Communism/Marxism is superior to Capitalism

Now, onto the rebuttals. FRAMEWORK: You didn't really attack my framework much after my rebutt of your original critique but no matter. All I have to do is explain why Bolshevik/Soviet Communism is not an example of Communism. To be honest, by the near universal definition of Communism, as I brought up before, the system the USSR used is not Communism. Yes, it is socialism, due to the command economy, but the whole point of Marxism is the elimination of Class Struggle, and the placing of the means of production in the hands of the workers. The Soviets did the opposite of this. They created a new Borge party within the upper class of the Kremlin, where the powerful party leaders and politburo got all the wealth while the workers were left to starve. It is NOT abusive to limit communism to "Advanced Marxism" because as I've stated, this debate is not over the means of reaching the final stage of Marxism, which is a socialist utopia, but is a debate over the pros and cons of the UTOPIA ITSELF. This is not an examination of what leads to a utopia and where it can go wrong, but of the benefits of the utopia itself. Now, onto defending my points. 1. Lets use logic for a moment. Consider a socioeconomic system. The system generally has three classes, the lower, middle, and upper class. However, if you're not A PART of the socioeconomic system at all (meaning you don't work, contribute, build anything, buy anything, etc.) its IMPOSSIBLE to belong to a class in that system. Therefore, the economic system of Communism eliminates Class Warfare for everyone that ACTUALLY takes part in society. There is no RICH or poor, there is only a healthy affluent life style lived by EVERYONE that is contributing to the economic system of Marxism (which is regulated through work quotas by employers). People won't make $250,000 (although their living style will represent that type of income) while others will make $30,000. Everyone that contributes to this communal society make the same. Its almost like an apple farm. Imagine a group of hard workers, collecting all the apples from trees. Then, imagine a squatter, who sits around and wants to take all the apples from the workers. Should he be considered one of the HARD workers, who deserves an apple? Should he be considered an unfortunate worker who is not being treated fairly? NO. He is not a worker at all, therefore isn't a part of society. If you don't make the quotas, you're not in the society because you're not working AT ALL, therefore its unfair and abusive to label someone as belonging to a class. 2. You're confusing the lack of inherent skills in individuals with "laziness". You ignored my point about morality and how those who were born with natural talent/born with better skills than others shouldn't be paid more. Simply because they didn't have to work to get those skills, they were just born superior. It isn't fair they should get free reign and oppress the rest of society. If anything, they should be helping those less fortunate than them (COUGH COUGH TAX THE RICH). Basically: People who are born smart or are naturally competitive shouldn't be allowed to control society like a puppet and exploit those who were not as fortunate in terms of natural gifts. You literally just "refuted" my point by repeating yourself. You didn't present any logic as to why Laziness would still exist in a communist society, so I will again point out that the strive to achieve a higher state of living in an ideal marxist society tied in with work quotas eradicates laziness and creates a perfect worker. 3. Wall Street: the biggest casino in the world. I've already stated that unholy acts are committed there. If you know anything about stocks, derivatives, ANYTHING, you'll know its one big betting game. BY COMMON LOGIC, IF YOUR BETS ARE WRONG, then you lose! The implosion of Capitalism: a point where the conditions for the poor become so terrible because with Wall Street being considered, the bets are off, that they eventually have a revolution to free themselves from the oppressors. Capitalism creates its own errors while it is "prospering". It is a system based off of contradictions A recession like the one we experience in 2009 was caused by bad bets on wall street. The markets tanked, and the LEFT had to go in and bail everyone out. Also, Capitalism didn't fall in the Great Depression, simply because of the acts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to use transportation infrastructure to save the economy and employ the people. May I mention, that after this, people in America up until the 50's had crazy Communist Sympathies, and while we may never know what would've happened they may as well could've had a revolution. I will now list several examples where Capitalism IMPLODED and was replaced with a system of socialism (However, none of them are examples of advanced marxism that has drawn out because none of them followed the guidelines referring to the transitional government therefore they all failed to achieve the socialist dream) 1. The October Revolution in Russia 1917 2. Mao's Great Revolution in China 3. The Civil War between North Korea 4. The Vietnam Civil War 5. The Cuban Revolution 6. Several revolutions throughout Latin America AND there are many others who simply did not transition into a form of socialism. 4. Pfft. Idealism. You didn't prove any of my examples as not true, as they are probably the most prominent examples of discrimination and racism in a capitalist country, but you simply said "PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THESE STEREOTYPES". Sure, they don't follow them, but that doesn't mean these stereotypes don't arise from a world where minorities are blamed unjustly for the failings of the free market! If people notice a problem in their society, in their ECONOMIC society, they blame a minority scapegoat for it. Examples: The ones I've listed before. Notice how they're all related to work or economics. AGAIN. You say laziness exists under communism with no reasoning to contradict my logic I posted in my earlier speech. Quotas and the need for a higher state of living are what pushes the boundaries of the human condition and will eventually eliminate greed and laziness. These things are a biproduct of private enterprise. Finally, no. You have to explain WHY Capitalism is as good as Marxism, or why it is superior. You can't just point out the flaws in it. It would appear that your opportunity for this has expired, because its unfair to bring up new points into the last speech impossible to refute. If you can't prove that Communism is worse than Capitalism, which is impossible to do in the last speech because it is unfair debating, then in every scenario I win the debate. I have defeated my opponent on all flows, the framework, and he has ignored the TOPIC of the debate. Thank you PingPong(Jared) for an exciting debate, which we've had time and time again through many car drives, at others homes, etc. I'm expecting the votes to come in soon.