Capitalism is Superior to Communism

I. RomeYour Roman army encyclopedia is too narrow to military affairs, I know because I own the same book. At least I think your talking about this (http://www.amazon.com...). There is a lot more information out there that looks at the wider scale of why Rome fell and it is silly to think that is was just military affairs. Many countries are able to hold on to their militaries while their economy is weak, but when the economy gets too weak then the army falls apart too because of lack of funding from taxes. When you don't having funding to pay for an army there is less training and less troops. Thus the army is weak. The Soviets had a powerful military, but their economy was terrible eventually leading to their fall. It is all the same. Look at the statistics of the Severan debasement: This decreases the value of Roman money."The trick of debasing the currency soon lost its effectiveness once the public figured out what was happening. Merchants responded by raising prices of their goods. Even if an emperor minted some small amount of thinner coins, their existence drove the purer money out of the market. People hoarded the stronger coins and speant the weak ones." [1]The works I am citing on the other hand are conducted by expert academics well rounded in the economic and foreign studies of Rome. The last nail in the coffin for Rome was not military affairs. Roman emperors were getting assassinated over economic policies like soldiers' wages, taxes, spending, etc. The end came with Diocletian's command economy:"At this point, the Emperor Dicoletian (284-305 AD) took action. He attempted to stop inflation with a far-reaching system of price controls on all services and commodities. These controls were justified by Diocletian belief that inflation was due widely to speculation and hoarding, rather than the debasement of the currency." [2]"Diocletian also added the residents of Italy to the tax roll - they had been immune before - but expanded the dole to include pork and oil in addition to grain. To recruit and amange the supply of the army, which may have been 650,000 soldiers, the civil service had to e expanded as well, perhaps another 30,000." [1]What we see here is the economic suffication of the Roman Empire that resulted in a weaker army and less wealth to pay for such a huge army. Therefore the economy took down the soldiers not the other way around. While the 5th century barbarian invasions did contribute to the fall of the Roman Empire, it wouldn't have been possible without the deterioration from within due to other causes. Barbarians had been invading the empire since its existence.I was also never talking about the Byzantine Empire of the Western Empire, but it is important to undertand the Roman Empire as a whole and I think you know well the true empire layed in power in Rome."(Shall I add more History King? I am the history buff here.)"I consider this rude and mocking. Yes I enjoy history, but there is no kind. I consider myself a history buff, yes, but we just have different opinions. Because of this, I request voters give me the conduct point in the debate. As well as arguments since my case is clearly strill stronger. Source too because I have presented far more. II. Britain"You basically stating after WW1, Britain was on top and didn't suffer economically (that much) makes me so angry! Yes they were still on top of the empires but OMG! They went worse than bankrupt! But I' am only going to post the opening; if you want me to add more. Ask me. Like add facts. Not an opening."Keep in mind we are solely talking about the communist state formed in Britain during the Attlee years that was dismantled under Thatcher. The reason WW1 had little to do with it is because it ended in 1918 and Attlee's communist state began in 1945 as WW2 came to an end. We are talking about the effects of capitalism and how it is superior to communism. Thatcher brought the free market to Britain after the country had been in decline with state industries. This has nothing to do with WW1. [3] Look and how inflation and employment got better: III. Germany/RussiaMy opponent gave up on Germany."But look at Russia. They have hundreds of Nukes, one of the top largest countries (other than land mass), invasion of Europe and picking a fight of one of the top Republics. I don't see on how invading Ukraine is saving Russia's economy when all of America is ready to go to war."Military affairs does not equal economic growth. So what if they have nukes. Also, Russia is far from today the communist state it was as the USSR. You should know that. It is not communist and cannot be considered communist. [5]IV. My Opponent's Utopia"When I mentioned the social structures of bees and termites I was mentioning how Communism could work if everyone was selfless and helped eachother. Like how 'Communism=Community' and how it was made for the 'community' to help eachother to make ends meat. Though I know it will never happen because: sin and selfishness. That is my ideaology."This is completely utopia. It is is impossible for everyone to help each other. In fact, it does not help every since it is wealth redistribution. Free market capitalist does better at this. During the Reagan years when he cut taxes and enacted supply-side economics the total number charity donations increased from $65 billion to $100 billion. [4]The main problem of communism is that 1% of the population or the government has all the money. But really, look at our economy: do we all have shacks? Or all have mansions? Really with any government, economy, people ideaology; they always create the same outcome: debt, no equal amount of spreaded wealth, and slow improvement; if any.I beg to differ, communism is the worst economic system ever while the free market is the greatest: Sources1. Hubbard, R. Glenn., and Tim Kane. Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013. Print.2. Bartlett, Bruce. "How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome." Cato.org. Cato Insitute, Fall 1994. Web. 3. Campbell, John. The Iron Lady: Margaret Thatcher, from Grocer's Daughter to Prime Minister. New York: Penguin, 2011. Print.4. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.5. http://www.heritage.org...;