Let history not be the only judge: an arguement for communism.

RebuttalsLiberation under communism? Are you joking? Are you seriously joking? The only liberation under communism that anyone could feel is the liberation from their individual liberty; the liberation of the working class can only be followed by complete oppression, unneeded cleansing of an almost completely innocent class, and the back-breaking of the class the revolution ought to represent! This is the communist society soon after communism, and this shall always be the case: the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was followed by two years of war, the Chinese Civil War which followed the period of unity between the Chinese people was followed by mass massacres of the Chinese population, and the Albanian Communist Regime established one of the most totalitarian regimes in the world, for the freedom of the working class. This is communist hypocrisy, the betrayal of the class they ought to represent. Now, we must examine what the opponent's description of the capitalist mode of production: he says that "because his wage is always lower than the capital". This is a complete and utter lie about modern capitalism, but not neccesarily industrial capitalism in which Marx was so interested in. In many many countries, there are things called a minimum wage, and in case the opponent did not know, in the United States, it is in some places as high as $15 dollars per hour! An average worker produces $23 dollars worth of work. $8 dollars of profit. If we take it: he produces $23 dollars of work, takes $15 dollars for himself and generates $8 worth of profit for his employers. Is that a huge profit margin? Unlike industrial capitalism, modern capitalism has gotten much more humane and has proved to be a huge success. But again, our debate is not about capitalism, nor is it about socialism. It is about communism. Communism is obsolete Communism has been practiced; not the totalitarian caricature of it, but the true form of communism that Marx and Engels wanted, and it has led to society we have today. Today, human nature is immensely different from what it was before civilization. We were brought up with the need for a reward for every of our work, for a higher institution to organize ourselves, and we have the need to become more complex. Communism is a simple ideology, a simple and inefficient way of organizing the society. In my next paragraphs, I will demonstrate to you how communism lead us to governments and society right now, and why it would be inapplicable with current human society. In early Christianity, Christian societies seemed to have practice a simple form of communism. According to the book On Politics by Alan Ryan (pg 207: The Justification for Private Property), they seemed to have put all their property on a pool table, and the inhabitants of that community would come and take what they needed: this practice is known as mutual aid, and is endorsed by the modern left, but much more by anarchists than communists. However, once institutions of worship were created, the need for private property grew. Churches soon grew by the need to expand and be bigger and better than many other churches. Soon, the Papacy arose: from taking things at the pool table to an enormous theological organization that claims to be the messengers and the direct sons of god shows the path of all communist society: private property is human nature. The opponent claims that communists do not care about our property, but yet Marxist doctrines show that they do: they care about the land we own, they care about our children, they care about where we live, and they care about how we live. Under communism, all land and property is held in common. Is that not theft to a point? That only propels my point: private property is human nature. In all attempted communist societies, there have been inequalities. People taking more than what they need is the exact reason for the rise of more powerful institutions, such as the case of the Papacy, and in other institutions too: the rise of the government itself can be seen as a development of primitive communism, where everything was held in common. In both Christian and Primitive communism, we can see one prime way: years of practicing mutual aid and/or communism cannot lead to a classless moneyless stateless community that Marx and Engels are advocating for. Years of practicing mutual aid and communism can only lead to the establishment of a government, of a state, and of a institution that could claim legitimacy over ruling. This makes communism totally obsolete in this world (it also makes it unsustainable), as it is a primitive way of organizing the society, and it lead to the governing systems that we have now. This makes in inapplicable to current human society, because through communism, we have led the world into the path of what it is now: governments and capitalism. We cannot reverse that trend. Humanity will never advance backwards, but would only advance forwards, forwards to the path of being more complex, not simpler. To the path of being more human, and less animal. To the path of being more civilized, and less barbaric. Is it not clear that communism was built for those who do not understand human society thoroughly, whose human nature aren't fully developed yet? Communism will only destroy humanity and it's innovation. And it is for these reasons, and the reasons I have stated before, and many many more, I urge you to vote con for this debate, as communism is an ideology that would only destroy humanity, innovation and creativity. Thank you.