Communism in general is far worse than capitalism

Then i am right in saying that socialism and communism lead to war violence and death My opponent fails to see my point. Both sides (Capitalist former adn Communist latter) are both equally responsible for the revolution. Capitalists do not want the change and fight, Communists want the change and fight. You shouldn't put the responsibility on those who enact change. It is like saying "We shouldn't have liberated the Jews from Germany, because we would be the ones at fault. " Germany being Capitalism, and the liberation being the revolution into Communism. Firstly imperialism defined here - A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. This definition actually does benefit an argument. My argument, that is. This is one example of why Capitalism would lead to Corporotism. Corporations looking for new land and wealth will press the government to expand its borders and colonize different countries, which would lead to imperialism AND war. My opponent also that in a purely Capitalist state, all land conquered by the country would immediately be given up or sold for private ownership, or else its useless land because the Capitalist government cannot own any mean(s) of production. Therefore, Imperialism and War will occur due to Capitalism. This would then mean that when the government wanted to invade another country it would have to purchase weapons and equipment from private companiesMy opponent suggests that a Capitalist country does not have the means to attack other nations, much less defned themselves, which is another argument for me. Purely capitalist nations, as stated by Pro, do not have the means to defend themselves, while Communist nations are very, very good at defending themselves. google defines a slave as "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them". In a socialist and communist state, everyone belongs to and is the property of the state, they are also forced to obey the state, as well as work for it. This argument is silly. Communism divides the wealth equally to the people. So as long as every individual person IS an individual person, everyone will own an individual life, or more specifically their own life. They are not slaves to the state, they are the state. Voters, please note my opponent did not refute my claim that Capitalism leads to slavery. "wealth in the world is a constant" i must say that you are absolutely completely wrong. After this statement, my opponent begins his ramblings about the GDP and the Chinese economy. I however, meant the wealth of the world is CONSTANT. The truth of the matter is we just learn new ways to exploit the world, not that the wealth of the world changes over time. If a tradesmen is asked to fix something in a house, his employer must agree to pay him to fix it, and he must agree to fix it for an amount of money he deems fair. In capitalism things can only be done when they are mutually beneficial for both parties involved, if they are not beneficial for both parties, then it is unlikely that both parties will participate. Unless slavery is involved, which PRO seems to believe is found in a purely Capitalist system, or at least doesn't defend that it cannot occur. An employer could also threaten the tradesman or his family if he refuses to do it for free. With no government intervention, I fail to see how this cannot happen. They pay their money to the Upper class, which typically own many of the means of production, factories, docks etc. And they pay the working class to produce their products. This is Capitalism in theory, but not reality. History has showed us that the wealthy do not create more jobs for the working class, but rather put the money they earn in their pockets for safe keeping. So the circle of economy is broken, resulting in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. in many free capitalist nations there are is a huge amount of class mobility, allowing people in the different classes to change to different classes I provided 3 reasons why this is not true in a pure Capitalist state. Imperialism, slavery, and exploitation of the poor are all examples of how class mobility is limited. Now, my opponent only addressed Imperialism (And I debunked his refutation), and left slavery and exploitation of the poor untouched. Until he can explain how imperialism, slavery, and exploitation do not occur in a pure Capitalist state, he cannot defend this calim of class mobility! The people who own large monopolies actually do give back to the society they take the money from. While it is true that the super-rich are able to give to the poor, my opponent fails to show any incentive for them to do so. People who exploit others for their wealth shouldn't donate to charities, they should just not exploit others or not be able to, under the superior economic system of Communism! John D Rockefeller was the first person to innovate the way in which oil was transported. He found a much cheaper more efficient way to do it, and was rewarded by the market for doing so. Would he have still invested so much in energy saving pipelines if he hadn't been working for profit? No, he wouldn't have. But state owned businesses would have done it for the benefit of everyone, not just themselves. Also, John D Rockefeller didn't need to invest in anything else after he controlled the oil industry, nobody could compete, and he had no incentive to increase the quality of his product. He was still making more money than he could count regardless what black looking substance he sold.