The concept (ideally) of communism is more beneficial to its people than that of capitalism.

On the global market, higher standards of living are at odds with competition. A Honduran woman making 25 cents a day rolling cigars would help her company dominate the market, yet her standard of living would be poor. When worker clamor for higher wages, better working conditions and health benefits, all this acts to suppress their international competitiveness. The unions have destroyed to auto industry in this country, while arguing for higher wages and benefits for its workers--which they got till they lost their jobs, and eventually their benefits. Companies don't run each other out of business. Less competitive companies lose out, as they should. Who runs the inefficient government run businesses out of business? No one. The tax payer is forced to subsidize them. "2). Also all things become more efficient with time. People find quicker ways of doing thing, they find easier way to do things, they develop new technology to make the job easier…." Not true. All government run enterprises become inefficient over time. There is no penalty for failure. "3). Competition has its drawbacks. Ever read The Jungle? Do you realize what our meat industry is like at this point in time? People cut corners to make their products cost less. This kind of competition can lead to unsafe products..." I don't accept that premise. Only a capitalist country has the financial resources to enforce safe food handling, and even cure the people who slip through the cracks and get sick. We have a legal system that will ensure a high price will be paid for negligence where illness or injury result. Most government run enterprises enjoy blanket immunity from such law suits. "Uhhh... Russia? Weren't they competing for world leader with us at one point? Cuba? #1 health system in the world? But no, these are not ideal communisms by far. So two points." Russia has never come close to competing with us in anything, except chess and large rocket boosters. Once we got into the game, we left them in the dust. Cuba's health care is OK if all you want are anal exams and free pills (invented in America). Try to get life saving cardiac surgery or cancer treatment in a timely fashion, if at all. Canada is a perfect example of government run health care. They send their patients here. "1). How many famous scientists do you know also happen to be filthy rich? I can't think back in history and name very many. It obviously wasn't the money scientists were going for when they decided to invent something…" Then why do we have all these patent lawyers running around? Who are they representing? Not every scientist is filthy rich because new and useful innovations are becoming harder to find. You will have me believe that the scientists who find a cure for AIDS or cancer will not seek to patent their discovery? How about cold fusion, which would eliminate overnight our energy needs? Think that group might want something big in return? You know they would. "Each person does what they most nearly would like to do." Here is where your idealism is false on its face. I want to be a rock star or brain surgeon. Since I don't have the aptitude to do either, I may end up in a muddy ditch or in a field picking tomatoes. I doubt you could find too many in those jobs who like what they are doing, even if that's all they're qualified to do. Want to be brain surgeon instead of a D.O.? Why spend 6 more years in medical school if they both make the same money? You lose on insisting on a wacky ideal precept. You are slipping off the idealism high chair again. Let me prop you back up since at this point you can't determine the difference between the floor and your seat. What you're saying above is that there is an equal offset of talent and ambition such that both jobs will be filled by people who are at least moderately content to be where they are, and no one is sufficiently malcontented to the point where they would agitate for unions or quit and move to America? Where did you get the equal offset so everything fits in so nicely or ideally? People enjoy making money, not inventing things. You continue to misstate human behavior to fit a flawed model. Another ideal premise you've gotten backwards.). One major reason for the existence of anti-trust laws in this country is limit the ability of large monopolies to squeeze off competition. Monopolies stifle innovation (which cost the company money) and allow for consumer cost increases. As far as motivation, that only comes from the pursuit of the almighty dollar, something that correlates directly with ambition, not the self-satisfaction at inventing something. "History wouldn't be bad, look to other countries, see what they do/have done best….There is competition globally, if our product doesn't sell well obviously it is not best, we need to change something." Other countries look here for examples of success. Best? That's a foggy term. Price is a factor. Does this product have lead in it? If so, I may be willing to put up with it if the price is right and a don't eat the dish after I consume the food in it. I'll give you half a point here. Idealism neutral (I'm being generous). "Are the people happy? If the people are not happy perhaps the products the communist government is giving them are not up to par." And if they are really unhappy they'll risk their lives, as they've since WW2, in streaking the mine fields and jump the razor wire. A few may even chance the 90 miles of shark infested water on a raft to get to Miami. Others took the controls of our abandoned helicopters and landed in the water next to our navel vassals in 1975. Millions never got past the long ditches they were shot into under Pol Pot. Lot's of choices. But I know. That was not pure communism, just communism in its half-as sed form. "We're talking ideal communism hear, not the communist governments of the past. Notice I specifically put ideal in the resolution. If you didn't want to argue ideals then don't bother taking the debate." What's your communist government of the future? You are a lazy debater. Your concept of communism only works if it's never implemented. Therefore, you don't have to reply to examples of communism's failures. Ideal communism is exactly what I have been arguing against. Your ideal communist model has been implemented over the years. Upon implementation, it immediately begins to fail: The scientist working on a new propulsion system for a new generation jet fighter starts to slack and thinks of other ways to make money, even thinking the unthinkable: taking his expertise and life accomplishments and defecting to the west where his skills will be rewarded. Our scientist's boss understands what is going on and begins an increment of incentives in various forms. The way the ideal commies address this is by a mix of threats and under-the-table stipends which will bring our bright scientist up to par with his western counter part, and make him feel he is being appreciated, or dead if he tries to bolt. None of this is ever spoken. But everyone knows the deal. Capitalism is self-correcting, either by occasional intervention by the government in the form of anti-trust law, or by the free market.