Let history not be the only judge: an arguement for communism.

Yeh, Lenninist, we did have a tense and sensible debate.Elections? What elections? The last time I checked, Mao kept talking about his "democratic dictatorship" [1], Lenin said that "Democracy is a bourgeisie phenomenom" [2], and Marx, simply, left no manuscripts on democracy. Although the opponent made a correct point, he is talking about Lenninism, not communism. Lenin thought that his advances in the Sovet state would lead to a communist one, and he at no point did think of his Soviet Russia to be communist at all. The topic of this debate: communism is not the same (albeit very similar) to Leninnism. (BTW I am not American) Another mistake that the opponent has made is that he completely ignored the Soviet Union before the New Economic Policy of 1917 implemented by Lenin. He completely ignored the amount of resistance that the peasants showed to the Soviet authority when their grain was taken away from them without any payment, and a rebelion almost ensured, if it wasn't for Lenin's New Economic Policies, which almost made the New Soviet Union a "Socialist Market Economy". Also, going back to the point on democracy, the Soviets were organized in that fashion, but the remnants of the parliamentary system lays straight in their faces. The Soviets were democratically elected, but then those Soviets were headed by the Bolsheviks, which in turn was headed by the Politburo (or the Political Bureau), and therefore, the Bolsheviks were the true masterminds behind the Soviets, coercing it to their will instead of the Soviet's. That is why "communism" gave way to Stalinism, because the Soviets weren't allowed to act independently but they had to act under the will of the Bolsheviks, which controlled the Soviets, not because the Bolshevik's reforms were designed to be temporary reforms (they were not: Lenin intended to keep it).Therefore, there arises another question: should the "Western World" give in to communism? Yes, I have to agree with the opponent that the countries that experienced a communist influenced revolution did not care about democracy. Yes, I have to agree that the uneducated peasants of both countries (USSR and China) were not ready, but a new question arises: is the West suitable for a communist society? Let me remind the opponent and the reader that the "West" was founded on Private Property, Liberty and Freedom. The Rise of the Papacy was one example of the West's love for Private Property (the opponent seems to be misinterpreting the point of that argument. I tried to explain how the Papacy was created, not why the Papacy was created), with practices of mutual aids succumbing to the seizure of land and property by a supposedly "Holy Institution". Another example is that plethora of Western Philosophers who defend Private Property. From John Hobbes to Karl Marx's teacher, Hegel, defend private property (these are only some of those who defend private property) for various of reasons. John Hobbes states that "if we are to know what to trade, to use and to give to our children, we have to know what is ours". Hegel states that "we recognize that you own something not because of what it is, but you own it. For example, if I own a bike, I do not recognize it as yours because it is made with metal, but because you own it (although abstract, one must read more of his work to find out)" (Alan Ryan, On Politics). The West is a Liberty and private property loving place, and why would communism work in the west? The West does love democracy, but at the same time, it loves capitalism and embraces it. The Communist Revolution can only prosper in the shadows in the west. (BTW They voted Brezhev, a Socialist-Market Economy USSR leader that reigned in the Stagnation period, not Stalin)As for wages, one has to understand this: a product is a product, and should be taken for what it is worth. It is worth $100 because a worker made it, a driver transported it, a CEO managed it, a designer designed it, and a merchant marketed it. If the opponent is highlighting that the worker is the only one who made the product and distrubuted, then his ideals are deeply flawed. A worker wouldn't be working if a designer hadn't been designing it, and a designer wouldn't have been designing it if the CEO was not paying him: the cycle goes on and on. This represents human nature to a certain point: we rely on each other to do jobs that we are incapable of doing. Capitalism divides labor so perfectly that it has avoided a massive social collapse many many times. And talking about fair wage, there is this thing called a minimum wage, have you not heard? Minimum wages are fair, and we should only discuss about raising or lowering it. This system called capitalism has benefitted and innovated the world more than socialism, and many socialists have recognized this. Therefore, as famous reformist socialsit Eduard Bernstein said, "We should take working men the way they are." We cannot reform the system that has proved effective. We should not change human nature. We must accept that class division will be with us until the day we die.Many argue that capitalism is a self destructive system, but I say something different: capitalism fell and recovered more times than the amount of words a proffessor of philosophy would talk in all of his lectures combined. Capitalism fell during the Great Depression, during the 2008 Market Crash and many more times, and yet the system recovered. Communism fell once (it fell with the Berlin Wall), and never recovered. Communism itself is self-destructive: it creates tension in the working class, and creates power institutions that would place society under one a totalitarian, at most, and/or an authoritarian government of the proletariat, and a totalitarian state under Marxism is no longer a totalitarian state of the people. Selfishness is human nature: we have to accept it. Freedom is a dangerous motivator: it will kill.In conclusion, communism violated human nature and human rights, is obsolete, and is unsustainable because of the need for private property and human selfishness. Modern communism has only killed; primitive communism gave way to society we have now. It is of the best human interests to move foward, and forget this old system called communism. Humankind can move foward, but it shall never move backwards; we can get more complex, but we can never get simpler. It is for these reasons, and the many more that I am unable to mention in this debate, is why I urge you, the reader to vote con is this debate. I would like to thank the host for hosting and participating in this wonderful and intense debate, and I would like to thank you all for reading my arguments. I apologize for any typing mistakes I may have, as English is not my first language, and have a nice day. Citations:[1] Quotations From Chairman Mao-Tse Tung, Published by Foreign Languages Presses, Beijing (Don't buy it, this version of the original book sucks) [2] https://www.marxists.org...