On Balance, Capitalism Is Superior to Communism

In this round, I will be arguing against communism as per the debate structure. I. Communism in Theory and PracticalityMany things look good on paper, but in practice, they are horrible. Substitute any such military plan to prove this point. Even with good intentions can things turn bad. As the old proverb goes, the road to hell is paved by good intentions. Communism is a good example of this. Even assuming that communism works even in theory, in practice it has never worked, based on all prior examples, including, but not excluded to the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China (early), and Cambodia. Even theoretically, it still fails: "Communism, or socialism, couldn’t succeed, Mises wrote in 1920, because it had abolished free markets so that officials had no market prices to guide them in planning production. .. As Mises pointed out, the raw materials, labor, tools, and machines used in socialist production are outside the market. They are owned by government and controlled by government planners. No one can buy or sell them. No market prices can develop for them because they aren’t exchangeable. .. Because the raw materials, tools, machines, factories, and farms are not privately owned. Without the bids and offers of private owners, prices reflecting their relative market values cannot develop. And without market prices, it is impossible to coordinate production activities so that the goods and services consumers need will be available. That is why Communism fails. . "[1]Essentially, this goes back to my first argument. By the nature of communism, it does not have the characteristics of capitalism, and therefore does not share in the benefits of it, including fulfilled desire, efficiency, and prosperity. "Under communism, all property- especially the ‘means of production’- factories and capital- was owned by everyone- or no-one… the state owned it. This removed much of the scope for human creativity and enterprise. People had no real economic freedom to create a business, they had to fit into the ‘big plan’. This caused people to stop trying hard (unless they had a gun put to their back) and society overall became less productive. "[2]II. Difference in Economic StatisticsThis is mostly an extension of the point I made in the first argument. "This chart, comparing inflation-adjusted per-capita GDP in Chile and Cuba, is a good illustration of the human cost of excessive government. Living standards in Cuba have languished. In Chile, by contrast, the embrace of market-friendly policies has resulted in a huge increase in prosperity. Chileans were twice as rich as Cubans when Castro seized control of the island. After 50 years of communism in Cuba and 30 years of liberalization in Chile, the gap is now much larger. ": And expanding on the former example of North and South Korea (the classic example on the difference between capitalistic and communistic economies), "A centralized economy, with top down control and no free markets doesn’t work. It’s as simple as that. Just look at this graph depicting economic growth in North Korea vs. South Korea from the 1950s until the present day. .. ": [4]III. Opposition ArgumentsThis section will concern my opponent's initial arguments regarding communism. I've explained previously how communism does not create a sound economy because it gives the power of the "invisible hand" to the government instead of the people, where it belongs. I've also shown in my previous arguments how capitalistic arguments are good. My opponent's last two arguments consider motivation and innovation; two topics which I also covered in my first arguments. I'll let my opponent object to those before I defend my points, but I will add this: "This little real-life experiment convinces me that committees of experts, even at smart venture capital firms, will often not recognize real innovation. I think that America’s business success through the decades has occurred because we have so many people with specialized knowledge who are willing to put their money, time and resources on the line for ideas that can’t be proved to a committee. " And this concerns my opponent's immediate arguments. [5]Sources[1]: . http://www.fee.org...[2]: . http://expertvoter.org...[3]: . http://www.cato.org...[4]: . http://lonelyconservative.com...[5]: . http://www.nytimes.com...