Socialism is bad.

My opponent contends that socialism is 'bad' because it represents to overriding of free decisions of individuals by that state. He goes on to make accusations against the socialist system which I feel are alarmist and highly speculated. My contentions are thus as follows: C1: There is no evidence that socialism cannot provide for the world's population. There is no evidence that it is impossible to divorce socialism from totalitarianism. I contend that a democratic socialist society would be highly favorable and functional as the common people, not the wealthy elite, would control both the government and economy. There is also solid evidence to demonstrate that capitalism cannot feed the world either. According to worldometers. info, tens of thousands of people are dying of hunger per year. While this doesn't indicate that socialism is the solution to this, it means capitalism certainly isn't the answer either. There is no reason to say, as my opponent has in his opening argument, that socialism is about ending freedom and creativity. This is not included anywhere in socialist ideology and my opponent has not explained why it logically follows. C2: My opponents definition of socialism is simply incorrect from the source given. The primary definition of socialism given by Merriam-Webster is, "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. " The definition provided by my opponent is a facet of Marxist thinking that does not represent a true socialist government. That fact that Marx considered this to be a transitory phase should demonstrate that it is not the form of government intended by socialists. To portray socialism as being this form of government is to misrepresent it and slant the argument. C3-1: My opponent asserts that capitalism is a more free system than socialism and that capitalism directly leaders to freedom. The number of third world nations that are totalitarian and capitalist should serve as evidence to the contrary. Likewise, the government in socialism has an incentive to produce better goods at a cheaper price because the role of the government is to benefit the people. The government can sell at a lower price because it does not need to make a profit. Furthermore, a socialist government does not necessarily dictate who works in what job or whether or not people must buy certain goods. C3-2: Under capitalism, business can be dominated by wealthy elites and massive corporations that restrict the ability of common people to compete. If I wish to open my own coffee shop, I will never be able to compete with Starbucks due to its vastly superior resources, even if my coffee is better. In a socialist government I would be able to work at a coffee show without fear of being driven out of business and losing my job. This increases freedom of employment. C4: My opponent has said that a true capitalist believes in free competition and free markets. I disagree. A business under capitalism wants to increase its own profits and economic power. It would seek to eliminate free competition and free markets. During the Gilded Age in America, capitalist giants dominated business, establishing monopolies and crushing all competition. The government consistently came down on the side of big business and against the common people. This undemocratic support for the rich over the common many is extremely characteristic of capitalism, even in a democratic society. C5: My opponent equates fascism with socialism, but a rudimentary understanding of political theory will show there is no connection. Control of the economy does not equate to social or political control. C6: There is no cause and effect that shows that capitalism is solely responsible for the use of the world's nature resources or technological development. Medicine and technology have advanced for thousands of years without any connection to economic systems. Both Communist Russia and the capitalist US made great advances during the Cold War. C7: The socialist systems used by nations such as the USSR under Stalin do not properly represent the goals of socialist ideology any more than the capitalism in Chile under Augusto Pinochet represents the goals of capitalist ideology. These systems have failed, which is something I would attribute to the totalitarian nature of the government and massive opposition by capitalist states. A democratic socialist society, which I believe is very possible, would function far better than the poor examples history has provided us. C8: There is no way to prove that private property is essential to the human race. Even if it is, socialism does not necessary call for the abolition of private property. Socialism, as it would be more accurately explained, calls for government control of commerce. C9: To refute the "condescending, inefficient, and immoral" claim. A socialist government would not propose to take away income and spend it on whatever it chooses. A socialist government, properly run, would allow people to buy from the government whatever they wanted based on their contribution to society. The fact that conventional economic theory is not a good fit for modelling socialist economies does not make socialism bad. As I have stated, the fact that large amounts of wealth are not going to the elite. According to Faireconomy. org, the wealthiest 1% of American owns as much wealth as the lower 90%. This is hardly a democratic system (a system that gives power to the people) and it is hardly fair. Last, socialism is not immoral because it takes from people and gives to others. People already take from themselves and give to others, but when that system of trade is allowed to run amok it rapidly becomes unfair as some people run off with all the wealth. Socialism regulates this exchange to insure such things do not happen. C10: The view of socialism my opponent offers is alarmist and is entirely speculation. There is no reason to believe that socialism would reduce us to primitive societies. All of the vicious attacks my opponent has made against socialism are unfounded. Instead, there is great reason to believe that socialism can lead to a happier people. The world map of happiness (. http://www.physorg.com...) shows little correlation between economic systems and happiness. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, and France are all extremely happy countries whose economies are functioning very well under a system that is moderately socialist. The issue here is not capitalism vs. socialism, but democracy vs. totalitarianism. Conclusion: I do not personally believe the socialist system is far superior to that of the capitalist system. The success of many European nations under a moderate socialist system suggests to me that a mix of some capitalist and some socialist ideas would better society greatly. My opponent chooses to brand socialism by defining it only in it's most rigid and negative context without any consideration of its true values. Both socialist and capitalist thinkers have much to learn from one another if a truly fair economic system is to be developed and close minded attacks such as this are not conducive to that at all. I think votes will see that it is not necessary to support socialism to see that my opponent's resolution is far too absolutist to stand up the open minded scrutiny and that he has failed to defend it will information, instead using emotional appeal and wild exaggeration as his primary means of argument. With that I am beginning to run out of characters and I seem to have said everything I need to.