Communism is an antiquaited, disproven political/economic system both morally and practically.

" there are many systems of socio-economics, such as the Resource Based Economy[1], that don't have a monetary system. The idea of a gift economy[2], with reliance on a system of mutal aid[3], is a major tenent in 'communism'." Theories, not practice. And certainly not on the global scale you advocate. "What you fail to realize is that there has never been a 100% barter economy in the entire history of mankind, it has always been blended with a gift economy of some sort." I don't fail to understand anything. What you fail to understand is there IS NO economy without some form of currency. Production MUST be measured and valued in order to create an economy. "Let me use this as an example, you own your body correct? " No. My body is not a commodity. There are no 'rights to ownership' of human beings. "In 'communism', all things that are producers, such as factories, farms, and yes, even cows, are all owned by those who put work into those producers. " Factories don't build themselves. Farms aren't run by a single individual and Cows don't just naturally become property. The factory must be built, the land worked, and the cow obtained. Without a currency none of this is possible. No 'owner' can build the factory on his own or work the farm alone. In order to breed cows you must first obtain them. If there is no monetary system, how on earth am I supposed to build a factory or acquire cows in order to obtain what is produced? What you are proposing is the ultimate totalitarian society. What you own is yours to distribute, hence only those who ALREADY have make all the decisions. Those who don't have, ALSO don't have a means of acquiring, hence are doomed to eternity to be at the mercy of the have's. Yes, I realize you skip all the initial problems with your theory and jump to advocating that the builders of the factory are the 'owners' and I assume the workers of the factory also 'own' a stake as well. But distribution from the factories output has to be determined somehow and without leadership to determine that, there can be no distribution. Further, the output from a shoe factory is completely worthless if I need food and shelter. Without a means to convert that output to a usable currency to fill my needs my 'ownership' stake is essentially worthless. I can't trade a pair of shoes (or ten thousand pairs) for a house. The house builder simply won't need that many shoes. I can't sell the shoes as there is no currency in your fantasy land. So in order to obtain a house, I must first trade shoes for all the things the house builder wants in exchange. An impossible task. Essentially my shoes are worthless to me. "If you don't recognize the difference that I stated between 'communism' and 'Communism', and also ignore the definition that I provided for such, then I win this debate " In order to 'win' a debate, you have to actually DEBATE the TOPIC at hand. You have done no such thing. You have run around in circles and claimed victory without addressing what the actual debate is about. Your twisted definition is not applicable to this debate. I means absolutely nothing. You did not start this debate, you accepted it. As such it is incumbent upon you to debate the ACTUAL topic, not try to change the topic to something you'd rather debate. Please read the title of this debate again: "Communism is an antiquaited, disproven political/economic system both morally and practically." It has nothing to do with YOUR fantasy theories that CAN NOT be put into practice, but rather the ACTUAL practice of Communism in reality. Nobody can debate your fantasy because it is impossible to implement. "Thus, if you are arguing for 'Communism', then you are arguing about the wrong topic" You seem VERY confused. This isn't YOUR topic, it's mine. It is YOU who is arguing the wrong topic in an attempt to avoid arguing the ACTUAL debate topic. In some bizzare attempt to avoid arguing what you were challenged to, you instead claim that I am 'arguing the wrong topic' which is completely impossible since it's MY topic. Let me say this again, we aren't debating the topic YOU chose in your other debate, which is nothing but a distorted view of what you think Communism should be, not what it is in actual practice. We are arguing the topic *I* set forth in the challenge. You don't get to change the topic to suit your whims simply because you can't defend Communism as a political/economic system IN PRACTICE. "You also state that the system is impossible to implement, your evidence for such?" Common sense. You advocate a worldwide system with no Governments and no currency. OF COURSE that is impossible to implement. It would involve not only 7 billion people collectively agreeing to abandon their current system and jump blindly and leaderless, into a fantasy theory with no guidance what so ever but it would REQUIRE political, business, and religious leaders around the world abandoning their power, influence, and wealth simultaneously. Not even the most active imagination can believe any of that being realistic. "I don't see how that would be possible, since there is no government or leader pushing them to adapt, they would do so of their own free will. " 7 billion people of all classes and statures collectively adapting to something, anything, of 'their own free will' without so much as leaders to move them in that direction? You can't really expect anyone to read your arguments and take them seriously, can you? "since capitalism influenced people like Marx, that we can use this idea to show that humans are eventually going to want a different system of socio-economics to habitate in." No large group of people are going to agree what this 'different' system should be and for absolute certain the entire world population is not going to agree on a philosophy most wouldn't understand, would be a step down for the majority, AND do so without leaders or currency. Just because YOU think a system is right for everyone, doesn't mean the entire world population believes that, as would be required. "all I am saying is, 'communism' is a system that would be an alternative to capitalism after it collapses." Capitalism isn't about to 'collapse'. It undergoes change often, but it can't collapse. There are shades of capitalism in EVERY economic system and Capitalism basic tenant, supply and demand, dictates EVERY economic system whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Without competition and Government regulation there is no quality control. Without quality there is no demand. Without demand, you are spending valuable man hours to produce nothing of value. The old Soviet Union propped up factories that were producing inferior products with no demand because they didn't know what else to do with the labor. That created a tremendous amount of waste and helped lead to the fall of the system. With no Government to prop it up, the vast majority of factories and producers would be destined to failure. "Also, Microsoft wouldn't exist in a 'communist' society, it's factories would be owned by the workers. " Here in lies the problem. The factories only produce what Microsoft creates, Without Microsofts innovation, research and development, marketing, etc. there is no NEED for the factories as there will be no products to produce. "if Xboxes are wanted, and needs are satisfied, then they would be produced. " No they wouldn't, because they wouldn't be invented in the first place...ditto ALL Technology. And medicine. "(Note that you are using the term 'Communism' which is not the system I am advocating for in this debate.) " Then you have one more argument to argue the actual debate topic. Again, YOU don't get to determine the parameters of what is being debated. That was done in the challenge argument. You accepted the challenge and decided to debate something entirely different. By default your arguments are non-sensical to the ACTUAL debate that you accepted.