Marxism is better than capitalism

I'll first go thru Pro's points.1. Pro concedes capitalism brings much wealth and the only explanation for how marxism will do this is:"How do marxism give prosperity to its people is actually the same with capitalism. That is by industry. A very well organized industry."Which effectively says nothing.Pro says capitalism is "holding back peoples true talent". Marx claimed that people will be free to explore whatever work they desire but this is nonsense because a marxist economy is planned by a central body. Pro wants to believe "the people" will be in charge but how can everything be "owned" by everybody? Since an economy is always changing, how does "everyone" participate in billions of business decisions? What if ten people say they want to control a tool-and-die machine that is already being used by others? Who decides who gets to use it? Marx thought we could be more efficient but his ideas would reduce the division of labor, thus decreasing efficiency. Pro's definition of Marxism is that it's exactly like Capitalism except that ownership is democratic. But democratic ownership is impossible. This is why, in reality, there is a small group in charge. Who planned farm collectivization in the Soviet Union in the 1920's? Soviet collective farms, or Kolkhoz, were force on the farmers starting in 1928. (1). Farmers were told what to do, ultimately by Stalin.2. Pro claims that the people are in charge under Marxists governments. I've shown this is theoretically impossible, but its also impossible in practice wether it was Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Lenin or any other case.3. Pro continues to argue that inequality is an issue and implies that marxism will solve this. Pointing out issues with capitalism does not prove some other theory will work better. Pro seems to defend the high production of capitalism and implies that Marxism would have the same high levels of production, but with much less inequality. Again, Pro can't simply claim this into existence. Note that Pro has completely dropped my point from round 3 where I compare GDP outputs of the United States with Marxist based governments. Next Pro claims that labour strikes are responsible for the 40 hour work week. But what's this to do with Marxism? Labour unions ARE allowed under capitalism. Doesn't Pro need to show that Marxism could provide even shorter work hours? Note that the history of labour and unions in Stalins Soviet Union is one of a struggle for power:"A resolution entitled About the Party Unity dissolved and banned any factions within the Party under the pretext that intra-Party discussions distract from "solving actual practical problems". This resolution radically shifted the balance in the notion "democratic centralism" from "democratic" to "centralism" and enhanced the groundwork of Joseph Stalin's future dictatorship." (2)Pro provides no sources for these 40 hour work week claims, but says I should google it myself, which I did. I learned that the idea was born out of the industrial revolution. (3) This makes sense, because reduced working hours were the result of increased productivity of industrialization. Capitalism has raised standards of living, and workers in the early 19th century opted at least partially for reduced hours over increased pay. 4. Here Pro seems to be claiming that its a problem that the oil industry is shutting down oil rigs. This shows that Pro doesn't even understand supply and demand. I'm not even sure what Pro's point is here but I'm assuming it is that 100,000 workers lost their jobs. But this looks ONLY at the workers and ignores the economy as a whole. Oil rigs are being shut down because they are too inefficient to produce oil at these lower oil prices. If they did continue, they will make losses and many losses results in recessions. Yes, it is true, these workers lost their jobs. However, they will be pushed into jobs that are more efficient. This is the market working! 5. Pro again claims that higher education can be "free" but fails to address my prior rebuttal: nothing is free unless teachers work for free and builders build schools for free. All this "free" eduction is payed for by taxation, which came from the productive fruits of others labor. 6. Pro next claims that Capitalism creates natural monopolies but provides no example of this, which is not surprising, because it's a myth.7. Next Pro attempts to address my use of Singapore as a free market example of health care. Regardless of Singapore, I doubt anyone would use the Marxists countries I've listed as a good examples for health care systems. Pro claims Singapore is a communal system but provides no proof of this. Pro also claims that, since Obamacare was created to address America's health care flaws, that proves that a Marxist system works better. Comparing a capitalist system that has government intervention does not prove this. And here again, government is to blame for much of the current problems. Much could be written on this, but instead I'll briefly talk about one of the only truly free market health facilities in the U.S.:The surgery center of OklahomaThis surgery center is one of the only places I know that lists prices publicly, and unlike inflated hospital prices, these are the actual prices you pay. (6). Knee replacement surgery at SCO is $19,400 while the average U.S. price is $49,500 (7). Why the large difference? It's because the price system has been broken by government intervention:""There's no method to the madness," said lead author Dr. Renee Hsia, an emergency room physician and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. "There's no system at all to determine what is a rational price for this condition or this procedure." (8)Pro also uses the housing bubble as an example of this issue. But Pro states that even after house prices dropped "nobody could afford to buy those cheap houses " which is both untrue and unhelpful. Pro's own source states:"But for those who think that the worst is over, Merrill Lynch said that housing prices still remain comparatively high. The brokerage believes that home prices are still far above historical norms when compared to other measures such as rent or GDP." (4)So home prices were too high but why did this occur? A free market does not produce prices that are "too high". This can only happen with government intervention, which here took the form of softened lending standards and artificially low interest rates.Pro states"How do marxism give prosperity to its people is actually the same with capitalism"This is obviously not true as I've explained thru out this debate. Pro has provided no counter to the economic calculation problem and has failed to defend Marx's labor theory of value. Pro has failed to explain the impossibility of "everyone owning everything" and provided no defense of the failures of current and historic examples of Marxists inspired governments. Instead Pro has tried to simply wish utopian outcomes into existence. If that is a valid way to win this debate, I could simply claim the following: if governments would stop intervening into markets, under capitalism everything would be free. Economics is the study of the allocation of SCARCE resources and capitalism is the only system that automatically balances supply and demand and allows us all to enjoy high living standards without the horrors seen in places like the Soviet Union. So vote Con!(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://money.cnn.com...(5) http://www.nytimes.com...(6) http://www.surgerycenterok.com...(7) http://www.healthline.com...(8) http://www.cbsnews.com...