communism is a better system than capatalism

To avoid semantics I'll post a few definitions I'll go with. Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. To begin with, we must understand why Communism has such a bad rep among media. It does so because it has been wildly unsuccessful in many countries. Just one example is Venezuela, which is primarily communist. The current ruler, Chavez has been wildly unsuccessful at his job using any metric.The country is dirt poor, with the inflation being credited to the nationalism. This is to say, that the poverty rate has even increased to 80%, despite it being a communist country. Not only is it unsuccessful in Venezuela, but it has been unsuccessful in countries like Soviet Russia. Now, that isn't to say that Leninism isn't communism, but it does share stark relations between the two. Now, it has been credited with the death of 100 million people, a historically high number. Now to address communism as an ideology. In Karl Marx's words, the main goal of communism is to get rid of class consciousness, that is to get rid of exploitation of the poor. However, the problem with "exploitation" is that it boils down to semantics and subjectivity. It addresses this idea that the poor are somehow not making as much as they supposedly deserve. But who addresses who deserves what? This is what I mean by subjective, any individual wants enough to be comfortable, it doesn't necessarily mean they should be given that. Not only that, but the argument is weak. As I said before, one must define what exploitation is, as the "weak" do not really gain from it, else they'd never have conducted the exchange (Of goods and labor). Hence, nearly all exchange in a capitalistic system/society is voluntary. Essentially, it's unfair to the individual as they don't get a fair share. If you create a law that limits what the market can or cannot do, it will eventually lead to people leaving the supposed market due to them not receiving a benefit (regardless of if they are a producer or consumer), which will inevitably create deadweight losses where the market would create fewer resources than it otherwise could and would do. So, the decrease in incentives or motivations to engage in a mutually beneficial transaction would lead to the decline in goods and service and eventually a decrease in the average quality of life. Now, if we look at past statistics we can see a startling amount of corruption in Communist governments. This is regardless of what government it may appear to be. Examples can be Stalin or Hitler. That isn't to say that communism is not successful in small communities, it has shown to be successful. But, it can not be sustained in anything larger than that. My last and final argument is that it repeats itself into an inescapable pattern. It goes something like this. The people revolt against tyranny --> They set up a communist government ---> Corruption begins ---> Restart the cycle This is essentially what happens in any Communist government if not for intervention from other independent forces. That isn't to say that Capitalism isn't without its flaws, but it works far better than a government that is Communist. My sources: [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] http://www.returnofkings.com... [3] https://www.quora.com...