The societal wisdom of Socialism is undeniable.

To begin with an evaluation of the debate topic, we have to look at terminology. There are some basic terms that serve as conditions. 1. Socialism. Socialism is the government ownership of capital and the means of production, by which the government, through control of industry, arranges equitable distribution in accordance with Marx's principle 'From each according to ability, to each according to need.' 2. Undeniable. Something that can be proven to be a certain way through demonstration of either a practical or theoretical nature, and be accepted widely. Please note that this is not invalidated by someone denying it. The moon landing is undeniable, the Holocaust is undeniable, and evolution is undeniable, yet people deny all three. Therefore, the frame of judgment is that of an objective and rational person. To begin the portion of my debate, I will examine the change in society that caused the origins of socialism. The industrial revolution enabled capitalism to increase at a firm pace. The use of factories and industries largely replaced the artisans and craftsmen, resulting in a reduction of the societal division. The middle class separated into upper and lower divisions, which grew further apart. Continually, the conservation of wealth among the financial elite, who we shall call the capitalists, results in the gap between rich and poor widening, which will inevitably destroy the middle class. So, let us examine the capitalist and the laborer. The capitalist is so called because he controls capital. Capital is wealth or resources. He uses this to produce more wealth. In order to produce wealth, he needs labor. What the laborer provides is not special or unique. Industry has reduced him to the role of an organic cog in a machine, and he is easily replaced. His task is menial, without expertise, and he is paid merely for his time and sweat. But, there's something called surplus value. The value of the laborer to the capitalist is greater than what the capitalist pays. To demonstrate this point, what would the capitalist insist on paying himself if he were to take on the job of the laborer? It would be higher certainly. But, to increase the profit and the wealth of the capitalist, the laborer is deliberately given a low salary. When the entire economy is dominated by capitalists who set low salaries, choice becomes irrelevant. The laborer must go and work at an unfair wage, or he will starve. There is no other option in a capitalist society. How does socialism change the equation? The state takes control of industry from the capitalist, and guarantees the worker either a fair wage, or meeting his needs. Either way this is an improvement, as it either provides him with the money he needs to have a decent existence, or it eliminates the difficulties of life and frees the mind to think of greater things. Is it immoral to take away the capitalist's control of industry? One can argue he earned it. Perhaps he did, but perhaps he didn't. It is possible he inherited it, or was given it, and that he never actually had to work for it. But the fundamental conclusion is that socialism punishes greed. No matter how you try to say it is so, greed is not good. That is an adage of civilized society for thousands of years. Across nations and religions, it was widely known. Buddha spoke of renouncing wealth, Jesus warned it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven, and even some absolute monarchs in Europe realized this and used their wealth and station to help the people. Capitalism is unique in that it establishes greed as a virtue. Not being content with what you have is good. Wanting more is good. Doing whatever it takes to get more is good. The man who buys a pound of grain for a dollar and sells it for three is hailed as shrewd, when in times past he would have been known as a greedy cheat. One thing capitalists will often cite is Locke's concept of natural rights, one of which is property. If it were a natural right, then wouldn't all societies have the same concept? However, they do not. Native Americans didn't have such a concept. In other societies it was believed the Emperor owned everything, or the noble owned everything. The whole idea of natural rights is used as a crutch. Hobbes' Leviathan is still the gold standard for a state of nature. I want to examine it briefly. "In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In nature, there are no rights. Rights are a construct of society, guarantees established for our welfare precisely because we do not have them in nature. In nature, might makes right. Whoever has strength has a natural right to whatever they take. The idea of natural rights and a good state of nature can be easily tested. Find an area of the country, say a town, and take away all organization and all government. Tell people they may not organize together or make any rules, nor any punishments. If natural rights are true, then the crime rates will not change or will go down. If not... At best, such a state results in isolated families in tenuous alliance with one another, subject to rivalries and blood feuds, where murder begets murder. At worst, such a state would largely mesh with post-apocalyptic visions brought to us by authors. Chaos, anarchy, a world of murder, theft, rape, and casual violence in the absence of order. Government is like your mother. As a child, would you have cleaned your room or come to eat dinner on time if not required? Probably not. There are limits on what you can do, and that is as it should be. Liberty is not inherently good or essential, and is further a question of values. To value capitalism is to value greed, and selfishness, and to be concerned only with competing and rising to the top. To value socialism is to value equality, and to place others before your own needs, and to be concerned with the welfare of society. The biggest lie of modern times is that capitalism is good and socialism is bad. Considering Jesus himself endorsed primitive socialism and cast money-changers out of the Temple, the very idea that anyone of religious conviction can endorse capitalism is absurd. The idea that greed is moral is so insane that it would be hilarious... If no one believed it. Yet greed has been wrapped in a flag, and given names like 'liberty.' Those who oppose it are slandered mercilessly and destroyed. They have, historically, been murdered, arrested, invaded, massacred, imprisoned, tortured. It's time to reexamine our priorities. Do we value greed and inequity, or cooperation and equality?