Capitolism is much better than Communism

Hi, and thanks for replying so quickly. As the rules said, I'm only going to be giving my constructive case, no rebuttals. -----Communism is work-based. According to the very definition of communism, that I offered and was accepted by my opponent, people are based on their abilities and their needs. One of the most popular attacks on communism is that the people are not paid according to skills or work input, but this is not the case. One of the most common defenses of capitalism is that people get paid according to the work that they put in, and that is still the case with communism. Communism is fair. By giving everyone the ability to money when they need it (for example, if someone has cancer yet does not have much skill, so they need money), it is a completely fair system. By having all property shared property, we are able to bridge the gap between ourselves and our neighbor, feel compassion, and in turn be more fair to one another. A common thing that people that are against communism say is that it "immorally takes money from the rich", while this isn't really the case. I think that sparing a few percentage points of your wealth in order to positively impact your community and the livelihood of the country around you outweighs the "immoral impacts" that it has. Morally, it is better to help impact the community than to hoard all of the wealth.Communism eliminates unemployment. Let's look at Japan for a second here. When they were under communist rule, they had virtually 0% unemployment, since they gave every person that could hold one (people that were seriously disabled did not have to work, as logic would say) a job. The year after they got rid of communist rule in their country, unemployment had a sharp uptick of 5.6%. By having a sharp uptick in unemployment, more and more people do not have access to basic resource that they need in order to survive, and in turn the economy takes a nose-dive. Just look at 2008 in the world's economy. As unemployment rose, it had an inverse reaction on the economy's growth. Communism has no central leader. According to Karl Marx, idealist communism has every single person on the same playing field, and no person that is above any other, socially or economically. Even people in politics are not above people that pick up trash, which is a very fair system, referring to my second contention. The country is not supposed to be run by a dictator or a president or anything like that, but instead it is to be run by a few people of the national communist party (that's not a party's name, just the name of the party of the country that endorses communism goes there). And even this is not a few leaders that are governing the country, just a few people that are saying how communism is supposed to work in their community and make its implementation. (Don't make me remind you that having a central leader, while technically the most efficient type of government, is very harmful and often that one leader will do things only for themselves, not to benefit the community). Communism has high amounts of growth. A fairly common way that communist countries make serious money is by having joint-farms, as illustrated by the very definition of communism (shared land). Farming allows for a country to be independant, and because of this they are able to have high amounts of growth. During the first seven years of communist rule in Russia, Stalin implemented plans that made the economy grow over 20%, and many communist countries are similar in terms of economic growth. Because the USSR made such a huge deal about farming, they eventually exported more food than they imported, which means that the economy is able to kick into overdrive and grow at insane amounts (which is good for the people!). No worrying about money. In a communist state, one never has to worry about money. Everyone is paid based on the amount of work they put in, as well as their needs. If the needs outweigh the work they put in, they get paid a little bit in order to have basic needs covered. If their work outweighs the needs they have, they have a little bit put into the pockets of people that really need money. If a person who is not paid very much develops a disease which has a very expensive cure, the state itself will help pay for them to be cured, which is an obviously good thing. (One may argue that this is not what happened in the USSR, but we're not debating about the USSR, we're debating about the theory (just the theory!) that was brought forth by Karl Marx). Having more access to universal health care leads to a general public that has: longer lifespans, happier lifespans, less incidence of STI's in the public, less incidence of cancer, and less crime overall.Capitalism is the exploitation of peoples and the earth, so it must not be much better than communism. This is pretty obvious. Capitalism is a few people that are in charge of others doing nothing, while raking in the dough that they "deserve". Capitalism is a few people going down to the mines, taking out all the resources, saying "oh well", and selling them for profit. Capitalism leads to Laissez-Faire economics, which is pretty much allowing coorporations to do whatever they please (such as the Shirtwaist fire, low wages, and child labor), which is of course bad. Capitalism, in practice, is harmful to society since it allows coorporations to abuse their workers and their workplace.-----Thanks again for starting this debate.