On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism

In this round I'll deal with some of pro's basic arguments. Firstly, if for argument's sake I agree that property ownership is necessary for "self-ownership" or personal autonomy, well then, under communism everyone would produce and own everything interdependently, and, if anything, people's sense of ownership and autonomy would be enlarged. Or, if we instead think of collective ownership in terms of no one owning anything privately and therefore no one owning anything period, then ownership of property ceases to be an aspect of the human condition and becomes moot to concepts such as autonomy and individual rights. What of the role of government in a free society? The libertarian thinks that all government needs to do to help its citizens enjoy the dignity of being free is to provide police protection against anyone trying to forcibly violate their property rights. The libertarian's understanding of our natural rights seems to be limited to property rights! Communists strenuously beg to differ, it's the view of leftists and many other people of a humanitarian viewpoint that there's more to human dignity and rights than mere property rights, and that government's role includes upholding those rights as well. Libertarians are a political one-hit wonder who just keep monotonously singing the same tune of "freedom", as if that's all we need for our experience of life to be well-rounded, full, worthwhile, and human. But we also need to live in a society that respects our need to not be dehumanized by poverty, and that respects every individual's latent human and creative potential and removes economic inequalities that prevent its expression and development. This is also our natural right. Who says? Well, who says that we have a right to the libertarian's "freedom" either, that we have any rights at all? But some of us recognize and reason that we do have an intrinsic life-affirming entitlement to certain considerations and dignities from our society, and communists are simply people who recognize and reason that those considerations and dignities include more than bare-bones libertarian "freedom". The role of government then includes protecting our freedom, but also our dignity, which means taking a role in ensuring the material welfare of its citizens, in ensuring that we're not chronically and callously consigned to a condition of poverty and privation, of being disadvantaged and disenfranchised. And as for freedom, it doesn't just mean freedom from someone forcibly entering my home and disregarding my property rights, and it doesn't just mean freedom from politicians exercising control over my life, it also means freedom from a moneyed ruling class exercising control and dominance over my life. Which in turn means that for human beings to enjoy true freedom social equality is de rigueur, i.e. it's necessary to prevent a rich few from setting themselves up in a privileged and powerful position over the strapped and struggling many. Therefore a government geared to protecting our freedom will also be concerned with leveling the socio-economic playing field and keeping it level. Yes, the libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard said that the state is a "gang of thieves writ large", and I agree wholeheartedly, but politicians aren't the only thieves out there interested in stealing away our freedom and material well-being, under capitalism there's also the capitalist elite. Communism is a system that would structure, i.e. socialize the ownership and distribution of economic wealth so as to negate the ability of both gangs of thieves, both the politicos and the plutocrats, to establish themselves in the catbird seat where they can prey on the little guy. This leads to the question of economic prosperity and overall well-being. The material prosperity generated by capitalism simply isn't divvied up well enough, and certainly isn't divvied up justly and equitably, those who toil to produce it often live in poverty while capitalists and CEOs live in penthouses. This fact combined with the sundry other adverse-to-happiness conditions that many working-class people have to put up with makes capitalism a less than ideal system from the point of view of human well-being. Apropos of this, being free to "act on your desires", to borrow my opponents phrase here, should mean more than just the freedom of capitalists to act on their desire to shaft the working poor, it should also mean everyone's freedom to act on the desire to enjoy a certain quality of life in keeping with human life's value, and the freedom to realize our inner capacity for personal growth. Society should be organized, and government should function to preserve our inherent prerogative as human beings to freely act on desires that range the whole hierarchy of our needs, from economic to higher-level drives. Communism helps in this regard by freeing us from the stultifying power of an owners class. Next my opponent mentions so-called "free riders". A communist system in which the foundational principle is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" would effectively obviate the existence of idlers who parasitically live off the fruits of other's labor. Everyone would be engaged in the productivity of society, and no one who's able-bodied would be encouraged to "defect" by being allowed to feed at the common trough without giving back to it. Now to make short work of the "economic calculation problem", according to free-market dogma only the natural operation of free market forces can work out this problem for a society's economy. This is just an ideological rationalization of the counterintuitiveness of free-marketarianism. It's just good horse sense that an intelligently organized and guided economy is the most efficient way for a society to determine what to produce and in what quantities, and to direct its economic growth in a direction that will ensure a decent standard of living for its people. All of the usual free-marketarian twaddle about the impossibility of planned economies keeping up with all the mystifyingly complex calculations necessary to keep the economy viable is just a big crock of mystification. Next, the question of "authority". My opponent seems to think that state authority is the only form that's coercive. The authority and power of the economic elite that exists under capitalism is highly coercive, and frequently exercises its control through government. Government's abuse of our rights and liberties is largely the indirect manifestation of the socio-economic dominance of the big players of capitalism. Communism would rectify this state of affairs by abolishing economic elites and making government more truly representative, more an instrument of the well-being of the people. Next, my opponent dredges up the old saw that communism is inherently coercive, as if capitalism in the real world isn't! Firstly, freedom isn't an absolute, it has to be tempered with other human needs and considerations. So, if communism isn't a perfectly libertarian form of society (and again, neither is "free-market" capitalism), this is only in the interest of making it more sane and humane, just the way the law against shouting fire in a crowded theater makes our freedom of speech more sane. Some limits are good. Secondly, communism would be far less coercive than the way the power of capitalists really works in our system. And there would be no real coercion, in a technical sense, since everyone would own everything together and be on an equal social footing. That is, to have a coercive elite you first need an elitist form of society. And for the same reasons that communism isn't dangerously coercive, neither does it inexorably lead to tyranny. In conclusion, libertarian capitalism allows maximal freedom for the tyranny of capitalists, communism allows maximal freedom for all the people of a society.