Communism is an ineffective system.

I will let the voters decide on the issue of wether or not you committed a logical fallacy. The definition has been given. To claim that somebody isn"t a "true scotsman" is the same as claiming that somebody isn"t a "true communist". You said that "only a true communist wouldn"t behave in a non-altruistically fashion". I feel that I know longer need to put effort into refuting the preposterous claims of my adversary. It appears that he does not have his wits about him. "Socialism succeeded in Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea and is still succeeding." is an absolutely preposterous claim. Cuba is a western brothel filled with derelict buildings[1]. North Korea is an oligarchic, totalitarian mess2]. Vietnam is a third world nation by all accounts.[3] It has a high death rate, high infant mortality rate and a stagnant population. Sure, perhaps North Korea has a high level of social equality...but that's because everyone is poor. Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher : "Would you rather the poor be poor and the rich be poor than the rich be rich and the poor be middle class?". Sure, perhaps North Korea has low unemployment, but what jobs do the people have? North Korea's economy lives in the dark ages! The people, instead of owning businesses and being literate and producing wealth, work from sun up to sun down to produce food that they themselves probably won"t even eat. Oh and of course Cuba is fully nationalized, what with it's western resorts and western factories[4]. Sure, maybe they all have system of collectivization, but what matters isn't wether or not they have these systems but wether or not they work! If people in North Korea are dying a dozen a day in every single village (metaphorically) perhaps it would be best that we woke up from our fantasy world where ideas rule in a world of rainbows and woke up and faced the facts! How can you say that totalitarianism isn"t the issue of this debate. I refuse to argue with somebody who believes that totalitarianism is "irrelevant". If my opponent has conceded that communism leads to totalitarianism I see no further reason to continue with this. It is perfectly apropos of this debate, if we were to debate fascism we would debate it, if we were to debate feudalism we would debate it, if we were to debate capitalism we would debate it, if we were to debate any political issue we would debate totalitarianism. So don"t you dare say that it"s inconsequential or not "apropos". If people in North Korea are dying a dozen a day in every single village (metaphorically) because their ruler takes their food perhaps it would be best that we woke up from our fantasy world where ideas rule in a world of rainbows and woke up and faced the facts! Communism has never been proven to work, sorry. With relation to my adversary's claims about Russia and China, I ask him to justify why an "altruistic and great system" would allow somebody such as Stalin or China's "revisionists" to take charge. Surely the great socialist utopias wouldn't allow such a thing! If it truly is possible to teach somebody to be a "good savage" wouldn't they have managed in Russia or China? If we are to mention time it then begs the question of wether or not time will be an issue in the future as well. Perhaps feudalism did not function properly because it didn"t have enough time to develop. How do we know greedy people won"t take over again. Why did the revisionists exist in a so-called communist utopia? Perhaps, it wasn"t a utopia after all, perhaps, socialism doesn"t work... Look, I"m personally really sorry. I understand that it can be hard to let go of an ideology, however, if it"s a worthless fantasy thought up by an obscure german political thinker who has indirectly caused millions of deaths [5] perhaps it"s far easier. There"s a reason that the Germans paid Lenin to go to Russia, they knew that he"d screw it up. Nobody in their right mind would give their enemy nuclear bombs. Socialism and the proceeding communism doesn"t work. Granted there are isolated cases of altruism (such as the cultural revolution, such as the life of Jesus, such as the life of Buddha, such as the lives of many indian peoples) however they"re, as I"ve said, isolated cases. They do not form the majority of all human interactions. They don"t. Sorry. [1]http://www.ageofconsent.com... Cuba derelict [2]https://www.cia.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://www.agoda.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...