The United States is exhibiting the principles of a communist form of government

Thanks, Pro. Voters, please note in the comments that my opponent graciously allowed me to rebut his case in this round, so I will present my case (or, perhaps a more apt description, an analysis of the resolution), then refute my opponents.What is a principle, and what are communist principles? Oxford dictionary[1] defines a principle as "a rule or belief governing one’s personal behavior". This seems to fit nicely with the resolution--that is, the rule or belief would be whatever the fundamental belief of communism is. This is reaonable, but requires a more in depth look at what communism actually is; I like how Wikipedia puts it[2]: Communism is "is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well asa social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order". Now that we know *what* communism is, to understand the principles of a communist we must understand WHY they believe as they do. If one had to define Communsim in one word, that word would likely be "equality", just as modern liberalism would probably be "fairness" and capitalist libertarianism "property". As my opponents case clearly proves, Communists want equality and the abolition of property, but their reasoning for wishing so is not simply because they *do*, but because they believe that members of a society should be equal. Contrary to the average Americans perception of communism as some dangerous megastate genocidal regime run by aggressive, culture destroying madmen, to be a communist one merely needs to believe in the fundamental equality of all workers in society. Society needs bakers, janitors, 5 star generals, CEO's, farmers, ect. so why discriminate? To the communist, each person is equal, and since society cannot survive without the manufacturing and performance of all the goods and services it requires, surely it then logically follows that in an ideal world there would be equality for all.Communism is an inherently stateless order, as anyone who asserts arbritary political authority over another is denying their fundamental equality. For these reasons, statist "communist" nations, both past and present, failed because they violate the most fundamental principle of communism--which is equality. Indeed, the "planks" my opponent posits are not actual planks of Communism--they are planks designed to prepare society to become truly communist[3], IE stateless.You can see from the definitions and analysis provided that in order to win my opponent would not only have to prove that the policy actions made by the US government are communist in practice, but also the intent is communistic, or else it fails to meet the requirement of a principle. Opponents caseLets now turn to my opponents arguments. Recall also that these, even if totally conceded, are not even communist principles, they are just ways to bring society closer to communism. My opponent doesnt even attempt to link 3 of the planks to the US--however more importantly is that two of these are the most reflective of what communism actually is. I'm not saying this just to win the debate, it only makes sense that for an ideology that advocated the communal ownership of all resources the abolition of property, the planks advocating the abolition of property (1), and the removal of the means of production from private hands (7) would be significant in truly achieving it's aims. With this in mind, you can already negate,because with the sole possible exception of plank 8, the important parts of communism arent proven under his arugment.I'll just go over the planks he did address now.2. Income Tax--> Pro has no warrant on this being for the purpose of communist equality/the abolition of the state. If anything, the most common advocates of higher taxes (generally liberal democrats) are hardcore statists in their own right, who wish to increase the power of the state. --> The logic behind the progressive tax can better be explained by socialist or populist ideologies which gained great influence during the progressive era than communist ideology. The Ohama platform (1892)[4] of the populist party proposed a graduated income tax, but not to prepare the country for Communism, but rather to increase the power of the government. The populists wished " the power of government – in other words of the people – [to] be expanded."--> The income tax can also be explained as a perversion of Common Law under the principle of no taxation without representation. As Bruno Leoni explains[5]: "the principle "no taxation without representation" was intended as "no taxation without the consent of the individual taxed," and we are told that in 1221, the Bishop of Winchester, "summoned to consent to a scutage tax, refused to pay, after the council had made the grant, on the ground that he dissented, and the Exchequer upheld his plea." Of course, as the state grew these ancient rights were discarded, and remain only in name. The growth of state power, not communism, is a far better explanation for the existence of an income tax.3. Abolition of inheritence--> Pro, again, has no warrant on the intent being communistic, meaning it isnt a principle.--> This argument is rather silly, as a tax on inheritance for very large estates isnt even close to abolishing inheritance rights. My opponent goes so far as to concede this, so you ignore this point. 4. Confiscation of property--> Again, no explicit intent.--> This is better explained by socialist, liberal, populist, or conservative (in the claccical European sense) ideology, than communism. All of these ideologies have no problem with state power and growth, and are, and always have been, far more prevelant in the United States than Communism is.5. Centralization of credit and money--> My opponent gives no analysis on how the Federal Reserve is communistic. Indeed, many market analysis's indicate that Fed policies help the big banks and the wealthy[6]---the very antithesis of Communism.--> There is no exclusive monopoly on money. Most Americans accept federal reserve notes, but other currencies like Gold and Silver are legal tender in many states[7], and its not at all unheard of for Americans to trade in foreign currencies or goods.6. Centralization of communication and transport--> First, this is flat out untrue. Most Americans have their own cars, and most metro or bus systems are at the hands of states, not the central government.--> This is by no means exclusive to communism. This is just another way to restrict private property under communism, but centralization of transportation when it does occur is generally for other reasons (like cheaper fairs, less carbon emissions, conviencence, ect.). 8. Equality of labor/ national industries--> I was honestly shocked to see Pro arguing that all labor is equal in a time where income inequality is extremely high.--> AA is not state mandated, no link to the resolution.--> Minimum wage is a populist idea, not a communist one. Communists want an equal wage for all, there would be no such thing as a minimum wage (or wage at all) under communism.10. Free education/child rights --> I concede that these things exist, but my opponent doesnt explain how this links to Communism, other than Communism wants it too. Ideas are not mutually exclusive. Vote Con.Sources:1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. http://en.wikipedia.org... (See II)4. http://dig.lib.niu.edu...5. Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the lAw (Indianapolis, Ind.: Uberty Classics, 1991), p.118. Print.6. http://money.cnn.com...;7. http://theintelhub.com...