Communism is the greatest economic ideal

Let me first bring up a few points: 1. In my opponents definition, he states that communism should be based on the Communist Manifesto. I accept this definition. However, this is completely contradictory as his argument clearly deals with Stalin's view of communism- which is VERY different from the principles of communism as described by Marx and Engels. If you are trying to base your argument off of the Soviet Union, then ALL of our arguments have now been dropped. Thanks for that. 2. "Observation: I do not need to give an alternative to Communism. This is true because 1) the PRO did not ask me to do so, and 2) it is not my job to prove the resolution's inverse, just that this variation here is not true." I hinted out laissez faire, I should have been more clear. I apologize. That said, it is STILL imperative that my opponent compares it to an alternative, as the resolution clearly suggests. To put it plain and simple- the resolution's evaluative term is greatest, which is comparative. Considering you are con, your job is to prove that Communism is NOT the greatest. Adding one word doesn't change the fact that comparing is necessary for any argument considering the evaluative term. I had already hinted out that the reason Communism existed is because of the faults created by a Laissez-faire market. If my opponent has no clue to an alternative, perhaps you should use that as the alternative. 3. My opponents value criterion is also contradictory in comparison to the resolution. You believe that weighing the ideas by opinion is not sufficient in proving Pro or Con. However, how else can you prove "greatest" other than opinion. To put it in an example: I said Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player in history. Opinion, just as: Communism is the greatest economic ideal. Opinion. Michael Jordan was not the greatest basketball in history. Opinion, just as: Communism is not the greatest economic ideal. Still opinion. However much evidence (in both cases) provided by boxscores, death tolls, or points per season, the evaluative term still deals with... what? Opinion. 4. My opponent states I don't state Stalin's regime. In reality, the industrial and economic growth was the capstone of Stalin's regime. Now, on to rebuttals: - "Communism is a solution" rebut.- My opponent is trying to pick apart my words and twist it around. This conclusion was in the context of one, defined paragraph. If you read it thoroughly, it specifically states "the working class". - "Poverty cannot exist…" rebut.- Every idea has its flaws. In comparison, a Laissez-fair market aims to provide an equal oppurtunity to have healthy competition. The result? Unemployment, monopolies, and a detrimental effect on the United States GDP have been the result of capitalism. Was this the intention of Adam Smith? Clearly not. - CIA World Fact Book - How does classless society lead to zero unemployment level? We don't have any classes in our American society today; we have TONS of unemployed people. The classless society brings upon collectivization, or grouped up farms consisting of the ENTIRE population. Classes do exist in American society (I'm assuming United States?) - "Economic growth…" rebut. There's no proof that it improves overall quality of essentials for life. Bringing that up is irrelevant to the topic of economic growth. It was a filler. However, I proved that Russia grew in industry, which is relevant. - Communism is an insurance of ends. It ensures equality for all: and hey, when one person works harder and doesn't have any reward, what incentives do they have? Motivation-driven human nature leads such a benevolent-aimed society spiraling down exactly towards what it was attempting to eliminate: poverty. Your definition of an economic ideal is an economy we should work towards. This debate is not arguing about the possibility of a communist society's ability to function, as human nature opposes that. It's too much work. However, we can STILL work towards communism, the IDEAL society. - As for the wikipedia comment rebut. My opponent is completely oblivious to the fact that Russia had just left World War 1 because it was in the midst of a revolution. The civil unrest and poverty was caused by the reigning royalty: the Czar. Lenin did his best to clean up the mess the Czars had created. AFTER Lenin took power, his new economic policies have drastically improved lifestyle. In fact: Agricultural production increased greatly. Instead of the government taking all agricultural surpluses with no compensation, the farmers now had the option to sell their surplus yields, and therefore had an incentive to produce more grain. This incentive coupled with the break up of the quasi-feudal landed estates not only brought agricultural production to pre-Revolution levels, but further improved them. While the agricultural sector became increasingly reliant on small family farms, the heavy industries, banks and financial institutions remained owned and run by the state. Since the Soviet government did not yet pursue any policy of industrialization, this created an imbalance in the economy where the agricultural sector was growing much faster than the heavy industry. To keep their income high, the factories began to sell their products at higher prices. Due to the rising cost of manufactured goods, peasants had to produce much more wheat to purchase these consumer goods. This fall in prices of agricultural goods and sharp rise in prices of industrial products was known as the Scissor crisis (from the shape of the graph of relative prices to a reference date). Peasants began withholding their surpluses to wait for higher prices, or sold them to "NEP men" (traders and middle-men) who then sold them on at high prices, which was opposed by many members of the Communist Party who considered it an exploitation of urban consumers. To combat the price of consumer goods the state took measures to decrease inflation and enact reforms on the internal practices of the factories. The government also fixed prices to halt the scissor effect. The NEP succeeded in creating an economic recovery after the devastating effects of the First World War, the Russian Revolution and the Russian civil war. By 1928, agricultural and industrial production had been restored to the 1913 (pre-WWI) level. - Wikipedia, 'History of Russia' - "Stalin's communism caused a lot of poverty. For example, he engineered Holodomor, which was a mass starvation of Ukranians from 1932-33. And then there was the starvation in the slave labor camps, which killed uncountable numbers of people." Ukraine wanted independence from communism. The matter is very complicated and does not deal with communism in its entirety. Overview 2: My opponent is trying to void my argument by stating that comparison is necessary. However, he has not proven his case because he hasn't compared it to any ideology either. If your going to tell someone what to do, do it yourself. Going back to my example, Michael Jordan had flaws too. He has missed a shot. He has fouled out. However, without comparison, how is it possible to prove that Michael Jordan isn't the greatest? In conclusion, my opponent states that communism is only possible if everyone works hard. This is the basis of his entire argument. In his definition, I remind you, he stated an economic ideal is one that should be worked towards. Communism has some flaws in a real world situation, yes. That is not because if its ideologies, but rather the capacity most people have. I end with this statement- Even if a world completely composed of wealthy people is impossible, isn't it still ideal?