socialism can be voluntary, and can be non governmental

The theory "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (/ˈpruːdɒn/;[3] French: [pjɛʁʒozɛf pʁudɔ̃]; 15 January 1809 – 19 January 1865) was a French politician and the founder of mutualist philosophy. He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist,[4][5] using that term and is widely regarded as one of the ideology's most influential theorists. Proudhon is even considered by many to be the "father of anarchism".[6] He became a member of the French Parliament after the Revolution of 1848, whereafter he referred to himself as a federalist.[7]" His idea basically  so lets mention him 

His idea

Mutualism is a libertarian socialist economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society with free markets and occupation and use, i.e. usufruct property norms.[1] One implementation of this scheme involves the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration.[2] Mutualism is based on a version of the labor theory of value holding that when labor or its product is sold, it ought to receive in exchange goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility".[3]

thats generally the idea and it sounds great  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

but will it work?  can it work? Or has it already worked? is it working now ? lets see:

"Experiments with public ownership are thriving across the country. The challenge is to link them and scale them up."

"More than 40 percent of Americans under the age of 30 view socialism favorably, according to the most recent YouGov poll. Positive responses among black Americans have ranged between 29 and 41 percent in recent surveys. A 2011 Pew Research Center poll that omitted the “undecided” option found that 49 percent of its young participants viewed socialism favorably."

In recent years, there has been a steady buildup of interest in new forms of

democratized ownership. Worker-owned cooperatives, neighborhood land trusts, and municipal corporations all democratize ownership in one way or another, but they do so in decentralized rather than statist fashion. The trajectory of change is impressive. Examples of successful worker ownership range from Cooperative Home Care Associates in New York City to the Evergreen complex of solar, greenhouse, and laundry cooperatives in Cleveland. Mayors and city councils in places like Austin, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; Richmond, California; and New York City have started to provide direct financial or technical support for these developments, suggesting a new nexus of political power."   

Older forms of worker ownership—most notably employee stock- ownership plans, or ESOPs—leave much to be desired, but they nonetheless offer a similar sense of what a more expansive buildup in democratized ownership might look like. Approximately 7,000 ESOP enterprises exist nationwide, largely owned by about 13.9 million workers (roughly 3.3 million of whom are no longer active). A number of these companies have attempted to combine unions with ESOP ownership. A related approach is being tested in new union/co-op efforts backed by the United Steelworkers."

Cities have also begun to support other forms of public ownership. Communities as diverse as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, are working to establish municipally owned banks. In Boulder, Colorado, climate-change activists have triumphed over intense corporate opposition in two major referendum battles to municipalize the local utility. More than 250 community land trusts—a model of city and neighborhood development in which land is socialized to prevent gentrification—have been set up across the country, building on the foundational work done by the Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont."

Some 450 communities have also established municipally owned Internet systems, commonly against powerful corporate opposition. In recent years, legislators in 17 states have introduced bills to create state-owned public banks like the nearly century-old Bank of North Dakota. Roughly the same number of states have considered legislation to establish single-payer healthcare programs. In 2016, voters in Colorado will decide via referendum on the single-payer ColoradoCare initiative."

None of these efforts have had a major impact yet, but they all offer blueprints for the development of a larger platform—along with concrete and actionable examples of what a radically new economy would look like at the level of enterprise, neighborhood, municipality, and state. Importantly, many “nonpolitical” Americans—some of whom even identify as conservatives (as opposed to right-wing ideologues)—support such efforts. Rhetoric aside, these conservative Americans also commonly oppose big government, big banks, and big corporations, and are often open to alternatives."

During the 1930s, strategies based on the seemingly modest efforts developed by the states in their “laboratories of democracy” became the basis for key elements of the New Deal—including labor law, Social Security, and a range of other programs. Modern experiments with socialized ownership suggest a trajectory with similarly far-ranging implications. This will remain true no matter who wins the 2016 presidential race."

