Pro is a better Anti-Communis than Con

The opponent seems to have a murky knowledge of communism, and what it really is. Firstly, I would like to define several terms:1. Communism: A classless, stateless, moneyless self-administering societyThe opponent states things about oppression, but in a self administering society like that of communism, where would the oppression come from? 2. Private Property (Marxism): Private Enterprises in generalTherefore, if Private Property is Private Enterprises, how could the worker not have any incentive for work?Now, with some terms defined, I would like to add that all the points the opponent has given me, I have to accept, as we anti-communists must create a brotherhood against the devil that commonly launches attacks on our almost utopic society. Instead of attacking my opponent's points, I shall do the same thing he does: explain my views on communism.The working man is the backbone of the nation; any nation. The working man produces, sustain, and is relied upon to create a greater good and benefits for the nation. However, the working man faces a popular dillema: either work, and get society's support, or do not work, and do not get society's support. If they work, they face society's support, but low pay. If they do not work, they do not get society's support.In 1848, some socially phobic aristocrats and high living bourgeoisie decided to write a manifesto to attempt to seduce the workers into a dream, so they could shut their mouths up. Karl Marx, a son of a government official, and Engels, a son of a capitalist factory owner, decided that they could stop their workers from complaining about the system by luring them into another system, which would destroy the working class: why?1. The Communist Society is an Obsolete SocietyIn early Christianity, Christian societies seemed to have practice a simple form of communism. According to the book On Politics by Alan Ryan (pg 207: The Justification for Private Property), they seemed to have put all their property on a pool table, and the inhabitants of that community would come and take what they needed: this practice is known as mutual aid, and is endorsed by the modern left, but much more by anarchists than communists. However, once institutions of worship were created, the need for private property grew. Churches soon grew by the need to expand and be bigger and better than many other churches. Soon, the Papacy arose: from taking things at the pool table to an enormous theological organization that claims to be the messengers and the direct sons of god shows the path of all communist society: private property is human nature. The opponent claims that communists do not care about our property, but yet Marxist doctrines show that they do: they care about the land we own, they care about our children, they care about where we live, and they care about how we live. Under communism, all land and property is held in common. Is that not theft to a point? That only propels my point: private property is human nature. In all attempted communist societies, there have been inequalities. People taking more than what they need is the exact reason for the rise of more powerful institutions, such as the case of the Papacy, and in other institutions too: the rise of the government itself can be seen as a development of primitive communism, where everything was held in common. In both Christian and Primitive communism, we can see one prime way: years of practicing mutual aid and/or communism cannot lead to a classless moneyless stateless community that Marx and Engels are advocating for. Years of practicing mutual aid and communism can only lead to the establishment of a government, of a state, and of a institution that could claim legitimacy over ruling. This makes communism totally obsolete in this world (it also makes it unsustainable), as it is a primitive way of organizing the society, and it lead to the governing systems that we have now. This makes in inapplicable to current human society, because through communism, we have led the world into the path of what it is now: governments and capitalism. We cannot reverse that trend. Humanity will never advance backwards, but would only advance forwards, forwards to the path of being more complex, not simpler. To the path of being more human, and less animal. To the path of being more civilized, and less barbaric. Is it not clear that communism was built for those who do not understand human society thoroughly, whose human nature aren't fully developed yet? Communism will only destroy humanity and it's innovation. I support reformation within the capitalist system. I hope you all do to.Workers, unite for the fatherland against communism!