Decentralized Libertarian socialism(pro) versus Democratic Capitalism(con)

Thanks for the challenge. REBUTTALS "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" I'm fine with my opponent using Anarcho-Syndicalism in their argument. However, in the text they've cited doesn't seem to say anything about the standards of living in Catalonia actually improving during the Spanish Civil War, only that it was meant to happen in theory. That particular essay was on the often-overlooked atrocities committed by the anarcho-syndicalists during the war and brings little praise for the Republican faction, let alone any mention life did actually improve during that period. The article goes further to say "[the Spanish Anarchist Movement's] horrific behavior was largely the result of their incoherent view of human freedom, their unsuccessful attempt to synthesize socialism and liberty, and their uncritical and emotional way of thinking."[1] So the one time a Libertarian-Socialist system very similar to the one Pro is arguing for was actually implemented, it was a complete flop. (The facist dictator that followed was equally terrible, but that's irrelevant). The standard of living certainly didn't improve during union governance and neither did society in general.and society in general. "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." Yes, cooperatives, on average, do have a higher chance of surviving the first five years of business. However- in Economics, just like biology, there is natural selection. Good business models survive, and people copy or take ideas from such models to create more successful businesses. So, if co-ops are as old as the United States[2], why were only approx 0.3% (and that's a high range estimate[3]) of all businesses (in 2005) co-operative? "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. 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. " This statement is very flawed. The point of a business is to benefit it's owners and/or stakeholders (i.e. employees/members in a co-op). Consumers benefit from businesses by trading some of their capital for goods that will (supposedly) improve their quality of life, but they don't owe anything to businesses and businesses don't owe anything to them. Despite our shared BoP my opponent hasn't provided any evidence that co-ops do sell what consumers want any better than other businesses, for good reason- it's hard to find a product that is completely unavailable for any average person to purchase. If there's a demand, there's a supply. Also, business owners aren't necessarily holier-then-thou snobs, and stereotyping like that is ridiculous. For example, small business owners are rarely rich but are generally very respected in the community. "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. " I think my opponent has either gotten confused or cited the wrong parts of the Burden and Dean study. Where he cited "Workers cooperatives employment index rose, while their capitalist counterparts fell in employment" ([x], pg 520) there are actually two graphs, one on the relationship between Uruguayan economy and the manufacturing sector, and one on the national employment/unemployment rate. And yes, Co-ops briefly had a better employment index during the recession, just before sinking back below conventional business's during average times. The conclusion I take from that graph? Socialist businesses' job markets are worse than capitalist ones, unless in recession. I would imagine this is because idealistic businesses like these aren't really exposed to the grunt of the economy, instead focussed on communal agriculture and more tame pursuits that don't go bad in times of recession. WHY DECENTRALISED GOVERNMENT WON'T WORK My opponent has been fairly vague on what role 'local governments' will have, or what a local government even is. It could be anything from a council presiding over a few suburbs (what local government means in Australia) to a city government to a state government. The only thing they have specified is federal government will exclusively deal with minting, defence, foreign relations and internal relations. I assume this means most of a citizen's tax dollars will go to their local government. Local governments will inevitably have much smaller budget, meaning much, much less purchasing power than a federal government. Sure, a smaller region needs less funds to be serviced, but spending more money on something in a higher quantity means more value for money (it's like wholesale, I'm sure you understand. Words are hard for me today). It's a universal effect, so even if federal money has to be spread out more, a region would receive more value for it's tax dollars if the money comes from a larger pool (the federal government). I know that was very badly articulated, please bare with me! CAPITALISM vs. SOCIALISM Winston Churchill perfectly captured the spirit of socialism in this quote: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Although my opponent is proposing a different type of socialism, the idea is the same: complete economic equality. This sounds nice and idealistic until you think about it. If all the workers of all the businesses own their respective businesses in equal parts everyone is stuck at the same level. You eliminate poverty amoung the employed, but if no-one can own more than their equal share no-one can become wealthy. This takes all the optimism and spirit out of the economy. Mon dragon, an example my opponent enthusiastically mentions, has an annual revenue of about "12 million and around 75,000 employees. If their annual revenue was truly shared evenly each employee would control exactly "162.9111454900114 a year, and much of that would be re-invested back into the company. Depressing, innit? The numbers just don't add up. In a capitalist society everyone has the right to earn as much money as they can. If you work hard enough you can live a satisfying life free from economic concerns. It's inequality, but if you work your way to the top you can really reap the benefits. Winston Churchill really was right, socialism really is all about giving up on ambition and punishing people who have it in them to be successful. REFERENCES Will put in comments. Sorry this has been a bit incoherent but I'm a bit comatose at the moment. If I've made any huge mistake I'll adress them in the morning.