Socialism doesn't have to be Centralized, in fact many aspects don't even have to be state created at all 

 

"The Sanders insurgency, the polling data, and the growing experimentation with a range of alternatives all suggest that we may be on the brink of a new era—an extended and difficult period in which a new economy is slowly forged. Such a system might perhaps be called a “pluralist commonwealth” to reflect its diverse forms of common ownership. But whatever we call it, it is time to start discussing this system more openly and to refine its practical elements. As ever-greater numbers of Americans are forced to ask fundamental questions about where their nation is going, we must start offering the answers."https://www.thenation.com/article/socialism-in-america-is-closer-than-you-think/

Insanity they say is doing the same thing  over and over and expecting different results, lets try something new something that works  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies#United_States_of_America This is a list of notable employee-owned companies by country. These are companies in which employees have an ownership stake. For example, an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) is an employee-owner method that provides a company's workforce with an ownership interest in the company. In an ESOP, companies provide their employees with stock ownership, often at no up-front cost to the employees. ESOP shares, however, are part of employees' remuneration for work performed. Shares are allocated to employees and may be held in an ESOP trust until the employee retires or leaves the company. The shares are then sold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies

has anything like this ever  been attempted in history?

The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територія vilna terytoriya; Russian: Вольная территория volnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (Махновщина Makhnovshchyna) resulted from an attempt to form a stateless anarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917 to 1921. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertarian communes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The area had a population of around seven million." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

Revolutionary Catalonia (21 July 1936 – 1939) was the part of Catalonia (an autonomous region in northeast Spain) controlled by various anarchist, communist, and socialist trade unions, parties, and militias of the Spanish Civil War period. Although the Generalitat of Catalonia was nominally in power, the trade unions were de facto in command of most of the economy and military forces, which includes the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT, National Confederation of Labor) which was the dominant labor union at the time and the closely associated Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI, Iberian Anarchist Federation). The Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT, General Worker's Union), the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification) and the Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSUC, which included the Communist Party of Catalonia) were also involved.

The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), often referred to as Rojava, is a de facto autonomous region in northeastern Syria. It consists of self-governing sub-regions in the areas of Afrin, Jazira, Euphrates, Raqqa, Tabqa, Manbij and Deir Ez-Zor.[6][7] The region gained its de facto autonomy in 2012[8] in the context of the ongoing Rojava conflict and the wider Syrian Civil War, in which its official military force, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), has taken part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava

The International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) is a non-governmental co-operative federation or, more precisely, a co-operative union representing co-operatives and the co-operative movement worldwide.  

Thanks Bill for the interesting topic!
Judges, keep in mind the resolution: “socialism can be voluntary, and can be non-governmental.”

This resolution has duel claims, and thus my opponent must prove that socialism can inherently be achieved with the consent of all peoples and that socialism can thrive with the absence of government to win the debate. That said, I will begin to rebut.

Further, the main source (the Nation) my opponent rips from is biased to the point of propaganda. 
As AllSides shows, 

Now regarding my opponent's actual claims:

Libertarian Socialism - An Oxymoron.

The foremost issue is that my opponent’s own source states that 

Anarchism and libertarianism are not considered socialism. 
Further, the very nature of a non-governmental socialism is oxymoronic and illogical. 
In order to achieve libertarian socialism, how can you possibly define what is considered rich and poor, what is “equal” and “unequal”, and then enforce equality within society, land and property? 
Well, normally through government regulation and central planning. However, this is not an option for libertarian socialism. Instead, a “democratic council” determines what is “equal” and what isn’t. What is “rich” and what is “poor.” Who gets what land and how much it is worth. Once they determine the right amount they will force you to comply with this. This is the very definition of a central power, is it not? 
By having a democratic council determine the rights and wrongs of society, is this not simply a simpler version of what is currently practiced in all governments? In other words: an authority deciding the best way to distribute resources. 
This is simply pure socialism wrapped in oxymoronic theory. Essentially: it is literally impossible to achieve “non-governmental socialism.”

Further, the idea that the rich will give up wealth voluntarily is ridiculous and in of itself disproves the idea that all of society will readily embrace socialism anytime soon. 

Thank you.

Extendeth my points, I say!

Extendimus!