Communism is superior to capitalism

Debate structureMy opponent first attempts to shift the burden of proof so that it is shared between both of us. However, my opponent never made any such clarification in the opening round and so my own setting of the debate structure ought to be preferred. Also, the resolution itself also implies the burden of proof to the Pro side as it states that communism is superior to capitalism, not something implying equal sharing like communism vs. capitalism. The resolution is itself an assertion and so implies that the pro is defending the resolution while the con is attacking it. Therefore, the pro ought to retain the burden of proof.C1My opponent first in his defense of inevitable capitalist recession says that most generally capitalist countries have followed a path of prosperity and subsequent recession, the Depression in the 30's, recession in the 80's and the current recession are cited as proof of this. However, remember that I am defending free market capitalism, not a mixed economy which is what most "capitalist" countries are currently and have been. For instance, in the 1920's leading up to the Depression, the American economy was far from immune to government interventions. An example would be the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 which so expanded the money supply that it caused the credit boom and general level of prosperity which eventually lead to a crash. So my opponent is correct partially in his reasoning. He is incorrect though in the cause. It wasn't a pure free market, but a state of centralized banking that caused the boom.[1]My opponent also argues that recessions must continue via a vicious cycle because workers who are laid off must necessarily have an income of 0. However, this is simply not true. My opponent in arguing this ignores the concept of savings altogether. What reason does my opponent provide to show that no one saves anything? None. Seeing as this is completely ignored by my opponent, the contention fails as the rest of my opponent's point rests on worker's always necessarily living entirely from paycheck to paycheck.Supposed invulnerability of communism to recessionMy opponent argues that recession cannot grow because government businesses are not allowed to lay off workers. However, I showed that recessions will not necessarily grow since even if workers are layed off, that does not necessitate an income of 0 since savings do not necessarily disappear with one's job. The chain of reasoning my opponent must use to arrive at this conclusion is flawed, however even if it weren't so, it does not help his case. I ask, how are national businesses supposed to make up for the costs that they incurred from not laying off workers? As I already showed, some sort of pricing mechanism is always necessary in order to compare heterogenous goods such as labor and capital. How do national businesses propose to pass of that cost?Sub-C1My opponent, in response to my refutation of sub-c1, offers nothing but a repetition of his previous point without directing any sort of arguments at my own arguments. The reason my opponent provides is that socialism and communism are not the same. However, my opponent is getting too caught up in the wording of the problem. It's not aimed at socialism only, but at any type of centralize planning of the economy. My opponent's own source says that "Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization." This means that not only under socialism would the economy be centrally planned, but it would also occur under communism. Therefore my refutation stands.C2My opponent's defense of his C2 consists of him pointing out that monopolies have in fact formed in "capitalistic" countries like the U.S. However, this says nothing about the economic superiority of monopolies to non-monopolies and that the U.S. has passed anti-trust laws thus abandoning capitalist principles. This point speaks nothing of the superiority of monopolies to non-monopolies though. My opponent has not attacked my reasoning at all and the fact that the U.S. has passed anti-trust measures merely means that it is not an entirely capitalistic country. I am not defending the U.S., I am defending free market capitalism.Sub-C2My opponent argues that a country which provides the best services will attract all customers thus allowing it to form a monopoly. My opponent argues that this makes my point self-refuting. However, in order to argue that, all consumers would have to have completely identical preferences. Obviously this is not the truth and who provides the best services is always relative to consumer preferences. For instance, McDonalds and Burgerking both offer similar products. However, it would be impossible to prove that one product is absolutely better than the other since different consumers will prefer different types of products. C3My opponent offers little justification for the supposed worthwhileness of equality. He argues for instance that under a system of total equality, there would be no murder or robbery since everyone's equal. But how does my opponent come to this conclusion? Unless every single preferencet of an individual is satisfied, there will always be the possibility of that individual will act so as to satisfy those preferences. My opponent can argue that a communist society would be able to satisfy every single preference of every single individual but that claim would be dubious at best. For the claim would have to ignore time preference entirely. No one can satisfy every preference they have at once and so it is effectively impossible for an individual to satisfy each of their preferences, thus always leaving the possibility of things like murder or theft.C4My opponent, in his last point, argues that capitalism necessarily leads to a system of social conflict between the poor and the rich (or ruling) class. However, little warrant was provided by my opponent to justify the position that this must always happen. Although no system can conceptually create a state of total equality, there is little reason to believe that massive states of inequal wealth distribution. At the least my opponent has shown no evidence of this necessarily occurring.[1] http://axiomaticeconomics.com...