The Morality of Socialism

Opponent's concession:I'd like to point out that my opponent basically conceded that socialism isn't immoral. They said it right here in their second to last sentence in round 2:"Socialism in itself is not immoral, but modern day applied socialism, mandated without consent, is nothing but legal theft"Since this is a debate about socialism, which would mean the economic theory, I think they have just given the debate over to me as the winner. They didn't specify earlier that they meant modern-day applied socialism to be immoral. I suppose I will still offer arguments why socialism is moral, even in application. Agreement and Rebuttal to opponent's argumentsAs a libertarian socialist myself, I would completely agree that government-mandated socialism is immoral, however to prove that socialism is not immoral, I just need to provide at least one instance where it can be applied morally. My opponent would be correct that socialism violates the two rights: liberty and property, but they are not correct in claiming this for all of socialism. This argument seems to only work when we assume socialism is enforced by the government. Socialism does not need to be enforced by the government, and at least one country who did this without government, was Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War from 1936 to 1939. The type of socialism they implemented is known as anarcho-syndicalism, which synidicalism is considered to be "a form of socialism"[1] Under the anarcho-syndicalism of Catalonia, workers were in fact entitled to their labor and private property(as in owning property for your house) was maintained [2] In addition, socialism doesn't necessarily mean the abolition of private property altogether, that would actually be communism. What socialism does is transfer ownership of the means of production away from the capitalist business owners, to the workers, or the community as a whole. It makes one form of private property owned by the workers themselves, but private property when it comes to having property for your own house, is still maintained under socialism. Another form of socialism could be argued to be when all businesses are cooperatives. Cooperatives are democratically-run businesses, meaning that the workers control and own the business and there is no person at the top. First ArgumentsI shall argue that socialism is in fact moral, and more moral than capitalism. In general, it is agreed upon that the most moral form of governments are democratic or republican governments(not to be confused with the American political parties, I'm using democratic and republican in the traditional sense, where democratic means of the people, and republican is descriptive of a government that has representatives). So, why is it seen as that the immoral system of economics is the democratic/republican economy? If anything, it should be the oligarchic economy that is seen as immoral, because you have people at the top whom you didn't consent to having there in their positions of power. My opponent used John Locke as a theorist on what is moral, and I shall do the same since they will likely agree as well. The idea that a moral government is one which has consent of the governed is an idea most promoted by John Locke and we get many of our ideas on the matter from him[3] All socialist thinkers do is apply this idea to economics. Under capitalism, consent of the governed is undermined, since we didn't get to choose or consent to who the business owners of our society are. Business owners, for all intents and purposes, are essentially the leaders of economies much like presidents, congress people, parliament members, etc are the leaders of government. Capitalism is much like an oligarchy, where a few members of society are privileged to lead the economy, and we did not consent to them being there. So, the specific equivalent of a government leader to a business owner, would be an oligarch, as they are not elected to office. While one can argue that you consent to your specific business owner when you work for the company you do(as you choose which company to work for), this is not entirely true since the way people are, is we will accept the first job that offers enough for us to live comfortably, or as comfortably as possible. Since we will die if we can't provide for ourselves, we are more or less forced to work under someone who has power over us. This person may have outrageous demands from the workers,and in the past, business owners would discriminate against people of color, and tell their workers not to serve people of color. If you disagreed with this, sure you can quit, but then you're out of a job and can't provide for yourself anymore. If you disagreed with the policy, and didn't implement it, well, you would probably be fired. You may be able to find a business owner who is not tyrannical, but you don't ever know for sure until you've started working for them, and since we don't usually know how the business owner is like, we've not actually consented fully to working for them. What socialism does, is it makes it that the work-place is democratic. Workers self-manage the work place, or at least have a voice over the business, much like how in a republic, the people have a voice over the government or in a democracy where the people are the government. In socialism where cooperatives are the dominant companies, the workers are the business owners of a business, and each one generally get 1 vote for company decisions. Another form of socialism, syndicalism, which I mentioned before, is essentially much more like a republic when it comes to economics. Workers elect union leaders, and the unions are the ones who control the means of production. Essentially, the union leaders are much like a congress person or parliament member in a republic. This is also moral, since the people are giving consent to who is in control of the businesses. Therefore, since I have provided two forms of socialism that are moral, syndicalism, and what I shall call "cooperativism" since it is an economy of cooperatives, I have proven how socialism doesn't have to be immoral. I even offered one actual application, Revolutionary Catalonia, where force was not used and government didn't redistribute wealth or land from one person to another in a legalize theft manner. Sources:[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...