Communism is superior to capitalism

Furthermore, as I have pointed out already, if burden of proof is not indicated it means both side shares to proof. You must always think equal and not biased if nothing is indicated. I will dwell on this issue no more. C1) I find my opponent to have a habit of citing insignificant and often self-contradictory points. He attempts to make up for his weakness in the second round by stating the United State was not purely capitalistic, and the rapid growth of the early 1900s were not from capitalism. Very well he just argued that capitalistic countrys do not have a rapid growth but rather still suffers from the recessions, therefore meaning countrys practicing pure capitalism will have recessions at all times, as illustrated by the next paragraph. I have also noticed my opponent to cite very weak examples. He points out that workers have savings, and after they are laid off they will continue spending the same sum they spend every month, instead now relying on their savings. I find 2 fatal flaws with his argument. First of all he falsely assume that everyone have savings. That is impossible as companies in capitalistic countries have to compete with each other, and thus will pay their workers only the minimum the workers needs to get buy. A company that pays its workers large sums (so they can have huge savings) is an incompetent business and will soon go out of business. He also assumes laid off families will continue spending the same amount every month, now instead relying on their savings. However I understand the voters know a laid off family will cut their expenditures no matter how large their savings are, as their net income is still zero. No laid off family, no matter how large their saving, would go to Disneyland every weekend, or eat at Cruves, or go to malls anymore, thus reducing commerce and further intensifying the recession. I beg my opponent not to rely on miraculous cases such as “everyone has savings so even if they’re laid off they’ll still spend the same amount every month. ” Sources: The south park episode margaritaville illustrate my point quite well. It’s also hilarious. Sub-C1My opponent’s defense of his confusion of Socialism and Capitalism is a weak attempt to save face by changing the wording of his original paragraph (which mentions socialism twice and communism 0 times) to incorporate communism as well, also stating I am getting caught up with his wording. However his key flaw is not admiting his mistake and change his points to direct at communism, instead directing “at any type of centralize planning of the economy” I find his rebuttal for Sub C1 pointless, as it is not aimed at Communism but a mix of socialism and communism. Seeing this fundamental lack of understanding from my opponent I acknowledge it is impossible to address Sub-C1 any further while he continues to believe socialism and communism are the same thing. Sources: . http://wiki.answers.com......(see above)C2Again, I am confused by my opponent’s drifting from the topic to monopolies. First he claims monopolies are inferior to non-monopolies. I find that self-contradictory as I have already pointed out, monopolies are a sure sign of strictly capitalistic countries. Thus as he argued a country with monopoly is inferior to a country without monopoly, he points out capitalistic countries are inferior. Sub-C2My opponent then makes another weak attempt to push off my rebuttal, stating the extremely unlikely case that all companies in the same markets will be equally tied in profit as different consumers have different preferences. I remind him to achieve an exact tie is very rare. He mentions the similiartiy between MacDonald and Burger king, thus I must point out how self-contradictory this point is. He claims MacDonald and Burger King appeal to different groups and thus prevent one from being the monopoly. Thus I must remind him MacDonald’s net worth is over 10 times that of Burger King, thus disproving his point. Also, One business will always be slightly superior, whether it is the company possess a strong CEO, appeals to a wider group of people, or have good advertising programs. The superior company will thus make more money than the inferior, having more capital to develop its product further and leaving the inferior company further and further behind until one becomes a monopoly. Examples of this process include Intel (and AMD), Walmart (and K-Mart,) Google and all its now defeated competitors, or Apple, or even the radio vs. the television. In all cases they once had equally powerful competitors and were able to outcompete them. I find my opponent’s reasoning that capitalistic countries will not have monopolies because its business would be exactly equally competitive with its rivals extremely silly. C3My opponent points out my weakness that crimes will still exist in an all equal society. I remind him I am defending Communism, not Utopias. He also fails to see my main point. While I exaggerated by saying an all equal communist society will be an utopia with no crimes, the main point is crime rates will be MUCH lower than in capitalistic countries. In communist countries, there is simply nothing to steal. Food is served for free in government hosted cafeterias, money is gone and thus there are no stealing or robbing. While murder might still exist, (rape, or just serial killing) the absence of stealing and robbing makes a communistic country a much safer place to live. My mom is a living example, telling me in the 1970s in china they don’t even bother to lock their doors when they leave the house. There is nothing to steal! Source, Family historyC4I find my opponent confused at my last point. Thus I will state it again in simpler terms. Capitalistic countries allow the rich to become richer and poor to become poorer, as under capitalism a rich, superior family will continue to get even richer and even more superior as the generation go on, (since a rich family’s kids are educated and thus in better position to be more successful adults) I believe so far that point is clear. Then there comes the obvious point that huge social differences leads to conflict between the classes. I believe I need not to dwell on that further. These conflicts often turns into massive revolutions in which the rich were killed and their wealth distributed to the poor. (French revolution, English civil war, Chinese civil war, the Russian revolution, etc. ) all those forms of communism. Conclusion Communism offer many advantages as opposed to capitalism. Under communism there is a sense of equality and fairness, thus doing away many thievery and robbery, leading to a safer society. Communism is immune to the economic cycles of recessions that capitalistic is often subjected to. Communism is immune to social violence between the classes of society, as everyone remains equal. It is also united by a central leader that interferes with the different business markets and ties them together, aiming for a common goal instead of the competition and disunity capitalism is often subjected to. Throughout this debate I found my blessed opponent to surprise me many times with things I did not know, and help me analyze my own views of both parties. This debate has developed my insight on this topic tremendously, and I thank him. However it is unfortunate he did not follow the predesignated rules, as well as shifting work (the burden of proof) on me when it is not indicated so.