Communism will beat Capitalism

My opponent doesn't realize that History serves as a good way to measure our mistakes in the past, and one of those mistakes, unfortunately, was and currently is, Communism. He also assumes that he can predict the future and that Communism wont starve people to death this time, regardless of the fact that that social system did and is currently starving millions as we speak. As the saying goes, "history repeats itself." His methods of food production is highly flawed and is almost guaranteed not to work. I will walk you through this and show you why. 1. "People will grow crops, instead of grass, in their yard." --Opponent This argument is a borderline reductionist argument. It seems simple enough, but food production in a "yard" is pretty dubious and inaccurate. No yard is measured equally. Neither is soil. People also live in cities. People also live in areas where simple yard harvesting is near impossible. Most people also aren't experts in agriculture/GMO Science, and pests. Furthermore, his method matches that of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and any other dictator that wanted to drastically change their society; by using force. Believe it or not, most people (even poor people) don't WANT to spend all day doing intense landscaping. Gardening is extremely laborious to merely yield some food that you have to ration for the entire year. Given the fact that most people lack the skill and knowledge to farm in the first place, this is automatically a formula that will cause great disaster and mass food shortages---again. History isn't our destiny, surely, but Localized farming is a disaster we can measure. In fact, someone already has when a bill has been put forth in Idaho. According to economist Steve Sexton, the impacts of local farming (this is in one state, mind you) would be disastrous. He says, "My conservative estimates are that under the pseudo-locavore system (localized farming), corn acreage increases 27 percent or 22 million acres, and soybean acres increase 18 percent or 14 million acres. Fertilizer use would increase at least 35 percent for corn, and 54 percent for soybeans, while fuel use would climb 23 percent and 34 percent, for corn and soybeans, respectively. Chemical demand would grow 23 percent and 20 percent for the two crops, respectively." I rest my case on the first rebuttal. http://s.giannini.ucop.edu... 2. "Neighborhoods will have their crops collectivized (a fancy word for "pooled together") and sold at a local farmer's market." ---Opponent Not only would this market method proposed by my opponent is inefficient, but it will also damage our health by my opponent's lack of economic knowledge. Again, I refer to Economist Steve Sexton: "A local food system would raise the cost of food by constraining the efficient allocation of resources. The monetary costs of increased input demands from forsaken gains from trade and scale economies will directly bear on consumer welfare by increasing the costs of food. And, as we try to tackle obesity, locavorism is likely to raise the cost of precisely the wrong foods. Grains can be grown cheaply across much of the country, but the costs of growing produce outside specific, limited regions increase quickly. Thus, nutrient-dense calories like fruits and vegetables become more expensive, while high fructose corn syrup becomes relatively cheaper." This isn't just a theory, either. This is something that is happening in the 21st century. Look at Zimbabwe. Look at South America. Unskilled, localized farming makes coke products, candy, and other processed foods cheaper than the optimally nutritious food. There are other issues that would prove a disaster. Many Americans and other people from across the globe would have restricted access to the healthy food they need by living in different climates, and according to Mr. Sexton, Greenhouse storage is extremely energy intensive. Therefore, having forced localized food growth will cause mass starvation, given the fact that it is 1. Unsustainable (high demand for resources, energy, and actually skilled farmers) and 2. Economically disastrous. "call this model the suburban co-op. This model of Communism would be much easier to implement across the USA and the World. It probably wouldn't even require a change in US law. Also, the resulting produce would be much cheaper than capitalistic produce sold at grocery stores, and it wouldn't be much more difficult than maintaining all the useless grass in everyone's yard. People would see the suburban co-op model, see that it makes more sense, and decide to participate. Before you know it, the workers would have seized the means of (food) production (non-violently), and Big Food corporations like Monsanto and Con-Agra would be out of business. Food security would be guaranteed for all, and fresh produce would actually be cheaper than fast food."----Opponent As I have pointed out earlier. People will die. What my opponent fails to realize is that not every house in the world has a front yard, not every person lives in a house, not every person knows how to farm, and no method exists that will allocate the massive amount of resources needed to sustain every ones' living condition. Furthermore, seizing farmland and major production companies for no justifiable reason? Yes. That's been done before. I will now provide you two instances that reflect this method, which is nothing new and has proven to fail. In Zimbabwe (a heavily socialist country slowly becoming communist) is experiencing massive food shortages. White farmers are having their farms seized by black Zimbabweans from Marxist reasoning (Bugoise vs. working class). The people that seized the means of production, however, were unskilled and didn't know how to properly farm, thus, they are heading towards a train wreck of a disaster, and the president is trying to reverse it: "Zimbabwe"s government has for the first time suggested it may give official permission for some white farmers to stay on their land, 15 years after it sanctioned widespread land grabs that plummeted the country into an economic crisis. ." --The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Also, rationing methods have been practiced all of the time in Communist countries. Look at Ukraine and what is formally called Holodomor---12 million dead due to starvation. What was the cause? The Russian government made a new rationing system model and forced people to abide by it, where the government attempted to allocate resources to provide for everyone and shut down the centralized production system which in turn stopped imports/exports. It failed on a disproportionate level. https://en.wikipedia.org... In conclusion, my opponent gave a less that satisfactory attempt to explain how communism would prevail. He produced a scenario that has already played out to the tune of a major economic crisis and of course, millions dead in the process by assuming everyone is a farming expert, everyone has a front yard, and everyone will be willing to submit to hours of back-breaking labor to meet demand. Furthermore, my opponent lacked the economic and scientific understanding of the unsustainablilityl his localized farming model actually is, and as I have carefully proven and demonstrated, it cannot work. "Before you know it, the workers would have seized the means of (food) production (non-violently), and Big Food corporations like Monsanto and Con-Agra would be out of business."---Opponent Yes. And we have a word for when people take property that was never theirs to begin with; Stealing. Thank you for your time.