Communism is superior to capitalism

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for instigating this debate. It's been quite awhile since I debated on this subject and look forward to a great debate. But before we begin I feel that definitions are in order so that my opponent, myself, and the readers are clear as to the scope of the resolution. I will also assume, since the instigator has not stated otherwise, that the primary burden of proof will lie with Pro. Therfore my burden will be to disprove my opponent's case while theirs will be to prove it.DefinitionsCapitalism- I will be defending free market capitalism, defined as an economic system of private property rights, minimal government intervention in market forces, and private non-governmental ownership of the means of production. Communism- Looking through my opponent's round, it appears as though he is defending a system of state socialism as opposed to an anarchist variety. Communism can be defined as an economic system in which the means of production are owned and operated entirely by the government.Superior- of higher grade or quality[1]. Though I do not see this definition as very useful since the actual criterion of superiority is still left vague. So I'll define superior as leading to more overall economic prosperity. If my opponent supports a different definition, he may provide it in the next round and voters can decide on which is more appropriate.Refutation of Pro's caseC1) Communism and capitalist states of recessionMy opponent's first point is to argue that capitalist economies are vulnerable to an inevitable state of prosperity and subsequent recession whereas communism is not. My opponent's reasoning however is flawed for this point. He argues that some variable X (war, disaster, loss of confidence) causes companies to lay off workers who are then unable to buy the services of other companies, forcing companies to lay off more workers, leading the economy into a vicious cycle. However, my opponent simply assumes that variables X will destroy demand in every sector of the market as opposed to the more likely result of demand lowering in the specific sector involved. My opponent must provide justification for this point before it serves to prove anything. My opponent's arguments for the supposed invulnerability of communist economies are also lacking in justification. They are as follows:Sub-C1) Unification of focusMy opponent argues that when the government controls the economy, it provides a more focused and unified approach to stimulating growth in the economy and solving economic problems. However, the viability of socialist calculation has been effectively disproven. Ludwig von Mises provided the crushing blow to communism in the following form. In order for an economy to operate in a viable or efficient way, there must be some method of calculating the best choice as to the allocation of resources. Under socialism, no rational method can be used and the only economic system which provides such a method is capitalism.(Non-labor) Capital goods which are exchanged under a market economy are heterogeneously distinct from labor. However, economic exchange requires that these two types of goods be able to be exchanged in some coherent way. In a capitalist economy, this method is found in the pricing mechanism whereby goods are compared via the relative costs involved in their production. Prices are therefore able to signal to producers what goods are most efficient to produce at a given time. Under socialism, no such mechanism exists disallowing rational calculation as how to allocate resources.C2) Alleged superiority of monopolist nationalized industryMy opponent next argues that when an industry is nationalized and therefore monopolized, it is able to devote more resources to developing relevant technology as opposed to out-competing rivals. My opponent however fails to realize two market forces which a monopolized industry would be unable to ignore.Sub-C2) The point of competitionCompetition allows for corporations to not only obtain knowledge as to consumer preferences but also forms a check on the power of businesses over consumers. On consumer preferences, under a system of pure competition, consumers are most free to decide which businesses they choose to frequent. If a business fails to meet consumer demands, consumers will be less inclined to patronize their services. When given a choice, consumers will frequent businesses that best meet their respective preferences. Under a monopolistic system (which my opponent is advocating) consumers have no choice as to whose services they obtain and so nationalized business are less inclined to serve consumer interests as compared to a competitive system (capitalism). A competitive system not only allows for consumer preferences to be best met, but insures that a single firm does not dominate a market and thus come to obtain too much power over consumers. A socialist nationalized economy is vulnerable to both of these. It is only under a competitive system that businesses are most inclined to develop the relevant technology needed to satisfy the needs of the consumers. C3) Equality under communismMy opponent's final argument is that under a system of communism, the "income, possessions, and workday" of everyone is exactly the same. My opponent has however failed to provide reasoning for why complete and utter equality is a worthwhile goal to pursue in the first place. Unless my opponent can reasonably show why equality is so worthwhile a goal that a system of mass wealth distribution is necessary, this point does little to further my opponents point.ConclusionMy opponent has failed to uphold his three contentions. On capitalism's alleged vulnerability to recession, my opponent has yet to show why a) any of variable X which my opponent provided would necessarily affect every single sector of the economy as opposed to the initial sector where the problem originated or b) why a communist economy would not be so vulnerable to such conditions. I have also shown why an industry immune to the preferences of consumers would be not only less efficient but less inclined to serve consumers. Competition I have also shown to be vital to consumer sovereignty whereas monopolistic firms are anti-thetical to it. My opponent has also failed to show why equality is a worthwhile goal to strive for. My opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof for this debate and thus I urge a Con vote.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...