Communism is superior to capitalism

Debate structureMy opponent has not responded to any of my points on the fact that the resolution itself implies the burden of proof to the pro and since my opponent never explicitly stated how the BoP would be assigned. Since I was the first to post how it should be assigned and the resolution which my opponent made implies BoP to Pro, the primary burden of proof should stay with my opponent.C1First, I never stated that initial growth of the 1900's was not due to free trade. I merely stated that the United States has not had a purely free economy and thus anything that happens in the U.S. economy does not necessarily reflect on laissez-faire. My opponent has also taken from my argument that I somehow conceded that purely free market economies still er from inevitable recession. Where did I concede this? I actually showed that it was not due to free trade, but due to centralized banking in the U.S. that contributed to the artificial credit boom, resulting in the current recession.On workers and savings, my opponent makes a few straw men out of my initial position. He argues that I assume that every worker has savings. I never stated this. I stated that my opponent's initial layout of the cause of recessions assumed that no one had savings. My opponent, in an effort to disprove the concept of savings entirely, argues that businesses will always pay their workers the bare minimum since they must compete with other businesses. Now while businesses will not necessarily always pay employees a 6-figure salary, it has long been recognized that employers will generally pay employees according to their marginal productivity. One's salary is usually going to be directly proportional to one's productivity. This means that businesses will not always pay their employees the bare minimum to go on living, but one's salary is not set in stone.I do realize that workers will not spend at the same rate when relying entirely on their savings as they would when they were employed, however, remember that my opponent argued initially that laid off workers would not be able to buy services and products since their net income would be 0. Since I have shown that income does not equal the amount of money someone has, my opponent's initial argument fails to prove that workers will necessarily not be able to buy any product or services after they are laid off.Sub-C1My opponent claims that I misinterpreted the difference between socialism and communism and that since my refutation only applies to socialism, communism is immune from the criticism. However, my opponent's definition of communism included the following, "Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization." Again, my criticism was aimed at the viability of centralized calculation of how to allocate resources and labor in the economy. My opponent according to his own source is defending centralized calculation, therefore my refutation applies to his argument. Since my opponent never responded to the argument, he has conceded it and the argument succeeds unchallenged.C2My opponent, instead of arguing for the concept of monopolies (which is what a nationalized business under communism would be), he assumes that monopolies are inevitable under capitalism and applies my argument to my own position, allegedly making my argument contradictory. However, as I already pointed out, monopolies are an essential characteristic of centralized planning since the centralized authority has complete control over the economy, rather than allowing private businesses to compete. Therefore, my monopoly argument also pertains to my opponent's position. He has thus failed to even mention my rebuttals and so I will extend them. It is true that monopolies may form in a state of pure free market capitalism, however they are not conceptually required for capitalism to exist as they are for communism to exist. Thus, if my opponent wishes to apply my argument to capitalism, he must also agree that it applies to communism even more so.Sub-C2My opponent, in trying to refute sub-c2 of my refutation, again strawmans my position. He claims that I am arguing that every business will always be completely equal under capitalism because if they are not completely equal, a monopoly occurs. One business being superior does not mean it is a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as "Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted."[1] McDonald's doing better financially than Burger king does not mean that it completely controls the fast food market, nor does it mean that other fast food chains are prohibited from entering, as it does with communism. Furthermore, this does not even respond to my initial refutation of my opponent's point. My opponent argued that if consumers really to businesses that satisfy their preferences, the business that satisfies their preferences best must become a monopoly. However, as I already pointed out, consumer preferences vary and so it is always unlikely that one business will be able to satisfy every consumers every preference better than every other business. My opponent never responded to this and so I will extend it.C3My opponent responds to my refutation that crimes would still exist (by conceding), but does not argue further on why equality is a worthwhile goal to pursue. He extends his argument that crimes would be lower in a communist state, however as I already pointed out, individual preferences vary. Therefore, in order to truly reduce crime, an economic system in which consumers have the widest variety of economic choices must be in place. Also, I would remind voters that my opponent's source for the claim that communism would end theft is his mother, who is far from a reliable source as not only can we not verify that my opponent's mother even lived under communism, but her individual experiences have not been show to not be biased or mistaken.C4My opponent's argument from the conflict of social classes relies on the necessary presumption that a system of capitalism would presume a richer and a poorer class. However, my opponent has yet to show logical reasoning for why this must necessarily occur under an economic system of voluntary exchange. He has so far showed examples of revolutions against a dominating political class (the French revolution against their absolute monarchy, the Russian revolution against the Tsarist autocracy, etc.), not revolutions purely motivated by a system of pure free market capitalism. My opponent's examples include countries operating under systems of feudalism, mercantilism, and state directed capitalism, none of which are economic systems which I undertook to defend. Therefore, my opponent's contention that free market capitalism leads to social revolution fails in that in the supporting evidence he produced, revolutions were actually sparked by a mix of political issues and other economic systems.[1] http://www.businessdictionary.com...