Communism is the best solution to most of the world's problems

I will try to organize my points and rebuttals systematically in this round for the reader’s ease of use, but in order to quickly summarize my position it is this: Pro’s points are moot because a mixed economic system is capable of achieving each and every one of the benefits that Pro points to throughout this debate, but does not require that we “kill the golden goose” [6] of entrepreneurship and the free market. Because a mixed (Capitalist and Socialist) market economy, such as the kind already used by the USA, China, Europe, Japan, and every other modern nation, can achieve the benefits of Communism without the severe liabilities, it is thus the best known way to structure an economy. Section 1: Liabilities of Communism – Class Warfare, Disincentive to Innovate, Inefficiency, Incorrect Assessment of Human Nature. Pro in round 2: Sure Marx would have been embarrassed to see the Stalinist regimes that made a mockery out of his work and made it look horrible. Engles: What is Communism? Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. What is the proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor. .. . [7] Karl Marx: We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable. . [7] I submit to the reader that the cruelty we have historically observed, both in Marxist revolutions and later in the resulting Socialist dictatorships, does not happen by accident. It is in no way inconsistent with the vengeance which Marx and Engles feel is justified to visit upon the bourgeoisie. They have, by virtue of activity rather than race or religion, dehumanized one class of person and romanticized another. They provide justification to steal the property and commit all manner of horror upon the “oppressive” bourgeoisie Capitalists by the same process of emotional disconnect and dehumanization that Nazis used in order to convince Germans to essentially go along with doing the same thing to the Jews, who were also caricatured as being undeservingly prosperous. Without being able to enjoy the rewards of entrepreneurship and without facing the threat of competition, why would anyone work day and night to improve their idea, build a reputation with consumers, market their product so people know about it, and rework the product until it is exactly what customers want? They wouldn’t. Without incentive to take risk, people have no reason to take the massive action needed to build a business. If one can simply be paid to be a janitor, then forget going to all that trouble to innovate; where’s the mop? But friends, that is the fast track to a stagnant society, the kind that would still produce phones that look like this: Marx and many since him have many mistaken assumptions about human nature. Yes, humans do have some sense of cooperative altruism, and in the right environment and on a small enough scale, they do have the potential to be able to share and take care of one another without things like class divisions or money – it can look a lot like pure Communism. But this primitive experience can only be achieved in the context of small homogenous tribes and groupings, where there is trust and familiarity, and selfishness can be easily observed and punished by the group by threat of social ostracism. Once the tribe becomes too successful and population size grows too large, the free rider problem becomes increasingly more pronounced, and the incentive to help strangers becomes too weak to drive necessary behaviors anywhere near as effectively as structures aligned with self-interest can. Suppressing self-interest as Socialism and national level Communism tries to is entirely delusional. Section 2: Heroic Myth of the Revolutionary While it seems non sequitur to me, since my opponent uses imagery to paint a pretty picture of the noble revolutionary, I may as well address his artwork. My own heroes are men like Warren Buffett who have compassion not just for those of their own social class, but for those of all social classes. With love and humor, he advocates not for warfare and suffering to be inflicted upon the rich, but for kindness and generosity for the poor. He speaks honestly of the imperfections inherent to Capitalism and the need for it to evolve, rather than be overthrown, with quotes like the following: A market economy creates some lopsided payoffs to participants. The right endowment of vocal chords, anatomical structure, physical strength, or mental powers can produce enormous piles of claim checks (stocks, bonds, and other forms of capital) on future national output. Proper selection of ancestors similarly can result in lifetime supplies of such tickets upon birth. If zero real investment returns diverted a bit greater portion of the national output from such stockholders to equally worthy and hardworking citizens lacking jackpot-producing talents, it would seem unlikely to pose such an insult to an equitable world as to risk Divine Intervention. [8] - "How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor", Warren E. Buffett, Fortune May 1977 # In otherwords, he’s saying it won’t do us any harm to share more with the less fortunate. The man, one of the richest owners of capital and “exploiters” of labor in the world, is no oppressor. He’s raised literally billions of dollars, and allocated his vast fortune to be donated to making the world better for everyone, but especially the poor [8]. Contrast him with Che. The same Che Guevara who may very well have felt sufficient empathy for a poor child to give the boy his last inhaler in a Quixotic display was also a hateful and cruel bigot. He would have shown no mercy towards a rich person, even if that rich person might have also been the kind of guy Warren Buffett is, the sort who would surely also give up an inhaler to a suffering child. As director of La Cubana prison in 1959 Che executed nearly 100 people without due process. He also advocated nuclear war against the United States, the abolition of free speech, the abolition of free press, and abolition of the right to assemble. [9] He was violent and oppressive - some hero, Pro. Section 3: “True” Communism In the previous round, Pro makes may excuses as to why there are no actual examples of working on a national scale. It was as if he were saying “Oh, but that example doesn’t count because they weren’t true Communists”. That leaves me with a question: If Communism were really so robust as to be an “inevitability”, then why is it so easily derailed by revolutions into corrupt and brutal Socialist dictatorships? Without Socialism, there is no national scale path to Communism, but with Socialism, no country ever actually reaches Communism, the corrupt elite just cling to power. So put another way, I might as well ask “why does the true nature of man always seem to get in the way of what Marx incorrectly dreams that it is? ” 6) . http://therionorteline.com... 7) . https://www.marxists.org... 8) . http://en.wikipedia.org... 9) . http://blog.nj.com...