On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

Extend all my previous arguments on property, social calculation problem, empirical evidence, tragedy of the commons, incentives, and productivity efficiencyIntroduction: CON does not use justification for Communism such as increased prosperity. Intead CON makes philosphical justification based on unusually definitions of "slavery" and "exploitation" that normal people do not use. I will explain why this is wrong. Rebuttal: Communism: A-Primer: While the nations described as communist nations are not the same form of communism that CON advocates, these nations have the same institutions that CON advocates that would predictably lead to the same problems, namely problems of tragedy of the commons, social calculation, and lack of incentives. CON might believe these problems were due to authoritarian regimes, but there is no economic law that states that authoritarian regimes must lead to massive suffering. Qatar is an absolute monarchy[1] yet is believed to have highest gross domestic production per capita in the world. Hong Kong has the 5th highest gdp[2] per capita and was under the rule of Great Britain and the Republic of China. These nations do not have massive famines that occurred in communist nations. CON uses hunter-gathering societies as an example of communism. However, hunter-gathering societies have many problems with including starvation, disease, and warfare of greater magnitude then modern day [3]. CON complains about dependency on “market-forces” and other factors and that one need to contribute labor in order to obtain material. The laws of market forces like supply and demand exist no matter what. Trying to ignore these economic laws to create a new system is like trying to create an airplane that ignores the law of gravity. The end result would be a disaster. Of course, any system breeds dependency on either labor or others for resources. This is from the obvious fact that stuff does not come through thin-air. If there are fewer resources, it becomes scarcer and less of it can be distributed to people. This is the “market force” that CON complains about but exists nonetheless under any system. Thus the idea that communism is more individualistic then modern capitalism is absurd. CON wants to seek a system where people no longer have to rely on their labor to obtain materials. Yet, later on, CON believes that people are exploited because they are paid less then how much they produce. Yet, since labor is not attached to obtaining resources, communism exploits hard workers and non-workers exploit. According, to CON’s own logic communism is a system based on economic exploition, and as such should be disregarded. Capitalism - A Primer: CON main argument against my definition of capitalism is semantics. I will correct many of the incorrect assumptions Con makes on capitalism. Pro states that exchange in capitalism is “necessary”, not of “volunteer”. This is absurd since not everything bought is necessary. If I buy a movie ticket, it’s not necessary. I don’t need the movie, but want to see the movie. Even if we assume, worst case scenario that the government does not provide social services for you, you don’t have any family or friends willing to help you, you can’t be hired for a minimum wage job, and nobody is willing to buy services from you, then begging to strangers would be enough to earn more than minimum wage [4] in the US. So there is no risk of starvation in capitalist nations like the US.Yet even the notion, since modern capitalist societies have welfare programs for the poor like food stamps. Hospitals are required to admit patients to the emergency room regardless of ability to pay. The wealthy in modern times almost exclusively work. CEO’s make millions and some have a net worth of billions, but still work. CON is incorrect that the wealthy exclusively own capital. Financial institutions like banks produce capital through investing depositor money in businesses. Almost everyone has a bank account. Ordinary people invest their money in stocks through 401ks or using their own money. Regardless, this ignores the high cost of regulating trade which CON does not refute. Wage-slavery: Wage-slavery contradicts CON’s idea that communism is good since in a communist nation, since people aren’t paid their worth under the system, which CON applies is bad. CON uses the term slavery due to the negative connotation it holds. Slavery brings up negative images of death through overworking, whipping and torture, lack of freedom, and people living in insufferable conditions. Ask any person living in a capitalist nation whether they are slaves’ equivalent to slavery in the 18th century, and the majority would say no. This would mean that Hollywood actors, pro-athletes, and CEOs that do not obtain their income exclusively through stocks are slaves. In fact, engaging in this debate would be “slavery” since we are not the owners of the website, a for-profit company is, yet are increasing the quality of the website through providing quality debates which increases debate.org’s value. Thus, even though I enjoy debating for fun and use the site due to the high-quality debate format, we’re somehow being exploited and a slave. CON also holds the view that: a) the price of a product is equal to the value of a product b) the value of a product is equal to the labor put into it. I will demonstrate why this both of these are false. a) First, let’s look at an example of two scenarios. In one scenario, a person is dying of thirst. The water is charged a dollar a bottle. This person values the water much more then the dollar, even though it’s priced at $1, if it cost thousands she still would have paid, because she would die otherwise. However, if she was not dying of thirst, and felt fine, she would not have bought the water, since the water was not valuable to her. How much a product is valued is how much people are willing to pay for it. Not the amount it costs. People buy or sell a product People become wealthier, since if supply and demand is in equilibrium, then consumer wealth and producer wealth is maximized [5]. There is no “exploitation” because both are benefiting. b) Instead the value of labor is based on the productivity of labor. Labor productivity and worker wages are highly correlated: To demonstrate this, if a piece of clothing is hand sewed, it would cost the same as If it sewing machine was used instead. However, the latter is more productivity. Since it is more productivity, the laborer is going to get paid more, even if the same good is produced. So productivity of the labor, not the value of the good produced matters.Its also absurd to assume that one person is involved in producing a good, because as economist Milton Friedman notes, it takes millions just to create a pencil[6] Con’s view on profit is incorrect because her assumptions are wrong. Instead profit is a result of risk-taking, deferring consumption, and rewarding productive innovation and risk taking. These mechanisms, increase the productivity of labor, lower costs, and are thus a generally good thing. Wealth and trade is not a zero-sum game as inferred. Con states that communism is “community of people work together, produce surplus, maintain it, and decide how to distribute it.”. However, it is not outlined how that process will occur. If a group of representatives do this, it leads to state which Con opposes. I have outlined this problem further in the social-calculation problem. Profit provides the mechanism to distribute goods and services, as well as people voting with their “money”. I explained this previously in the social-calculation problem. Con's definition of capitalism is also wrong based on a misunderstanding of profit, labor and capital. Everyone is capable of owning capital and owning a business to profit. http://tinyurl.com...[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6]