Socialism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

1st round post is entirely opponents points. However, Opponent must clarify position.

True Socialism never works well. In fact it has never worked at all.

So how is Pro defining Socialism?

And what is different to what?

And what depends upon what I do?

I would suggest that Pro needs to clarify their position first.

Hello.

1) Pro has not as yet clarified their bracketed references.

2) Pro suggests that "Socialism can work well". Nonetheless Pro appears to suggest in round 2 that Socialism does not work well.

3) In which direction do I therefore move this debate forward?

1) Bracketed references:
A. "I know their different".
B. "But it depends what you do".
What do this mean? I have no way of knowing unless you explain it clearly.

2) Your proposition was:
"Socialism can work well".
It is therefore incumbent upon Pro to substantiate this claim. You somewhat counter intuitively cited the collapse of the U. S. S. R. As evidence of socialism working well.

3) As Con; I should be refuting your claim by arguing that socialism does not work well and I would therefore probably cite the collapse of the U. S. S. R. As an example of socialism not working well.

Regards.

Ok.

But you still haven't given any examples or evidence of socialism working well.

True socialism should be founded on absolute equality, But how could a society function effectively without hierarchy?

I would suggest that true socialism is an unachievable, Theoretical utopia.

People simply do not have equal capabilities, Therefore a society will always naturally evolve into a hierarchical system.

The founding principles of the U. S. S. R. May have been loosely based on socialist theory, But from the outset compliance to the system was enforced through fear rather than through thoughtful cooperation. As such the U. S. S. R. Was never a socialist state. The U. S. S. R. Was never anything other than an authoritarian dictatorship.

a) To not be an "enemy" would be to accept and to legitimise an authoritarian dictatorship.

b) To trade openly would give the same recognition as above.

c) The U. S. S. R as a true socialist state, Never actually started. But I would strongly assert that it would be inaccurate to say that The U. S. S. R. Was unable to progress. The U. S. S. R. Possessed an abundance of knowledge and resources which allowed it to compete both militarily and technologically at a global level.

Anyway:
We are focusing to much on the machinations of the former Soviet Union and straying from Pro's opening proposition, Which was; "Socialism can work well".

I therefore reiterate:
Can Pro give me an example of true socialism, Working well?