Communism is a bad form of government.

===Refutations=== "Rather than letting the ruled people make decisions, a ruler, who is often misinformed and cruel, does all. You cannot object to decisions by that ruler. Even a monarchy is better, such as what was in England, because there was a parliament, where SOME of the power was spread out to other people (though, admittedly, England was one of the better situations of that time, like the 1600s)." "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property.[1] The exact definition of communism varies and it is commonly used interchangeably with socialism, however, communist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism." [1] You seem to be confused with what communism actually is. China, how you described it, is a dictatorship, and it is giving the world the illusion that it is communist. "people often get upset about their government and try to overthrow it. Many people die in such war, as well as the ruler killing those who oppose him. For example, MILLIONS of people died in China's cultural revolution." Your point being? "Such communist governments are often not aware of human rights. Take China, for instance: they have a TERRIBLE human rights' record." As stated before, China is not communist. Therefore this point has no credibility. "Pure communism often means that everyone gets the same things, like basic food, always. No matter how hard they work they get it. NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY WORK - there's no incentive there! I could be a lazy couch potato, and still get the same things as someone who worked VERY hard. That's how China was, until recently. The whole thing just fails in this way." Actually, you must work for your food, it is just distributed equally. It's not a question of who's working more than others, but rather who is who is working less than others. For example, someone who does not work will starve, someone who works a lot will not. Simple. China again. "Humans should be treated equally" Contradiction, in the above point you said that people who work more should be given more, now you say that everyone should be treated equally. "but instead here all these poor people are crushed with extreme taxes that they are not allowed to object to, a ruler that is above everyone else, can do whatever he wants, and does not allow free speech. This is not even remotely close to equal! And of course, all those people live in fear, hating their government but unable to show it by fear of getting in major trouble with the government, perhaps killed!" The people rule the government, therefore the people tax themselves for the benefit of the whole. There is simply no single ruler in communism, it is the people. In fact, free speech is a main concept of communism, the people cannot run a government if they cannot talk about it! ===Contentions=== Contention 1. In a communist society, people will be motivated to help others. "The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being." [2] Contention 2. The communist perspective on collective ownership of property is appropriate. "A principal 20th century liberal theorists, John Rawls, originated the idea of a the "veil of ignorance". The idea is that, imagining we all had no idea how we would "come out of the womb" and whether we would be "advantaged or disadvantaged", what kind of social contract would we construct. We would want to construct one in which we minimized the risks to ourselves if we happened to get the "short-end of the stick". This is why a degree of "equality of outcome" is important. Communism and socialism recognize these ideas." [3] Benjamin, one of our idolized founding fathers once said "All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it." One of the large influences on the U.S.'s government was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He explained that "The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one." [4] ===Conclusion=== My opponent's arguments have been defeated. My opponent has stated one source. I now turn this debate over to pro. -Sources- 1. http://www.encyclopedia.com... 2. Furtak, Robert K. "The political systems of the socialist states", St. Martin's Press, New York, 1987, p. 13. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.goodreads.com...