Communism is the greatest economic ideal

I negate, "Communism is the greatest economic ideal." Note to judge: I didn't place everything as it should on a flow. I placed it in the order it made sense. I agree with all of my opponent's definitions except "communism" – addition: what the Communist Manifesto says. All of it. "ideal" - This will be explained in-case "economic ideal" – an economy we should work towards 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. Value Criterion: When we are attempting to weigh any two ideas, mindsets, or plans against one another, we need to look at their real world implications. The topic at hand is weighing one belief against all others, and as nice as communism may seem to be, its requirements of humankind will inevitably not work on a larger scale. We can't just look at different systems of economics and what they value as highest, and then say which one is better based off of what they just believe. If two people both have good values, there's no way to weigh them: Communism wants to provide equality and basic needs for all; while another system like Capitalism says that whoever is the smartest and works with money the best should have the most capital. Both sound fine, but how we really start to weigh those two is how they fly with all the attributes and implications of the real world placed into effect. Those impacts are how the debate is going to be weighed. With that said, his first three paragraphs can be dropped. But even if that's not true… "Communism is a solution" - Since the resolution does not specify an actor, i.e., specifically for whom that Communism is the greatest economic ideal, we can already go CON because 1) certain rich and powerful people aren't about to see communism as the greatest economic ideal, and 2) communism is brought about through a revolution by urban factory workers. Rich and powerful people tend to not be urban factory workers. If we are going to weigh communism we must also look at how the process is brought about: and if it is not a revolution by the urban factory workers and only by the urban factory workers, then it isn't communism. "Poverty cannot exist…" - Just because communism aims for elimination of poverty does not mean it will achieve that goal, neither does it mean we should consider its means when finding out what's the greatest economic ideal. If a value can't do its job in real life, why would we bother idealizing it? - 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. "Economic growth…" - Your example doesn't fly; saying "arguably" does not argue the argument for you. - There's no proof that it improves overall quality of essentials for life - Why does improving the overall essentials of life dictate what economy system is best? - 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. Vladmir Lenin attempted to implement this, something he called "War Communism", and this was the result: "Between 1918 and 1920, Petrograd lost 75% of its population, whilst Moscow lost 50%. A black market emerged in Russia, despite the threat of the martial law against profiteering. The ruble collapsed and was replaced by a system of bartering and, by 1921, heavy industry had fallen to output levels of 20% of those in 1913. 90% of all wages were "paid with goods" (payment in form of goods, rather than money). 70% of locomotives were in need of repair and the food requisitioning, combined with the effects of 7 years of war and a severe drought, contributed to a famine that caused between 3 and 10 million deaths." – Wikipedia, ‘War Communism' - Overview 1: The problem with communism is that it only works if everyone works hard, wants to work hard, is intelligent, and is a benevolent person. Its system collapses very easily, as by ensuring that everyone get the same amount of capital, anyone can just stop working at any time and still get that pay. Given, people shouldn't be doing that no matter what system of government or economy they're under, but that's human nature: If they work twice as much as someone else, but still receive the same pay, what's the point? (Continuation) If communism actually worked out it would be great. But the truth of the matter is, there's no way that communism will fly unless we can suppress human nature from absolutely everyone: Every time that communism has attempted to place itself into effect, there has been a leader. Human nature, according to psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, is naturally to follow. Out of Kohlberg's theory of moral development, he tells us that most of us never pass the "conventional stages", where most of us make decisions based off of what authority and what our peers say. As my own psychologist teacher says, out of 100 people there are three hell raisers, four guardian angels, and ninety three clueless ones. Those 93 are the followers, and if EVEN ONE of the evil three get into a position of power, the whole system collapse – because all the while, it will be preaching "the state serves the people", and that "we are all equal". We can see this very clearly in the parts he does not mention about Stalin's regime. He is a perfect example of one of the "hell raisers". - His little part about Stalin does not link back to any of his previous impacts at all, as Stalin carried out mass killings by the state by denouncing people as "working against the people", and sending millions of people to gulags and slave labor camps in Siberia, where it was said that if you attempted to relieve yourself, it was so cold that doing so would form an icicle and you would need to have that part of your body removed. - I am not saying innovation does not exist; that point is nonunique. - 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. If that's happening in communism and it's not happening with capitalism, There's no way communism can be the best economic system, let alone the greatest economic ideal. Overview 2: EVEN IF roycegee gets all the good impacts of his case, he doesn't link to the resolution at all. The resolution does not say "communism is good", but rather, "Communism is the greatest economic ideal." Grammar dictates, "greatest", as a comparison to others, and as my opponent defines it, "superior in quality." Since he did not compare, he cannot win the round.