Capitalism has FAILED the bottom 50%

Let us first define terms. Capitalism is an economic system in which property is owned privately by individuals. Individuals are free to trade without interference from the state, and are also free to seek to increase their own capital holding (without the use of force). Socialism is an economic and political system in which property is owned by the state on behalf of individuals. The main purpose of the system is to distribute wealth via centrally planned economic activity. Individuals are not free economic actors but are recipients of state decisions. Standard of living generally refers to the economic output of a country as measured by GDP. This is averaged across the population to understand the purchasing power parity or PPP. Socialism is the big failure of the twentieth century. It falsely promised its adherents prosperity, equality, and security, but it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was an illusion achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery. Based on historical evidence from governments, it has been responsible for extensive famine, severe poverty, and economic collapse. These are the natural products of removing the countries wealth creators, assigning people, as slaves, to jobs as if the country were a machine rather than a dynamic society. In Socialist countries wealth is not created but distributed, leading to the stagnation of the economy as the wealth creators flee, followed by increasing levels of state control and intervention to replace the vacuum, followed eventually by full economic decline. Individuals in these societies only get to share in this ever decreasing pool of wealth. We saw exactly this picture when East and West Germany re-unified. The West was prosperous, dynamic and rich, the East was poor oppressed, frustrated and bewildered. It has taken years of investment by the West to bring the East economy into the 21st century. Even today (25 years later) East Germans are only 67% as wealthy as the Western counterparts despite having the same access to Capital and labour. Of course that gap will close through time, but it shows how far and deep the economy had collapsed. Finally it is worth noting that it is clear that the more Socialist a country becomes that the more it will eventually develop its own "classes". Government officials as "the rich," a fringe technocrat "middle class", and a vast "lower class" composed of workers without hope of using their initiative to overcome their circumstances. Capitalists, like myself, are free to point out that these are the same "classes" that socialism eschews as exploitative It isn't hard to see why Capitalism is more successful. Out of the 10 wealthiest nations on earth (based on GDP by purchasing power parity) 5 are explicitly capitalist countries (as close to laissez faire as we get) and 5 are based on mixed economies (free markets with a social welfare system). This trend continues all the way down the ranked table with those adopting more Capitalist economic freedom, generally being higher placed than the much more numerous mixed economy model. There are no explicitly socialist nations in the top 100 unless you include China at no. 83 (which has only seen explosive growth since the introduction of market reforms and the relaxation of Socialist central planning). This is because capitalist countries create wealth, and that wealth is then recycled through the economic system to the benefit of everyone who wants to actively participate in the economy. Finally it is worth noting that Capitalism has generated access to an enormous economic advancement and range of labour and time saving devices. Whereas I struggle to think of any innovations in the last 50 years from Socialist countries. Infact most Socialist advances were stolen from Western Capitalist societies and copied (badly). In short if you are in the bottom 50% it is better to have a smaller share of a rich economy, than a higher share of a poor economy. Take two examples. Since independence and the removal of the Socialist regime, Estonia has re-booted itself and assertively followed a free market economic model. Estonia's reforms have led to a balanced budget, low public debt, and a rapidly growing economy capable of giving opportunities for wealth growth and creation to its citizens. It has established its own fully convertible currency, implemented a fairly radical flat-rate income tax system, allowed free trade, built a private competitive banking sector and an e-Services based government for quick, efficient and easy access for its citizens. It has become a model of a free market economy. Estonian economy was one of the fastest growing in the world until 2008 with growth rates even exceeding 10% annually. The Estonian economy and its currency have remained highly resilient and solvent despite the worldwide 2008 liquidity crisis. In terms of wealth distribution the bottom 50% had access to 20% of the wealth, with the top 20% only having 40%. Venezuela has a democratic socialist government and has had years of political stability under that rule. It has a huge wealth of natural resources and a plentiful supply of labour. Yet it remains a desperate place to live and certainly no utopia. It has a poverty rate between 76-80%. To top it all Venezuela has an unequal distribution of wealth, the poorest 20% of the population had 3% of national income, while the wealthiest 20% had 54%. For comparison the UK figures were 6.3% and 38.8%, and the US in 1972, 4.5% and 42.8%. Where is the evidence that Democratic Socialism leads to a more equal distribution and higher standard of living? My opponent needs to identify a society which is better off because of Socialism and show how that has led to higher standard of living. Until he does that there is no case to argue. We haven"t even touched on the moral case for Capitalism yet.