Communism is an antiquaited, disproven political/economic system both morally and practically.

I accept this challenge. Thank you for debating me.To begin, I will define the term 'communism'[1]:communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.However, to show the distinct differences between state communism and stateless communism, I will refer to them as 'communism' and 'Communism'. This difference being that: 'communism' is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, where private property(with the exclusion of personal property) and the wage system are abolished. For example:I have two cows, my neighbors help me take care of them, and we all share the milk produced.'Communism' is the institution of a socialist state, that is meant to wither away into a 'communist' society, as stated by Engels[2]. This state would enfore policies meant to have the people adjust to socialism and eventually communism, the problem with this is that these centralized authorities will keep retaining their power, and force the people to seek out a new system, instead of having them adjust to socialism. For example:I have two cows, I take care of them and milk them, then the government comes and takes all the milk.Therefore, since I advocate for 'communism' and I am a 'communist', you cannot generalize me and name me as being a 'Communist', and that I support 'Communism'.Therefore, this argument: 'In every instance where Communism was tried on a large scale it has failed miserably. The ONLY way for it to be successful is with a repressed populace that doesn't question it's 'leaders' and leadership willing to 'off' dissenters. This is why ALL Communist countries control and restrict access to free speech.Since Communism is SUPPOSED to benefit the people, indeed it's supposed to ONLY benefit the people, how do you explain EVERY instance of mass implementation?USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea.ALL countries that did or do seriously REPRESS their people. Nobody in China or NK is going to see this debate. Why? Because their Governments do NOT want them to know what is going in in free countries. Communism ONLY works if the people aren't aware of FREE systems.'and this argument:'Communism is much more political by design. It REQUIRES a central Government to enforce the system. There is no way around that simple truth. Where successful communal systems are 100% voluntary, Communism mandates participation. It is also secretive by nature. It has to be. Once the populace recognizes there is a better system out there, they would revolt. It is only the strong arm of a repressive Government that can keep the natives in check.'Are null and void if we are speaking of 'communism'.However, if we are speaking of 'Communism', then this entire debate is null, and I win. Due to you incorrectly assuming that I am a 'Communist', and since you are attempting to move both 'communism' and 'Communism' into the same camp of ideology. Now, let us continue with the rest of your argument.'- It goes against human nature.Whether you admit it or not, your main objective is YOU. Your secondary objective is your family. Your third objective is your friends. Finally, your last objective is people you don't know. It's fact and it's universal no matter what you believe politically or philosophically.This being FACT, Communism can NOT work among families. No matter how much you'd like it to be the case, I will NEVER care as much about my neighbors struggles as my own. I will NEVER be as concerned with societies problems the same as I do my own household. That is simply human nature.'The logical flaw with this argument, is that human nature itself is not a fixed thing. You assume that all people wish to be competitive, and would not cooperate with one another. This is not necessarily true.Human nature is something that bends and adapts to the economic system that it habitates in. It is by no means fixed. People for many years in Europe believed that the system of divine right and kingship would last for the rest of time, that is, until modern republicanism became the staple for revolutionary movements.Also, by benefiting society, you are simultaneously benefiting yourself, since the idea of both the individual and the collective are tied, yet illusionary, but, I digress.Simply because you believe in your own self-interest, and that it is a part of your nature, does not mean that humans tens, hundreds, or thousands of years from now will believe that.'You advocate a 'money-less' system. Nothing could possibly be more reclusive in an age where world trade is NECESSARY to the survival of any nation. Where exactly would this work? There is only ONE nation on earth capable of sustaining itself absent help from the outside world...that would be the USA, and only if they started drilling oil at a much higher pace. ALL other nations RELY on other nations for supply their needs. With no monetary system, YOUR nation wouldn't stand a chance. You MUST be able to purchase food, energy, technology, etc. from other nations. That isn't possible without a GDP based economy'This is where you make another assumption, you assume that 'communism' is about creating a nation, when the system I advocate for is stateless in design. 'communism' itself is meant to be on a global scale, when humans as a whole have built themselves a global ethnic backbone that they can use to become one human species.Inventions like the Internet, and the cell phone have brought humanity closer together, and as the bond between humans becomes closer, the idea of universal brotherhood becomes possible.'You also advocate a leaderless system. That would be laughable if you weren't so serious about it. No central planning. No central Government. You advocate pure chaos. Under such an absurd system, everyone would be looking out for themselves in a 'system' where they are SUPPOSED to be looking out for each other. ALL humans are FAR more concerned with their own well being than they are society as a whole. Don't believe me? Who do you love most in the world? If you were given the choice of that person being brutally raped and murdered or a small town of people you don't know being hit by a tornado, which would you choose? 99.99% would root for a tornado. "It takes a village" might sound good, but ultimately we take care of our own FIRST. It's human nature.'Now, since you have stated this, you have contradicted yourself. A few paragraphs ago you were stating about how 'communism' = 'Communism', yet now you acknowledge my belief in the lack of a state.Anarchism itself is not chaotic if applied alongside communism. You yourself said: 'While there are communal systems that work/have worked quite well, they don't go anywhere near the level of Communism. I'm talking about Quakers, Mormons, Mennonites, etc. where religion is the driving force in their belief system. In those instances it ONLY works because it's 100% voluntary and there is a driving force beyond an economic ideology at work.'These societies themselves were anarchistic, and communal. They were not chaotic, and they didn't have leaders.As I have stated before, human nature changes along with the system within which we live. It is not a static entity. 'Everyone doesn't DESERVE to be 'equal'. 'If we are not equal, how can we call ourselves free? Thet fact of the matter is, without equality, only the more privileged are freed. Everyone else is a slave to the system.I wish I could explain more, however I am running out of characters. I will counter the rest of your argument in the next round.Sources:1- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2- http://en.wikipedia.org...