Pure Socialism is far Superior to Captitalism

1. Pro's definition of "socialism" is in error. Googling "define socialism" produces a list of definitions: http://www.google.com... Every one of the definitions includes state ownership of the means of production. There is nothing remotely similar to what Pro describes. Pro is arguing along the lines of "Everyone thinks a cat is a small furry animal, even cat lovers. However, I know that a cat is really a large yellow snake." Nonetheless, I will accept Pro's definition of "pure socialism" as he has defined it, for the purposes of the debate. I contend his proposed system is inferior to capitalism. 2. Pro asks, "...we have plenty of government or state ownership in America today, but who would argue that America is a socialist country because of it?" The question poses the false choice between a country being all capitalist or all socialist. The US is a mixed economy, having both socialist elements and capitalist elements. That describes most economies in the world. There are a few completely socialist countries, like North Korea. 3. Pro asks if all the institutions he names are examples of socialism. Insofar as they are "means of production" they are, but not all institutions are means of productions. Courts, for example, are not means of production, so they are neither socialist nor capitalist. It doesn't matter for this debate, because we have a mixed economy. The government is not socialist because it owns some means of production, like, of late, General Motors. It is mixed. 4. Pro asks, "The people control the government you say?" Yes, they do. Pro asserts that the Electoral College allows the will of the people to be disobeyed. This is false, because the elected representatives of each state determine the Electors for that state. Therefore, they are controlled by the people. Moreover, while it is possible that an elected representative might not reflect the will of the people, either entirely or on some particular issue, Pro's system has exactly the same characteristic. Pro's system depends upon elected representatives. 5. Pro asserts, "The House and Senate single-handedly design every law made without even asking or considering the public." This is false. Most important issues have public hearings where testimony from outside of government is sought and considered. Public officials have websites and newsletters, and issue public statements and press releases. In response they receive e-mails, faxes, and phone calls. Public officials also get polling data that reflects public sentiment, and there is every evidence they are riveted on polling data, especially during elections. 6. Pro describes his system, "In each factory and other workplace, the rank and file would elect their own immediate supervisors and management committees." This is both immoral and economically disastrous: a. It is immoral because there is no respect for ownership of property. Whoever puts in the capital ought to have the right to determine how it is used. If the workers put in all the capital, then there is no conflict with capitalism. They receive shares of stock and vote for the Board of Directors that appoints the management. There are many examples of employee-owned companies, and there is nothing socialist about them. If the company fails, the employees lose their investment. If it succeeds they benefit. However, deciding how to use someone else's money is grossly unethical. The employees can decide to bleed the company dry if they think they can gets jobs elsewhere. b. It is inefficient because employees generally do not have the experience or training to select the best management. Efficient management must hire and fire based upon productivity, and they must reward and promote based upon productivity. Union voting patterns show that workers prefer having rewards and promotions based upon seniority, with productivity counting for as little as possible. That's because each person naturally overvalues their own contribution. 7. Pro further specifies, "They would also elect representatives to local and national assemblies of the industry or service in which they work and to an all-industrial congress to coordinate production and distribution of all goods and services throughout the country." So there will be vote on how many toasters are produced, how many Pop Tarts, how many alloy flanges, how many new fashions, how many records by each singing group, and so forth through all the products society needs. The result of this is an economy like North Korea's. Whether the people determining production and distribution are elected or appointed by Dear Leader, there is no possibility that they will be up to the task. Whether a new fashion will be successful or not is far beyond the province of an Industrial Congress or the collective wisdom of the workers who sew it. It has to be up to a risk-taking capitalist who puts her money on the line in return for the chance of success. Since no decision maker is remotely able to cope with the complexity of a free economy, the result is always to limit product availability. Only the state-approved clothing styles, automobiles, housing designs, and so forth. This is fatal to economic progress and fatal to individual freedom of choice. 8. The 20th Century abounded with experiments in Socialism, both democratic and non-democratic. Most of the new countries in Africa tried socialism (many democratic), India was a bold experiment in democratic socialism, the Soviet Union and China tried Communism. They all failed miserably. The book "Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism" http://www.amazon.com... amply documents the reasons. Pro supposes that the apparatchiks brought forth by his new system will provide the magic that has thus far escaped. Pro must explain why they will be astounding more brilliant in evaluating the million factors of supply and demand that drive a complex economy. He must explain how their intensity of focus and willingness to work will match that of capitalists with their own ideas and their own money at risk. It is clearly impossible. 9. Pro claims, "Today, the owners of the factories have almost absolute power over their employees. They can fire whomever they please, whenever they please." The employees have the equal power of quitting. They can go to work at another company or they can start their own business. There are about 18.6 million people in the US who are self-employed http://www.census.gov... The average time at a job in the U.S. is a mere 4 years http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com... Neither statistic suggests that employees are slaves. Rather it speaks to the importance of treating employees well to retain valuable talent. 10. Pro's system of representation solely by industry assumes that citizens have no interests other than their occupation. In fact, people in the Gulf States have a very strong interest in preparing for hurricanes, some states have great concern with freedom of religion, border states worry about drug trafficking and immigration, gun rights are important in states having many hunters, urban states worry more about terrorist attacks than rural states, and so forth. However, under Pro's system all representation is by industry. That means that the tire manufacturers representative will have to present positions on abortion rights, foreign policy, immigration, and every other position affecting voter sentiment. But why would somebody whose knowledge base is mainly tires, have studied all these other issues and have coherent positions? Pro's system won't work. The resolution is negated.