Socialism is better than capitalism

I hope to conclude my arguments as per the rules. Socialism has never actually been tried! This is a major point that must be mentioned. In the USSR the revolution was the result of mass starvations, and the leaders of the revolution created a facade of caring for the people. This facade was communism. They had no intention of actually adhering to this plan, and in fact latter on Stalin blatantly stated that communism was the greatest lie that his people were told. This pattern has been repeated in the DDR, VRP, VRB, DPRK, and the PRC. One more example is North Korea. While they are communist is name they obviously are not in practice, nor is any country that claims to be communist/socialist. Once again con states that socialism has been tried and has led to dictatorships. The dictatorships arose because socialism was not arrived at properly. It is clearly stated in all socialist (not communist) ideologies that socialism must be arrived through a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. In this regard, this has never happened. All so-called socialist states came about due to violent revolution, and extreme poverty. To build socialism off of that foundation would be lunacy, because socialism needs a stable, well off society, that is educated in order to succeed. Uncontrolled capitalism leads to oligarchies. I would like to recount the cases in which capitalistic countries that had no finacial restrictions collapsed into oligarchy. The Weimar republic collapsed into the third reich. Poland after WW1 became a state run by the military leaders. South Vietnam collapsed under the scandal of monopolization of power amoung the wealthy. America during the gilded age had only millionaires in the government, and monopolies destroyed almost all other independent business. My point is that any form of unchecked capitalism will cause an intense monoploization of power, thus destroying freedom, as has been seen in many cases. Con states that inequality is not bad. This statement is false. Inequality is the root of all social unrest in all of history. It is in this way that socialism has the support of history, while capitalism has to rely on theory, and incomplete facts. Con states that a system based on social justice, would not increase political freedom. This is notion is ridiculous. One just has to look at the U. S to see the political restrictions. There are only two viable parties, while in other more socially liberal countries such as Germany there are six, or more. Con states that socialism "has not been stella (I believe con was trying to spell stellar) on rights. " My reply to this is that in theory socialism is all about the empowerment of the individual within the community. Con makes the bold theory that economies are not based on demand. This flies in the face of all reason, and the very rules of economics. It is during the times when people are saving that the economy is in recession, while when people are spending the economy is doing well. Therefore one can conclude using simple logic that demand must be the primary incentive to increase productivity. I would also now like to respond to con's question about the incentive problem. My answer is that money would still be the incentive. It is as simple as that. People just would not be excessively wealthy. Important Points 1. Do not be fooled by con's attempt to vilify socialism with false examples.2. Socialism is undeniably better in theory.3. The elements of socialism that have been tried in advanced economies have been effective.4. Socialism does not led to dictatorships, if the population is well educated, and moderately wealthy, such as in America.5. Socialism has never been tried, however there have been dictatorships that have used socialist propaganda to cover up there evil doings.