Communism is superior to capitalism

However I see some basic faults in my opponents input for round one. First of all as the title suggest, the pro is arguing communism is superior to capitalism, the con is arguing the opposite, that capitalism is superior to communism. The two sides are even and there is no assigned role of attacking party vs. defending party. Thus the burden of proof obviously lay equal on both sides. He must support his views of why capitalism is superior with his own evidence. Next as I designated before, the first round is not for rebuttals. However his entire round 1 were refutations of my points. Now, to begin, superiority means generally, overall, which system would be the wisest course to be adopted by a nation's government to be a world power. C1: Seeing my opponent's unclarity about many of my established points I will expand upon them a little more. Right now the United States is in a devastating recession after 30 years of rapid growth since the 1970-80s recession, which itself came after 40 years of rapid growth following the great depression. Capitalist Europe followed the same path. As we have seen, capitalism leads to a cycle of rapid growth and then recession. Now, I have proved how recessions come. Now, how does that recession keep going? My opponent stated a company's laying off of workers is limited to a specific sector. That is obviously not true, as I will prove. As the recession begin, company owners hope to pull through it alive. Thus they want to cut down on their expenditures, a typical capitalist procedure. As workers get laid off they find their income suddenly at 0. All luxury product, from TV to service to vacation to dinning to anything that is outside of basic needs is instantly gone. That effect many different sectors doesn't it? Meanwhile, the worker's income is still at 0. He will not even have money for food! He and his family will have to take to the streets, soon to be joined by their fellow workers who were laid off after them because their employer's company continue to spiral downwards from lack of sales. Now, how is a communism system different? While capitalistic systems have a cycle of rapid growth and rapid falls, communism is always a steady journey with no recessions. Simple logic explains it. Under communism, everyone is assigned to a post. There is not firing. Thus everyone's income is guaranteed at a stable, predictable rate. Even if wars/disasters do start a recession that recession cannot grow more severe as companies cannot lay off their workers. Thus workers will still get the same pay check every month and buy the same things they've always bought. While the company and thus the government is hit, facing war/disaster/loss of confidence it the market, the recession does not develop and thus the communist nation soon recovers, as opposed to capitalistic one as it spirals ever downwards in the system of firing and losing profit. Now, Sub C1) My opponent ‘s next point is strangely aimed at socialism. Thus I will not dwell on it further. Please remain on topic. Communism is fundamentally different from socialism. . http://wiki.answers.com... I will, however, add to my point of unification and national unity by making the following point: A country united by a strong leader with a common leader is always better than directionless squabbling of free, small factions. A capitalistic country is equal to a weak, uncentralized government that has little to no power over its own country, while a communist government fully controls its own country's economics. It is able to unite its various sectors, and in turn allow its sectors to help out one another, as opposed to free capitalistic ideals. Rebuttal for my opponent's next argument, C2)monopolies. I see my opponent's arguments regarding C2 is the superiority of nonmonopoly to monopolies. I remind my opponent that monopoly to nonmonoply speak nothing about the country. The United States has seen some outrageous monopolies in its idealism capitalistic stages before it strayed from capitalism and passed anti-monopoly laws, a deterrence from Laissez Faire, a founding principal of capitalism. which states government does not interfere with businesses. My mentioning of monopolies was just an example of how a unified group of people is better than ununified with no common goal in mind. Sub-C2) competition: My opponent next makes an interesting point. He states that "If a business fails to meet consumer demands, consumers will be less inclined to patronize their services. When given a choice, consumers will frequent businesses that best meet their respective preferences. " Addressing the quote, if consumers all flock to the best company that gives the best products and services, and leave all inferior ones, isn't that the road to monopoly? I find his argument self-contradicting and thus will leave it at that. C3) Equality under communism: I remind my opponent not to rebut in the first round, but instead make his own points about the pros of capitalism. Seeing that he didn't, however, I will expand on my point. Equality is defiantly an extremely worthwhile goal. With everyone equal, no one is above another. Thus there will almost be no hate, envy, jealousy, prejudice, nor murder, stealing and robbery. If everyone is equal, and there is no huge difference between the social classes and thus there will be no need for things one already have. No one will have the red limousine that everyone else wants, because everyone is all equal. C-4, social difference: My last point from round 1, which my opponent failed to address, is(while stating I failed to uphold my three contentions) capitalism leads to difference between the classes. Capitalism under its founder, Adam Smith, supported Laissez-faire, which means government does not interfere with business. That lead to bigger and bigger division of the social classes as the rich became richer and poor became poorer. As the poor's chances of survival and rising to the upper class grew ever more slim, they demand a change, or a revolution. This often leads to bloody revolutions. For example the patricians (higher class) and plebeians (lower class) of Rome fought a 200 year civil war to settle the huge difference. The French Third Estate started the French revolution against the first and second estate because they were too poor to get by. In China and Russia, the difference between the higher and lower class was so great that the lower class could not survive, Thus they fought a bloody civil war, and swore, never again will the upper class profit from their sweats. Thus they adopted communism, in which everyone is equal. Conclusion: Now, I believe I have rebutted all my opponent's arguments and summarize my basic points. Idealistic Communism: Immune from recessions, immune from destructive social revolutions, united, flexible system with a goal in mind. Capitalism: Squabbling, fighting, small businesses, too much freedom that leads to harm, bloody revolutions, a cycle of recessions. On the other hand, I found my opponent to stray from the topic of this debate, falsely rebutted all my arguments in the first round, which was predetermined for opening arguments of one's pros instead of the other's cons, and also wasted away half his first round addressing socialism, which is defiantly not the same as communism. Lastly I found my opponent to unjustly placing all burden of proof on me. If I did not state who supplies the evidence, obviously both parties support their own arguments with the necessary proof.