Socialism(pro) versus capitalism(con)

From reading about community capitalism, it sounds like as though it still has businesses set up the same way as under regular capitalism, but the difference is it has people who are focused on benefiting the community most rather than themselves. Due to this, I do have a couple of problems with this:What would guarantee that capitalism would be used to benefit the community as a whole rather than a few individuals?It sounds like as if this would still all be voluntary, correct? So, what would give people incentive to benefit the community more than themselves? As we've seen in Capitalism's past, it usually results in business owners benefiting themselves more than the community. For example, back when we didn't have government regulations, as was the case in the 1800s, workers were given terrible wages, terrible working conditions, and long work hours. What would prevent us from going back to that? Or would the government be involved in this form of capitalism and require people to benefit the community as a whole? This is something I would need to know more about before I can attack community capitalism. I would like my opponent to address these questions if they could in this round to give me opportunity to respond to it next round. In the mean time, I will point out pros of cooperative individualismCooperatives are not well known, but those who know about them, prefer shopping at themSo, since I think we would both need to prove how our economic system would be able to become the main economic system, I shall do that. My opponent should do the same, since currently, neither community capitalism nor cooperative individualism is the economic system in any nation. So I believe we both have a burden of proof of how we can transfer to one of these economic systems. At any rate, 89% of people don't even know what a cooperative is however, 78% of people who do know about them, prefer to shop at them than other business models[2]. Therefore, all that is needed to do to transfer to a cooperative individualist society, is to educate people about cooperatives and worker coops. The market would naturally have a preference to cooperatives if people only knew about them. Traditional businesses would go out of business if not for these reasons:1) The government tends to bail out traditional, capitalist businesses that are "too big to fail".Imagine what would happen if the government stopped bailing these companies out. They would fail and the economy would likely crash even more during recessions. If this were to happen, people would likely begin to search for an alternative business model. 2) If the education system didn't conveniently leave out cooperatives in economics classes. Why don't they teach us about alternative business models in economics classes? It would make sense. And if this happened, more people would know about cooperatives, and perhaps they would search for them or even create some themselves. 3) Banks tend to not prefer to loan out to cooperatives[3, you can see through a google search how hard it is for coops to get loans] despite that they are now more succesful than traditional business models(I'll point out how sucessful cooperatives are in comparison to traditional businesses in the next contention). If banks loaned to cooperatives more, it would be easier to start up a cooperative. Cooperatives are much more successful than other business modelsPretty much every single study that has been used to study the failure rate of cooperatives and traditional businesses, show that between a 3-10 year period of being in business, cooperatives survive 1.5-10 times the rate than every other business model[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. I provided studies from the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Canada about cooperatives, and all of them show no matter what country or region, that cooperatives have a higher survival rate than other business models. Even in recessions, cooperatives are more resilient than traditional business models[6]. This suggests that if we were to switch to cooperative individualism, the economy may very well be more stable than with capitalism, as the liklihood that cooperatives will fail is much lower. Cooperative Individualsm can help end unemployment and povertyIn a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burdin and Andres Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that "average employment and wages in WCs[worker cooperatives] tend to be greater than in CFs[capitalist firms]." [11, pg. 522] The wage being higher definitely makes sense, since in a worker-cooperative, there is no person at the top taking a percentage of the business profits as their own, personal, income. Instead, this income is spread across the workers, which would mean their wages would be higher. Additionally, the specific number of employees that the average worker coop has is 10[12], while traditional businesses have just over 4[13]. I believe the reason worker coops employ more people on average is because they are created with the intent to benefit the workers. Clearly WCs benefit the workers more, as they become the owners and are given democratic control over the company. So, since the goal of worker coops is to benefit workers, they try to employ more. A traditional business will employ the minimum amount of people needed to get the job done, while worker coops will try to employ more. Despite this, as shown above, the wages of those workers, even though there is more of them, remain higher in WC's. Thus, I believe if there were more wc's, unemployment would go down naturally, possibly down to 0% if we had enough of them. WC's, after all, seem to employ twice the amount of people that traditional businesses do. Therefore, since wages tend to be greater in WCs that means if there were more of them, the number of people who are working who are in poverty would go down. Additionally, since worker coops provide more jobs, more jobs would open and then unemployment would likely drop. Worker cooperatives tend to be more productive than traditional businessesWCs are more productive than traditional businesses. Let us compare the productivity of traditional companies, those in which workers have no say over the decision-making process of the company, with that of worker co-ops, where the workers are the joint-owners of the company and democratically vote on decisions for the company. It has been found in a study conducted by Ben Craig, of the federal reserve bank of Cleveland, and John Pencavel, of Standford University, that worker cooperatives within the plywood industry are more materially productive than traditional firms[1, pg 124]. The reasons they believe for this are because:A. "A co-op mitigates the agency cost associated with a corporation's division between ownership and control". Since co-ops are owned by the workers, they are much more likely to be informed about the business decisions than if they weren't owners, thus there is no need to spend extra time from business owners to educate them on this matter.[1, pgs 124-125)B. WCs eliminate "the separation of interests between workers and owners."[1 pg 125] As one can imagine, there are many instances in which a conventional firm would be presented with opportunities where they can make a decision that more benefits them and harms the workers. The workers would be opposed to this, and normally what happens in a conventional firm, is that bargaining goes on and this takes up precious time that could be devoted to work. In a co-op, this bargaining would not take place, since worker-owners would likely choose what benefits the majority of the workers, whereas in a traditional business, the owner would choose what only benefits themselves.C. Workers are able to monitor each other better than in traditional businesses where the monitor is a single manager [1, pgs 125-126]. This makes sense as well, since in co-ops, the workers are the ones who make the decisions of the company, and would be involved in hiring and firing other workers. Co-workers are more often among their co-workers than a manager is, so they would be able to monitor their co-workers more effectively than a manager. This provides incentive for each worker to provide their best work and not laze around.Conclusion of this round:Since people who know about coops prefer to shop at them, all that would need to be done is to educate people about cooperatives, and they would likely out-perform other businesses easily and become the majority business type. Coops fail at a lower rate than traditional businesses, and would be more stable in recessions, which would help the economy out greatly. Worker coops can also end poverty and unemployment, and finally are more productive. For these reasons, cooperative individualism is preferable.Sources:[2] http://www.geo.coop... [3] https://www.google.com...[4] http://www.geo.coop...[5] http://www.co-oplaw.org...[6] http://www.cecop.coop... [7] https://www.uk.coop... [8] http://www.ontario.coop...[9] http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu...[10] http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu...[11] http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca...[12] http://institute.coop...[13] https://smallbiztrends.com...