On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism.

== Introduction and Analysis == Pro is correct in that I've made points from both collectivist anarchists and anarcho-communists; however, given the parameters of communism this is completely permissible. Anarcho-syndicalists for example vary in their points of view on economic arrangements from a collectivist anarchism type of system to an anarcho-communist economic system [1]. Therefore I can argue in favor of syndicalism and still meet the "communist" requirements, as various camp ideologies tend to overlap -- though all three mentioned here are anti-capitalist, anti-private property and co-operative economic systems. As explained, in this round I'll begin my analysis and respond to Pro's questions and comments in the next. == Con's Case == "Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies. It is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly." -- Winston Churchill Pro maintains that self-ownership gives one the right to own land. However if Pro farms plot A and I would like to farm plot B, Pro should not be able to say "You can not farm plot B without paying me rent" even though Pro has nothing whatsoever to do with plot B. Doing so would actually interfere with MY right to self-ownership, and the right to the fruits of my labor. Why should Pro "own" plot B just because? Further why should he be able to charge rent if one sought to utilize plot B for food, shelter or production if he is not using it? Doing so automatically makes one indebted to the owner completely unnecessarily. Pro does a good job of making it seem as if I advocate interfering with one's peaceful activity on their own land, when in reality I've encouraged the complete opposite. I'm advocating this same privilege for everyone and not only an unjustified capitalist class like Pro is. Though Pro tried to establish a distinction between slavery and voluntary labor, in selling one's labor (which they have the right to do) one also sells their liberty. The boss tells the worker what to do, what to produce, when, and so on. This generates social relationships based on authority and sets the necessary conditions for the exploitation of labor to occur. I use the word exploitation though perhaps oppressed is more pertinent. The laborer has no choice but to sell their labor and thus sell their liberty. Under Pro's system, self-sufficiency is not possible. All land belongs to someone, so like a slave you can either choose to work for another or die. While there are obvious differences, a distinct connection can still be made. Selling one's labor is different from self-ownership; the former is merely a pawn who receives only a fraction of what their labor is worth. Self-ownership refers to one's right to peaceful activity and the right to keep the earnings without having to forfeit a portion to a so-called higher authority. I'm sure Pro does not like forfeiting such gains in the name of taxation to a State, but when it's to a capitalist landlord (which serves the same function of the State) then suddenly it's immoral. In fact philosopher Hans Hermann Hoppe notes that landlords like the State are simply territorial monopolists. In this debate, I will be proposing an anarcho-syndicalist society as their goal is usually libertarian communism [2]. This system espouses worker's solidarity. Capitalists are powerful insofar as they control vast amounts of wealth, and they rely on on the complicity and cooperation of workers to remain subservient. This is only possible because workers are powerless against the resources available to the capitalist - particularly considering the million of unemployed who can take the place of anyone not prepared to shut up and do what they're told. In this way an elite class controls production, largely controls the market and essentially dominates society. Capitalism is literally based on taking as much advantage of people as possible. Notions of voluntary exchange can be disqualified considering the system specifically makes it so the "volunteer" is significantly disadvantaged and manipulated via force by a make-believe authority to accept imaginary property rights. A contrary approach is utilizing collective decision making within a community. The goal would be to protect the social autonomy of every member of the anarcho-syndicalist union, while allowing socially autonomous individuals the ability to work together and cooperate with others. Social bonds will be much more prevalent in this society due to its inherent structure. Worker and community assemblies will employ mainly a form of direct democracy, and said groups can also be expected to resolve disputes. The principle of self-management refers to the idea that the purpose of social organizations should be for the administration of things rather than the government of people. While it makes social organization and cooperation possible, it also allows the highest possible amount of individual freedom. Is this system plausible in practice? In 1920, under anarchist and syndicalist influence workers and peasants all across Italy occupied their workplaces and the land. They simply ignored the property owners and their state enforced property rights. The movement was non-violent in nature as workers simply took over what they already used but did not control [3]. Though this was obviously pleasing to the masses, it was eventually stifled by proprietors hiring a private army of fascists to use violence to suppress the workers and maintain control. Fifteen years later during the Spanish Revolution, libertarian communism was put into effect. More than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, revolutionary worker-based committees and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state [4]. The results were extraordinary. "Workers coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production, built more schools and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy, but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity" [4]. Positive changes were also blatantly evident in social relations [5]. This system is more humanitarian than capitalism. It espouses the egalitarian doctrine of all humans being equal in their fundamental worth or moral status [6]. This is considered by many to be the natural state of society. A study of major world economies revealed a correlation between income inequality and problems such as homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population [7]. Additionally, when production is not for profit, there is no reason to ignore environmental costs creating a healthier planet for everyone. Classism also paves the way for other isms: racism, sexism, etc. which merely reflect a belief about a separation of class (power and rights differential) among those of different races or gender which is clearly immoral. The same logic applies to wealth. This does not mean that everyone ought to have the same; merely that people should have similar opportunities and live free of an oppressive and harmful class system that necessarily exploits and oppresses a certain group of people, indicating an unequal application of human rights [8]. Capitalism is therefore necessarily less humanitarian. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...