Socialism is better than your choice of an alternative economy

My opponent says "that this socialism... cannot be established or ma[i]ntained without government force." However, this is only true if majority of people in a country are in favor of a market economy or some other non-socialist economy. If a majority is in favor of a socialist economy, then it will be very difficult for anyone to maintain private ownership of a company. For one, the people themselves can enforce the rules by rising up against anyone who tries to open up a privately-owned business. A militia can ensure that the society continues to be socialist. I admit, it takes a lot of conviction from the people themselves and activism on their part to maintain such a socialist economy. I concede that if majority of the people want a market economy, then there's no way to have socialism but through government force. Since I'm also an advocate of democracy, I have no problem with a society that majority want a market economy, that's their choice, but I think if people were educated on socialism, and if socialist attempts were allowed to continue without outside forces over-taking them, there would be more examples of socialist successes and more people would likely go to socialism. I would like to address this next point made by my opponent: "Firstly, if competition, how can there also be only 1 or 2 people in charge of the system." When I said a few people are in charge, I meant a few people or one person is in charge of a single company. There are of course multiple pharmaceutical companies and plenty of competition. I apologize if that was not clear. In addition, my opponent stated that "The only way to prevent people from making these antibiotics is with government force. " However, I would argue that under a socialist economy where workers own the businesses and make the decisions, they would probably be more likely to vote for developing a solution to this problem. Perhaps not all of the cooperatives would do this, but I would say at least a few of them would come to realize the need for benefiting society, rather than themselves. When one or a few people control the company, they are more likely to do that which benefits themselves, but when workers are in control, they will do what benefits the workers which is more likely to benefit everyone since more people are involved in the process. A hypothetical scenario: Both of these below examples show that socialism doesn't just result in creating less wealth, less infrastructure, or raise the cost of living like you are claiming in this hypothetical scenario. While there are socialist nations where this has happened, I would argue it's not because they were socialist, but rather for other economic reasons depending on the nation. Socialism CAN succeed, and perhaps even compete with market economies. Now, while these two countries do not have the precise socialism I'm advocating for, they do have forms of socialism. 1) Yugoslavia had averaged a GDP growth of 6.1% each year in the 1960s and 1970s ( http://www.globalresearch.ca... ) and the standard of living continually went up, eventually to make Yugoslavia have the highest standard of living of any eastern European country during that time. ( ) 2) Bolivia, since having voted in a socialist party in 2006 and which has become more socialist, has had it's GDP soar from $8 billion to $33 billion ( http://data.worldbank.org... ) and has the fastest growing economy in Latin America. In addition, the extreme poverty levels went down from 38.2%, just before the socialists were elected, to 18.8%. While Bolivia is still a poor nation, it is improving widely under socialism. ( ) I do not have examples of countries that had libertarian/anarcho-socialism which succeeded because all of them were quickly taken over by a capitalist, authoritarian, or totalitarian country as was the case with the Free Territory of Ukraine during the Russian civil war, and Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. However, I may be able to use Catalonia as an example since they did last for about 3 years. During the time Catalonia existed, the standard of living of the average worker did in fact go up pretty significantly ( http://econfaculty.gmu.edu... ). I can't find anything else about other indicators of economic improvement for Catalonia unfortunately.