Communism is better than Capitalism

Crony Capitalism kills the Free Market - my opponent states the following 'Crony Capitalism kills the Free Market it dos not work with it. Here is a source proving my point: "I believe we no longer have free market capitalism and we no longer have a democracy," says David Stockman, the blunt-talking former Michigan Congressman and Director of the OMB during the Reagan administration.' I would like my opponent to point out where I said Crony Capitalism is a system that we should have and where I have stated Crony Capitalism is a good way to go. I do not support Crony Capitalism . I'm gone ignore the next thing my opponent said as it has been copied and pasted from this website - (http://finance.yahoo.com...)The Argument from Evil - This part has not been copied and pasted so I will address it . Pro said 'People are inherently evil, people have more of a tendency to be evil than to be good. Look at a baby, It will steal from other children and in turn cry when something is stolen from them. Who has taught this child to be evil. No one, people are evil that's the way the world works. ' I would like to remind all readers that the burden of proof is on Pro , he has not backed up his claim with evidence so it's just a baseless assertion that can be dismissed . On the other hand I believe humanity is flexible . There has been a study on babies and it has shown that : 'At Yale University scientists have designed an ingenious experiment. They wanted to see if babies are born good or bad. Hundreds of parents have volunteered their children. The two scientists behind the project are Karen Wynne and Paul Bloom. Professor Bloom explains "I would give a year of my life to spend 5 minutes as a baby to be able to recapture what it feels like to be that sort of creature. We're interested in the origin of morality, the origin of good and evil. We want to see what people start off with, do they start with good impulses or bad impulses and how does that develop into an adult sense of right and wrong." They wanted to find out what is in a baby's brain. Trying to unlock this secret they devised a kind of morality play, that each baby would watch and then gauge their reaction. About 70% of the babies showed a tendency toward good.'-(http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk...). My opponent says that 'Charity just fuels the Political war machine, Politicians start charities either for publicity or for the sake of boredom. They don't think about the people they are helping, they think about what the could gain.' My response : Are you trying to say that the rich donators simply spend millions on charity out of boredom? again that is a baseless assertion , an opinion which you have not proved to be true. I would like to however quote a chunk of an article. ' #2: The empirical evidence I mention above comes from Frederic Almy, secretary of the Buffalo Charity Organization, who in 1899 gathered data on outdoor relief and private charity in forty cities, ten of which had completely abolished outdoor relief. Almy found that the cities with the lowest level of such aid had the highest level of private charity, and vice versa. See Frederic Almy, “The Relation between Private and Public Outdoor Relief—I,”Charities Review 9, no. 1 (1899): 22–33; and Frederic Almy, “The Relation between Private and Public Outdoor Relief—II,” Charities Review 9, no. 1 (1899): 65–71. Almy’s study does have some drawbacks. The relationship he found did not hold very well for cities with intermediate levels of outdoor relief; for these cities, the main observable relationship was that northern cities provided more total aid (public and private) than southern cities did. (Almy thought that the explanation for the regional difference was the harsher winters in the north.) Also, Almy’s study only measured private giving by regularly organized charitable societies; it omitted charity provided by individual churches, mutual aid societies, and the Salvation Army, so it may be that his study systematically underestimated the amount of private charity. Still, Almy’s study seems to refute the claim that when state welfare is abolished or drastically cut back, significant harm must result since private charity will not pick up the slack.' - (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...;) . I will leave the audience to draw their own conclusions . 'In Capitalism, you can better your self but in Communism everyone can better themselves. Forced equality is a lot better than no equality at all. ' I'm gone have to repeat myself once again , that is your opinion which is irrelevant unless you back it up with evidence or facts . You can include your opinion in your arguments of course just like I did but make sure to label it as such and don't state your opinion as a fact . In Communist countries people did/do not 'better themselves' . Communist countries are not anywhere near the top of the 'list of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita' for example . - (http://en.wikipedia.org...) . 'In Communism that uneducated worker would not exist at all everyone would have the education they needed to be useful to society. People are not allowed to be lazy in Communism if your not working your hardest than you don't get paid. At least in Communism you get a roof over your head and food in your stomach Capitalism cant offer you that.' Ive already talked enough about private charity , Capitalism can offer you that . It's just that it's harder if you choose to be lazy or have a bad reason for a lack of sufficient funds or such for the life that you live . Now i'm going to talk about Pro's case in R1 . He stated that because the resources or the means of production lie with a private owner in Capitalism that the community does not benefit , the person benefits instead . This of course he does not back up with any facts or evidence . I don't understand why Pro thinks the community cannot benefit if the people in it individually benefit first . Pro then says the following 'Communism stands for a class less society, which doesn"t see any difference between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, Capitalism divides the society into rich and poor. ' Communism has failed to create a class-less society and the evidence for this is historical . Additionally I do not see economic inequality as a bad thing . 'Capitalism divides people and Communism brings people together.' In what way I have to ask. 'That is why Communism is the only form of government where there is no racial inequality' . I don't personally believe in racial equality but I don't see how Pro drew his conclusion . A wikipedia page on Antisemitism in the Soviet Union states that ' Antisemitism in the USSR reached new heights after 1948 during the campaign against the "rootless cosmopolitan" in which numerous Yiddish-writing poets, writers, painters and sculptors were killed or arrested.[1][2] This culminated in the so-called Doctors' Plot.' - (http://en.wikipedia.org...) . My opponent says that Communism does not work very well but it can be changed for the better and not for the worse . This theory does not make sense it is a fallacy that can be used in support of anything an example can be a situation in which the US government attempts to train elephants to fly and then 20 years later after one failed attempt after the other they try to do it again and all the say is 'but it can be changed for the better and not for the worse' . I don't consider that a sufficient enough reason .