Play Devil's Advocate! (4)

3R1ARC: CapitalThe opponent is mistaken here; capital is not communism. In fact, capital is "preproduced goods" A capital is made by either two sources, capital itself and labor. With this said, we must give examples of capital, as the opponent is clearly mistaken; a car is capital, a book is capital, my computer is capital. A communist? Meh, not so much. Henceforth, the opponent's points about Coal in the United States seemingly proves my point, that heavy capital (machines) have a positive effect on capital outputs.3R2ARC: Capital ExpenseThe opponent states that "machines are much more expensive" than hiring people, and it "is very difficult to produce a lot of machines" But here has to observe the fact that capital intensive industries, or at least, factories tend to do better than labor intensive ones; capital intensive production has increased profits (in a company) by 100%, due to the fact that capital intensive production allows for more capital to be produced at a lesser cost. Apart from this, labor-capital ratio is rising [1]; these factors correlate with the fact that capital outputs are increasing [2]. Capital investment is a one time investment; in places, like Japan, where the working class is set to be outnumbered by the elderly, using capital intensive porduction would allow for workers to be easily replaced with machines. Machines are much unlike people; they can do the same job, effectively and consistently, over a long period of time. When a machines breaks, the machine can be fixed; when a person breaks, replacing him would cost more. Using the example of Japan, the United States invested quite abit of money and capital into it during the Post-War era, and it is now one of the largest economies in the world.3R3ARC: On the ProletariatHere I am just pointing out the several conditions that would allow the transition to communism; the abolishment of the money-over-man mindset, lessening social inequality, and the demolishing of the powers of the state; I am not here to talk about how capitalism cannot work, but I am here to talk about the result of capitalism, which is to say the least, communism.NOTE: The opponent takes many oxymorons as truths. "Communist government" "Communist nation" We shall see how this is fallacious against our definitions in a while.3R4ARC: On Human RightsWhat is human rights? These rights are several conditions that we humans were entitlted to via birth. These rights are natural born, and henceforth, shall be taken for granted. However, there comes a larger problem; does communism violate human rights? Communists hate private property. In a communist society, private property is non-existent, as it creates economic inequality. But what is private property in this case; it is definitely, so to say, not personal property. Private property, accordingly to Marx: In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom. This may sound enraging at first, but see through this:Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Karl Marx here makes a very important distinction between the two; private property is what creates inequality. Their is only one property that creates inequality, and that is, such commodities that nature has given man, but which has been privatized by men of worth; things like land, oil, natural resources. etc. These are the objects that nature has given us all to share, and should not be in the hands of few. These things also create economic inequality; the ownership of these objects often mean that people would be commanded by their "bosses" to do something. Private property is not the hard earner property on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it is the means of production. The means of production shall be held in common.3R5ARC: On Dissent shown under Socialist Governments(Note that the opponent's second source outlines the communist revolutions) Ideally, this argument can be easily dismissed; communism has never been tried and successfully implemented once on this earth. Western political scientists, albeit they have called the governments of the Soviet Bloc and China "communists", know very well that these countries did not think themselves as communists, but socialists. When practicality is non-existent, one has to break down to theory; theory suggests that under communism, the people would be happy, creative and prosperous due to the fact that he no longer has to be alienated from his produced capital. This argument shall be extended in my next case.3R6ARC: On Happiness, Imperialism and FairnessIt is ironic that opponent would use happiness as an argument against communism; communism is the free will at it's best state! Under the capitalist arrangement, free will exists only in name, as the worker is on the verge of starvation; he has to work not because he likes it, but because he is forced to. Apart from this, the capitalist arrangement limits creativity because the worker simply has to do one task; this limits his creativity, but increases productivity. UNDER communism, however, the worker is free to do whatever he likes; the concept of manual labor is now non-existent. Why so? Because capital intensive labor has taken control of all works done previously by manual labor; the worker henceforth works in some white collar job, and he is happy. Since there is an abundance of food in the communist society, since capital intensive production as stated via the first postulate of R1 (and justified in this round) can produce more than labor intensive. So if a worker enjoys what he likes, then of course, he would go to work everyday; henceforth, this concept of laziness is non-existent. Then we come to talk about imperialism; imperialism is a horrible force, and many "communist" (in reality, socialist Stalinist countries) countries have pursued it; however, there are no nation-states under the communist ideal. Why so? Because the nation-state only exists as a tool for the bourgeios to control the proletariat; the nation-state only exists as a neccessary tool for the bourgeios to use against the masses. However, when both are non-existent, then of course, the nation state, like money, will be unneeded.Now, we come to talk about the fair part; but what is fair? Whatever is fair, let us say, is just. Justice is easily defined; the Aristotelian view takes justice as "repaying debts and following contracts" However, we are to take the slightly modified Platonic view; "repaying debts and following contracts to those who deserve it" The worker is oppressed by the very production proccess of capitalism; he has to pay debts and follow contracts to those who do not deserve it, under the current arrangement. Is this just? No, but it is the process. Communism is the complete opposite of capitalism; under communism, money will be non-existent. Money oppresses everyone; the liberation from money would henceforth cause the people to be truly free. CONCLUSIONThe opponent cannot call witnesses against something that has not been tried yet; if the opponent object, I await him to name a community within the last 100 years, who has achieved a classless, stateless, moneyless, society. When practicality is non-existent, one has to fall to theory. Apart from this, we are talking about possibility; this argument shall be expanded in my next round. Citations:[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov...[2] http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com...[3]