. That is contrary to the US Constitution and there is no evidence that Americans seek seizure of their property as a "goal for relief." State ownership and suppression of individual choice is contrary to American tradition and ideals. Americans wan to own their laptops, cell phones, televisions, and pickup trucks. They do not want a collective, democratic or not, to decide what is best for them and make allocations accordingly. 2. Socialism has been tried in many forms and has always led to economic hardship. The comparison of North Korea and South Korea is a good example, because the cultural tradition were the same, but North Korean socialism brought economic disaster. East and West Germany is another good test case. The new nations of Africa that emerged during the Sixties tried a dozen forms of socialism, each producing economic disaster. India struggled under democratic socialism for decades, with famine the result. The turn to capitalism is bringing prosperity. Taiwan achieved great prosperity as a capitalist nation while China suffered under Communism. The more capitalism that China introduces, the more prosperous it becomes. All of this is well-documented in "Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism" by Joshua Muravchik http://www.amazon.com... Every form of large-scale socialism has been tried and has failed. The idea that there is a miraculous formulation that will work is unsupported. 3. Socialism is supposed to abolish class differences, but in practice it always produces a ruling class and a subordinate worker class. This follows necessarily from the government owning everything and allocating all resources. A direct vote of the populace cannot be used to determine how many pencil sharpeners ought to be produced. It isn't practical to vote on the many millions of such economic decisions, and if it were accomplished, no one would know the correct number. The workers in the pencil sharpener factory don't know either, because it depends on the demand from outside the factory. Consequently, a gigantic controlling bureaucracy is essential, not optional. The state apparatus that controls everything is an inherent ruling class. This has appeared in every implementation of socialism. Free markets minimize the ruling class and the expense of supporting it. 4. In world markets, socialist countries cannot compete with capitalist ones. India and China could not compete as socialists, and are increasingly competitive as they become capitalist. Many examples are given by Thomas Friedman in his classic text, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." Hindustani Motors and Toyota began in India and Japan, respectively, at about the same time. Hindustani Motors was given protection from free market and was planned by the government. Toyota was subject to free market competition. Toyota is the success story. There are numerous examples. 5. Pro calls for workers to manage production, claiming it would be efficient. Management is a technical specialty requiring considerable training and experience. Management must determine what consumers want and need, determine capital requirements, optimize production layout and logistics, and determine suppliers. Management must assess and manage risk. Ordinary workers do not have the skills needed to perform those essential tasks, and it is not reasonable to suppose they could acquire the skills while still doing their regular jobs. 6. Pro attributes many problems to "greed." However, "greed" is a pejorative way of expressing the human desire for security. Production workers are inherently no more or less greedy than managers or owners or anyone else. Everyone wants to maximize their security. In a capitalist system, greed is tempered automatically by market competition. A company that tries to charge too much is defeated by competition. It is an inherent defect of socialism that greed is left to the bureaucratic apparatus of the state to control. The greedy bureaucracy works for its own benefit, without the markets to stop it. These points suffice for now. To make his case, Pro should present us with both (a) examples of socialist systems working well on a large scale, and (b) practical ways in which the universal past failures could have been avoided. So far, he has not given reasons why socialism can succeed. He has only given his opinion that it would.