The Logistics and practicality of Communism.

1. Catalonia was never able to fully develop, so its potential successes are simply speculation. Even during its rise it was not as perfect as you say. According to your Wikipedia source, "While some joined voluntarily, others, especially in the beginning of the revolution, were forced to join the collectives by anarchist militias." Forcing people to work and give up their land is not a good model at all and goes against what you claimed, that people join because they "want to." There will be opposition, and in a capitalist society social Darwinism is in play i.e. "if you don't contribute you don't get to reap our benefits". In communism, it is more of a "give up your property or die/become jailed" Now Rojava is another story. They need time to be completely independent and news about them are very conflicting as of now. I took a look at their population statistics and it shows 4.6 million with it being almost all Kurdish. Once it grows and accepts other demographics I expect a huge change in its structure. Still, both examples did not fulfill stable communism thus my argument still stands, that as of now there has never been a full successful communist state. 2. That is what I mean by a power vacuum. With a huge population, the citizens cannot all be expected to unite by themselves. A few bad apples ruins the crop and a dictator can easily take over. This is what happened in both Russia and China, both of which had huge populations. 3. What I mean by human nature is their tendency to conserve for themselves. By this I mean people ARE lazy when given the choice. If the result is the same, why work harder? You keep arguing that people would work because they would want to. That in itself is a fallacy, because it has been proven that people only work to benefit themselves. It has been proven time and time again that people do not enjoy working for something that does not directly benefit them, or something that benefits others more. The form of government will not change that. I agree with the automation argument. But can't that be an argument for capitalism as well? If robots take over blue-collar jobs, it will improve their quality of life as well since prices will go down and people will be working better jobs (over a timeline). 4. The small groups you referred to in no.1 are perfect examples of how people can unite for a cause. With a large diverse population this has never worked out in the past. I want to end this by citing a Reddit argument about the same thing: "If it costs me nothing to acquire something, I'm probably going to acquire indiscriminately. Not because I'm selfish necessarily, but just because there really isn't any reason for me not to. I'll take extra food just for the sake of not having to go back to the store for a little bit longer. I will pick up a tablet computer simply because I think it would be fun to play with for a little bit. Again, if they were in a limitless supply, this wouldn't cause any problems. But they aren't, and this does cause a problem. I would wind up with a tablet computer (that I don't value very highly) simply because I got to it first. Some one else, who puts a much higher value on it, would not be able to get one because of limited supply. In a market economy, the price gives me a trade off, and stops me from picking stuff up just because. It makes me evaluate what I need and want, and therefore I acquire things much more efficiently. Since I don't value tablet computers very highly, I don't own one, and therefore there is more available for people who value them more than I do. There's a lot of appealing things about communism, to be sure, but I can't understand how they justify the inefficient allocation of resources." In the end, communism is very viable for a small community where resources and pressures to work are there, but for large-scale countries it will fail due to a power vacuum and differing opinions, values, and cultures. Voters, consider both of our arguments and reasoning. Thank you for this debate.