Capitalism is a better economic system than communism

It is interesting that my opponent brings up the US and other nations in his argument. Nearly every nation in the world has a mixed economy to some degree (some private ownership, some public). This means that any arguments based purely on a nation are going to be inconclusive in terms of this debate. For the arguments which are not based around a nation, I'll address those first, then move on to my arguments. "You see the blatant contrast all the time when you drive past road construction and wonder on a workday at 2pm where are the government workers and you realize there is no benefit to their job so they will slack off as much as they can." This is a non sequitur. First, there obviously is a benefit to their jobs, in that they get paid to do it (your pay is part of your job). Second, it is the assumption that this is done (if at all) because it is a "classless" system (which it isn't). If the work was never getting done, we wouldn't have any roads. In fact, most road work is done at night, when traffic is minimal. "No matter how hard they work or don't work they get paid the same. There is no motivation, no room for growth." This is one of the most pervasive myths about communism. Not everyone gets paid the exact same under communism. there is no form of communism that even suggests this. Nor, is it implied in the definitions given by my opponent at the start of the debate. I will now move on to my own arguments. 1) Communism is better for businesses. In communism, companies are owned by the laborers, i.e. the workers. In capitalism, they are owned by private owners (investors). In both cases, whether a company is owned by the workers or the investors, they have 1 of 2 options with the company. They are either choose to run it themselves, or choose to appoint someone to run it for them (a company president). Let's look at each of these two options and who would be better at deciding for the good of the company for them. If it was chosen that the owners (either the workers in communism or the investors in capitalism) should run it, would people who actually work at the company be better at running it? Or people who picked it's stock from someone their banker suggested as a good investment? If it was a car company, I'd believe that the people that actually build cars would know more about it than my dad (who owns stock in Ford, no offense to my dad). Whatever industry the company is in, its workers know more about the product and the market and industry and everything else, than some investor who likely has a little bit of everything in his portfolio. If it was chosen that someone should be appointed to run the company, who would be better at finding the best candidate? This comes down to the same reasons as the other option. The workers know more about their industry than any investors do, and so would be better at choosing a leader for their company. Since communism is better for the company in either option, the company would do better under communism, and so, the economy would as well. 2) Communism would have less poverty and less unemployment. In capitalism, since investors control the companies, they funnel off as much money as they can back to the investors. Doesn't matter how much a company grows, if it doesn't pay back dividends to its investors, they are going to be upset. If this money is not wasted in going back to investors, it allows more money to be spent upon company growth and on employee pay. This will lower unemployment, since more resources are available for company growth, the company can hire more people. This will lower poverty, since the employees will be paid more, thus raising many out of poverty. 3) Communism would have lower taxes. By having less unemployed, and less poverty, the government has a lower burden of assistance programs (less unemployed benefits, less food stamps benefits), and so it needs less tax revenue to meet those lower burdens. This creates a fun cycle where the businesses have more money again and so can continue to hire more people and pay higher wages, thus lifting even more out of those holes. I will end with this, as this is going to be a long debate. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you,