In practice, socialism requires a ruling elite.

The key to this debate is the “in practice” part of the resolution. In theory, government bureaucrats could invent smart phones. In theory, bureaucrats could fund multiple development projects to produce all the products that people want, while disapproving all the products destined to fail if they were a free market. Dictators want economic prosperity as much as anyone, so in theory the socialist bureaucrats in the Soviet Union or North Korea could make all of the decisions as well as free markets. In practice, there are no examples of it ever happening under any any form of socialism. 1. Socialism requires authoritarian rule of economic society Con claims that democracy implies that human rights are preserved, even if the majority wants to take away those rights. I cannot find a dictionary definition that supports that claim, and Con cited none. Arguing for a system of Federalism, Jonah Goldberg accurately assessed democracy, Democracy voluptuaries think democracy makes people the most happy, but it doesn't, because in a democracy 51% of the people can vote to pee in the corn flakes of the other 49%. Others think that socialism maximizes happiness, but all that does is make unhappiness more consistently uniform across all of society. [21. http://old.nationalreview.com...] However, if we accept Con's definition of democracy as having implicit protection of individual rights, then there is no such thing as democratic socialism. The whole point of socialism is to deprive individuals of the right to choose what products they buy, of the right to sell goods and services for what others are willing to pay, and of the right to take risk in return for potential profit. Con claims that cults of personality, show trials, and other abuses of power do not occur under democratic socialism. I gave the example of Putin in Russia, who was democratically elected and has indulged in the abuses cited. Con hopes to escape that example by defining “democratic” as not having abuses. That's circular logic. Quite clearly, a democratic majority of 51% can choose to abuse the rights of the 49%, and socialism demands that rights of the 49% to make their own decisions be removed. It is not true that bureaucrats are appointed by elected officials. Only about 3,799 of the 2.7 million government employees are appointed, and many of those are on advisory commissions. [22. http://tinyurl.com...] If most federal jobs were appointed, the patronage associated with the party in power would be too great. Instead, nearly all government employees are career civil servants essentially immune from every being replaced. Bureaucrats are largely united in believing in the virtue of government control. That's why, as in Japan, the bureaucracy has a life of it's own. 2. A bureaucracy is necessary for socialism. Con contends that people at individual companies decide how many of each product are made, and that's no different from having a government bureaucrat deciding. The difference is that companies operate subordinate to market demands. Products are typically made by private companies in batches or at an adjustable rate of production, so that the company does it's best to match supply to demand. In free markets, the companies respond to demand. Under socialism, there is most often only one product of each type, and the bureaucracy decides how much of it will be produced. Since having too much would be an embarrassment, most often too little is produced and the product is rationed. There was a joke about a Soviet citizen ordering a car and being told that it will be delivered on the morning of March 10th, eleven years hence. The citizen replies, “That's no good. The plumber is coming that morning.” Con indulges in a fantastic redefinition of socialism in which government bureaucrats foster innovation and create a competitive environment without any profit motivation. If the fantasy could be realized, the government wouldn't be controlling the industries, the individual entrepreneurs would be making the management decisions and free market supply and demand would determine success and failure. That doesn't meet the definition of socialism. The resolution demands that the system, if it is socialism, work in practice, not just in theory, and Con offers no example of it working. It's a fantasy because no one is going to put life-consuming effort into writing business plans, convincing bureaucrats, and then working day and night to make an enterprise successful without there being even a chance of making a profit. 3. A large police force is necessary I claimed that a socialist government removes property rights, and not everyone will go along with that. Black markets, smuggling, and an unregulated underground economy will inevitably arise, so there must be a substantial police force to suppress it. Con agrees, saying, “Yes, it's true that socialism will require a large police force, and they'll have to be paid well enough to keep corruption low.” Con disputes how much extra the police have to paid to qualify as an elite. In think 66% plus life time job security is enough. However, what Con did not respond to is that elites are defined by power as well as money. Bureaucrats are an elite because they get to make the rules. The police are elite because they are enforcing the rules that govern how people live. Under socialism, it's their job to suppress freedom. 4. An elite is required to sustain socialism Socialism was tried dozens of times in the Twentieth Century, and in every case there was a privileged elite. In the United States, government workers overall are compensated 74% more than private sector workers, plus they have life time job security. Con did not address job security. Job security is so valuable that we would expect to attract government workers if they were paid substantially less than the private sector. Con may not think that 74% extra plus lifetime security is much, but it's certainly elite. Con did not dispute that government employee unions are major financial supporters of politicians that want to increase government control. Thus they perform the required function of having an elite to sustain itself. Con tries a theoretical argument that even though the Scandinavian countries have extraordinary freedom in starting and operating a business and in pricing in accord with free markets, they could nonetheless meet his odd definition of socialism. First of all, socialism does not allow competitive private businesses at all, because that defeats government control of industry. Beyond that, Con only gave a theory of how heavy regulation might be imposed with enormous efficiency. He provided no source saying that was actually accomplished in Scandinavia. Con discounts measures of market and monetary freedom, but in fact they dominate characterizations of the economies. Con granted labor freedom, and that alone is fatal to socialism. Liberal pundit Fareed Zakaria summarized, You know how conservatives hate inheritance taxes – or "death taxes"? Well, guess which country has no inheritance tax – Sweden. In fact Sweden today is characterized by a very free market, freer and less regulated than the United States in many areas. ... Indeed, Sweden tends to be near the top of most rankings on quality of life and competitiveness. [23. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com...] ------------- Con's arguments in this debate rely upon a redefinition of socialism in which control of industry is somehow maintained through a faux free enterprise in which bureaucrats replace free markets. That doesn't meet the definition of socialism, it hasn't happened, and it cannot happen. "Control" implies a ruling elite of controllers and enforcers. The economy has so many decisions as to require an army of bureaucrats. The elite must work to sustain itself. Thanks to Con for a good debate. I hope readers find it interesting.