In practice, socialism requires a ruling elite.

1. Can A Governmental Elite Exist In A Democracy?I would like to pose a question. If one has a ruling elite, then is that compatible with democracy? A ruling elite, after all, cannot really be challenged. They are static, unchanging, elevated above the common person. An elite that can be removed on the whim of the voters, after all, could hardly be considered an elite at all.The whole point of democracy is that the people can choose new leaders, if they so desire. In a true democracy, no leader remains if they are unwanted--therefore, the only way an entrenced elite (and an elite can hardly be considered an elite if they are frequently replaced) could exist would be to be so incredibly popular that no one wanted to remove them. And this is easily avoided in any society that has term limits. In that case, one might argue that the political party itself is the elite. However, even in a political party, the upper leadership (and if there was going to be an elite, it would be them) are also replaced, and there is no reason that the upper leadership couldn't also have term limits.Moreover, why would a democracy--especially one organized around an economic philosophy that dictates the minimization of class distinctions--tolerate such an elite?2. Case StudiesI absolutely agree with my opponent that there are few, if any, examples of 100% socialist or capitalist societies. However, I believe that Pro has omitted several examples of countries where many major industries are nationalized, and these are some of the most successful examples of such countries. Norway, Sweden, and Finland all have extensively nationalized major industries ranging from transportation to farming.Mail: Posten Norge has a legal monopoly on all mail services in the country of Norway.[1] The USPS has a monopoly on most forms of mail in the USA.[2] Posten AB, a Swedish service, has an effective monopoly, with only one other entity that could be called a competitor.[3]Medical: Until recently, Apoteket had a monopoly on medicines.[4]Wikipedia has a more comprehensive list.[5] While I am aware it is Wikipedia, and therefore potentially subject to vandalism, Wikipedia is usually reliable for such a basic outline, and if any judges or my opponent have a problem, I can track down--and edit in changes, if necessary--more information. Suffice to say that several countries, such as Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Canada (though Canada's monopolies depend on province) have large industries owned by the government. And, of course, many of these governments have partial control over areas of industry.(On a side note, I would mention that a government could create two competing companies with different philosophies and run both of them, as a sort of test to see which was superior. This could recreate the force of competition.)3. Bureaucracy.The force of Bureaucracy is, obviously, a force far beyond the ability of any of us mere mortals who have not gazed into the Void of Azathoth to contemplate. I, however, got into a staring contest with the Void of Azathoth, and shall therefore dispute this section of my opponent's argument--sort of.All corporations, all companies, have a bureaucracy. It is a universal feature of all organizations that someone has to manage the details, whether that organization be a government, a social group, a non-profit, or a company. If anything, therefore, socialism would result in a reduction in the total amount of bureaucracy... and the word "ruling elite" hardly conjures up the image of someone at a desk job taking care of shipments.4. On The Matter Of PoliceYes, it's true that socialism will require a large police force, and they'll have to be paid well enough to keep corruption low. However, I dispute that it would be necessary to form an elite out of them--are the police in most democratic countries an "elite?" Is your average traffic cop, or detective, or constable, an elite member of society?Moreover, if the police must be paid more than those they are policing to keep corruption from exploding, then why isn't that universal among established countries? Police are paid slightly more than the median wage,[6][7] but a ~$6,000 dollar difference from the median wage, when one takes into account on-job dangers, isn't exactly the difference typically conjured up by the word "elite." My opponent might object that there is corruption and such in the USA, but there will be some level of corruption in every country, even a socialist one. It's inescapable. But there is more at play than just a pure "do I gain more money or benefits than the people I'm policing" here. There's idealism, there's emotional loyalty, there's the desire to avoid the shame of getting a reputation as a dirty cop and/or thrown in prison. That is human nature.And even if the police are paid more than the average person, that does not mean that they will form an elite. For instance, while police are paid more than the median wage in the USA, there are a great many industries and jobs where the median pay is higher.5. On The Matter Of The EliteBluntly, my opponent is wrong here. The government offers more compensation to comparatively untrained employees, yes, but these can hardly be said to form an elite. They actually offer less money to highly trained employees.[8] Then my opponent argues that:"A large bureaucracy must exist to make decisions, and a large police force must exist to enforce the decisions. This is already a power elite, and the elite already has a vested interest in keeping socialist government in power. Their power already makes them an elite, but it is small step from that to making them more elite by giving them more money and benefits, and that is a practical inevitability."What, then, is the meaning of the word "elite?" Do we not already have an elite, since there already exists a bureaucracy and a police force? If this is an elite, it must be a very large elite, since so many people are part of it, and it certainly is not regarded as better, and they aren't paid (comparatively) that much more. For that matter, if it was true that governmental employees made more in a socialist government where the only bureaucracy is the government, one could not pay governmental employees more than private ones, since there would be no private workers.If there was going to be a true ruling elite in a socialist government, it would have to be the leadership. And, even if idealism is rare among humans, I think it is quite a stretch to say that it is impossible to find people who fit the job of governental official and can get elected who will not make themselves into a ruling elite--even moreso when there are clear anticorruption laws, term limits, and a transparent government, and the whole philosophy of government is based upon socialistic principles. For a top official in a socialistic government to try to make themselves a ruling elite would be roughly equivalent, in terms of violating social norms, to a top official of our government suggesting that maybe the Nazis had a point. Well, maybe not that bad, but it would be a massive liability.Sources:1. http://postandparcel.info...2. http://capitalismmagazine.com...3. http://www.postalconsumers.org...4. http://www.thelocal.se...5. https://en.wikipedia.org...6. http://www.bls.gov...7. http://money.cnn.com...8. http://www.facethefactsusa.org...