Communism is an ineffective system and should be abolished

Throughout this debate I've learned a lot about Con as a person, in fact, I can relate to him. I fundamentally understand Con's position. It is one that I have had in the past and one that I have grown out of. I, like Con, am against imperialism, I, like Con, am against powerful nations, I, like Con believe in the idea of small governing bodies. However, I, unlike Con, do not believe that communism is able to achieve this. Con has proposed many reasonable arguments and many reasonable refutations, however, they all stem from one problem. Before I begin I would like to reference the book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau "le bon sauvage"[1]. This book is a great work of fiction, as well as proposing many bright and colourful ideas it also attempts to justify them. However, rousseau's claim is false. The "bon sauvage" proposes that all evil which resides in human beings stems from the evil given to them by society and that if one were to be removed from society they would return to their natural state of rainbows and unicorns. This is WRONG. Biologists will tell you that animals do not obey a moral code and that all morality and goodness apparent in them is an illusion. To say that people are motivated by kindness is simply incorrect. As I've said many animals eat their young so as to feed themselves[2] meaning that they are not motivated by altruism but instead need for safety. Now, with this premise in mind I would like Con to ask himself wether or not people are motivated by kindness or survival instinct. If, as I believe, people are motivated by ambition and survival instinct we can then conclude that as hard as communism tries to be egalitarian people will always outperform others, lead others, manipulate others, and make themselves more powerful than others. This circle is inevitable, one cannot merely escape it by changing the way people think because survival instinct is as hard-wired into peoples brains as their ability to eat. 1) Actually yes it does. Power structure does in fact imply hierarchy. In a power structure leadership is necessary. The leader, and their family, will thus become the new elite of the system.In Romania[1] , the USSR [2], the DPRK [3], China [4] and Vietnam [5] this is observable. My claim was that society is not a social construct[6] , I backed up this claim by the fact that herds and social order exist in animals as well as humans. The fact that Con was unable to except this and instead "spewed declarative statements" told me that marxist ideology had been hardwired into Cons brain. I wasn't aware that this conclusion showed my "incapability (incapability relative to what?) or hypocrisy (hypocrisy relative to what?). My claim is that the people and the economy are interconnected and that to put either above the other is wrong. Con has clearly shown that he believes that the economy and the people are mutually exclusive when he declared that I was putting the "economy before the human". I wasn't aware that Pro is twisting Cons words. Perhaps my wording was not perfect, Con has not lied about his sources but he has referenced equality when the conversation is about happiness. I believed that Con was lying because I did not fully read what he had said. I apologize to Con for this mistake. Con has referenced an article by the "Daily Mail" (Are we sure this is a reliable source???" which states that Vietnam is "happier" than most of Europe. According to this very same article "Western Sahara" (a country torn by civil war[7]) is happier than France. The HDI index states that the US is 5th. [8] When referencing Con's previous source I argued that many countries such as the Ukraine and Thailand which have higher equality rates than the first world are not necessarily happier than the first world but merely have better distribution of wealth. 2) Is Con aware that in the time of "Chairman Mao" genocide was committed in China[8]? Pro understands that communist nations cannot exist but he would like to explain why. The reason that they cannot exist is because people are NOT perfect. One cannot hope that the leadership in the socialist system which precedes the communist system will not be reluctant to hand over power. Such is the nature of humanity. 3) Great, Con has admitted that people are not perfect. Now, with this in mind, I ask Con to consider wether or not this imperfections in humanity are present in all people. If they are not Con is incorrect. If only some people are disabled in some way Con is also incorrect (because we all have phobias). The only remaining conclusion that Con must make is that the only way for us to deal with mental imperfections without wasting too much money is to leave some people in society, thus leading to corruption and other problems to do with inequality and greed. 4) We aren't all good and people will always be motivated by greed, sorry. 5) What I've been trying to say is that you cannot simply remove people's survival instinct. It's as hard to remove as people's will to eat if not more difficult. Sadly Con has not accepted that Pro does not want to get involved in a statistics battle, thus, he has been forced to concede this point. The whole con-man thing was a pun, I was trying to make the point that considering how outlandish Con's position is Pro is beginning to believe that he himself does not even believe in it and that thus he is con-ing us. It's a pun. I apologize for coming across as rude, it is my personality to be cynical and to push limits. I take pleasure in doing so and consider it a form of humour. However, I understand that Con has thinner skin than Pro does and that he can't take jokes. If I ever come to debate Benko again I'll refrain from debating in this manner. Apologies to Con for offending him. Pro understands that Con has made many good arguments and that he has perhaps debated in a better manner than Pro, however, Pro is simply correct. As good as Con is at arguing his points this does not compensate for the actual validity of his argument. Hopefully Con understands the points made by Pro and understands where his arguments weaknesses lie. Due to the complexity of the debate Pro hopes that it could be continued. If Con agrees I propose that we involve ourselves in a second debate so as to elaborate on the topic. Pro assures Con that he will not employ his amazing humour in future debates ;). I also want know wether or not Benko has read animal farm. References: [1] http://thevieweast.wordpress.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.stuff.co.nz... [4] http://www.businessweek.com... [5] http://www.wsws.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://chinacr.weebly.com...