On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

Time for rebuttles. Allow me to start at the beginning.What is property?My opponent claims property is necessary for everday life, because people cannot utilize the same object at the same time. This however does not, in of itself, prove that the idea of 'private property' is necessary. Did we not learn in grade school the idea of sharing and taking turns?But of course, I recognize this alone is not sufficient, as does my opponent, and so he also adds the claim "and resources are scarce". This however is utter hogwash. There is no reason to think that resources are so low that not every can obtain things they desire. Let us take food as an example. There is easily enough food on the planet at this point in time to feed the globe[1]. One of the most principle reason that everyone is not fed, is the current global economic system (Capitalism)[2].Now this is only one solitary sample, yes, but my opponent has given us no reason to think that resources are so low that some people just have to go without. Clearly food, the biggest need of human beings, is plenitful enough that everyone could be fed. And with Capitalism being one of the major reasons for why every ISN'T fed, how can is be said that Capitalism is good for mankind? It cannot.The Social-Calculation ProblemMy opponent has claimed that, in a Communist society, there is no way to determine the vale of goods and services. This is because goods and services would have no trade value, due to the lack of a need for trade. My opponent seems to criticize this, but they do not explain why. Why is the lack of value-placement a bad thing? If my opponent wishes to say "because it's necessary", they have not put forth an adequate case for such a claim. And if value placement is not necessary, then why would ot be a criticism?Further more, my opponent claims anyone can be an entrepenuar. This however is entirely false. As the saying goes, "it takes money to make money." Taking today's America, individuals in the lowest rung of society would have next to no ability to fund their ideas, lt alone come up with ideas to begin with. Not everyone is creative, and has the capability to come up with new ideas that people want.Finally, this does not even begin to address the moral problem with this kind of system. It can be said that, if something is immoral, it cannot be justified by any means. And I argue that Capitalism as a system is immoral, because of the reaosns I have listed. A society which, in essence, states that you only deserve to live if you are useful, is entirely immoral, and certainly not good for mankind! And this is precisely the kind of system Capitalism is, as declared by my opponent. Those who can contribute, can survive. Those who cannot, or do not, will not obtain the funds necessary to fulfill their needs, and will as a result, live poor qualities of life, and most likely die sooner than other individuals in society[3]. This is abominable, and for my opponent to try and justify such a system is disgraceful.Success of CapitalismMy opponent declares that, because the most successfu countries are Capitalist, Capitalism must have made them as good as they are. But there is no logical connection between these two claims. My opponent is attempting to frame correlation as causation. This is fallacious. There could be a plethora of reasons why those countries are doing better. To conclude it is Capitalism based on nothing more than that correlation is ridiculous. Further more, this argument is meaningless to the debate. As Communism is a society without an economy, to point out economic figures to me is utterly without meaning. Communism is not a society with a different form money management, like socialism. It has no money.My opponent attempts to criticize Communism on the basis of nations like the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Kora, and China. These nations are not Communist however, as defined in R1. Therefore, this portion of my opponent's argued deserves to be dismissed entirely.Finally, my opponent has claimed I stated no Communist society has ever existed. This is false. I never made such a claim. My opponent has put words in my mouth. If my opponent wishes to see evidence of Communistic socieites, he need look no further than the often cited Paris Commune[4], or the Free Territory, as evidence of successful Communist societies. These socieites were not toppled by poor economies or a lack of resources, but by violent force of neighboring lands. There are plenty others one may list, but these are the two most widely known.I would aks my opponent not to put words in my mouth again, as it is poor form.Tragedy of the CommonsMy opponent has claimed that, if one does not own property, there is no incentive to maintain it. My opponent misrepresents my argument by saying "when no one owns property". Communism is not a society wherein "no one owns anything" it is a society in which the public owns everything collecively. Ironically enough, my opponent's own argument plays against them here, as in a Capitalist society, far fewer indivudals can claim ownership of property than in a Communist society. By privatising property, you limit the number of individuals who own it. By making it public, you naturally increase the number of people who own it, which, according to my opponent, shoiuld cause even greater care to be taken of property.Communism - A PrimerMy opponent claims that nations such as the former USSR, China, North Korea, ect., possess the same institutions of a Communist society. No they do not. They do not at all possess the same systems and insitutions. I would appriciate if my opponent would point out these "same" institutions that I supposidly suport. I would also request once again that my opponent not put words in my mouth. My is once again attempting to criticize my argment on the basis of non-communist socieities. His arguments are therefore irrelevant to this debate.My opponent criticizes hunter-gathere societies, and claims that modern socieites, which are capitalist, are better off. Of course. even the poores sociast nation today is better off than hunter-gthere societies! This is because they are MODERN. They have advanced technologies that allow for greater efficiency and collecting and mainting resources. My opponent is attempting to have Capitalism take credit for advances in technology. This is ridiculous.My opponent attempts to claim that because of "market forces", Capialism is just as individualistic as Communism. This is absurd however. While market forces influence any society, there is a distinct difference between the structure of Capitalism and Communism. Yes, nature can cause people to have to pursue lives other than their desired work, but the key difference between Capitalism and Communism, is that Communism is influenced by nature only. In a Communist society, if an individual desires to be an artist, so long as resources are plentiful enough, they can do this. In a Capitalist society, even if resources are pentiful, the individual may STILL need to consolidate their desires, due to a lack of being able to possess necessary resources, and due to a lack of individuals who would provide them with resources for their labour. In a Capitalist societiy, if the economic market is such that artists are not desired, one cannot afford to become an artist. This forces individuals to consolidate their desires for the desires of the market, so they may survive. Communism does not have this problem. Rendering it more individualistic by it's inherent set-up. I will finish up my rebuttles in the next round.Sources1. http://www.worldhunger.org...2. http://worldhunger.org...3. http://www.lrb.co.uk...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...