Communism in general is far worse than capitalism

I'll get right to it. Holodomor has nothing to do with Communism. With the information I took from your link, it killed in the area between 2.5 and 7.5 million people because a bad harvest of the U. S. S. R. 's farms, only 70% of the standard crop was successfully harvested. The other famines also have nothing to do with Communism. The "communist parties ideals" you speak of are subject to change, and have changed. The only part of Communism that is required to remain constant is its definition, which I am defending. Marx claimed that communism or socialism could only truly come into existence through violent revolution. And he was right. Such radical change cannot come progressively, like social reform in many countries of modern times, but rather through radical, instant revolution. In fact most of eastern Europe had communism and socialism forcibly established by the soviet union during and after WW2. The European nations were conquered. They don't get a choice, they are not independent anymore. They have to abide by the rules of their rulers just as every other conqured nation has had to abide to the rules of any empire in history. Capitalism doesn't directly promote violence, no, but it does encourage imperialism, slavery, and exploitation! Imperialism is the colonizing of inhabited lands for free labor and resources. Slavery is forced, free labor over other men, and is almost always oppressive. Exploitation is when the poor are required to work to pay bills they cannot afford, a sort of economic slavery. All of these benefit the owner of the business, who has no reason not to abstain from these practices without Socialist or humanitarian intervention, the former being more likely. I ask my opponent to stop giving links for arguments. Sources are to cite, not to present. The Great Purge was a totalitarian decision, not reflected by the main interests of Communism. Men and women under Communism have less to fear than their Capitalist counterparts; No bills to pay, no worrying about food or water, and no social classes. This is the basis of Communism, even if we are still looking for an effective way to manage and deliver these ideas to the people, that does not mean that it is an ineffective system, but rather one that requires much, much more study. As for my statement, time and time again history has showed us that a people who want to climb out of the ditch of poverty are best off using capitalism to do so. This is true. But this is not in perspective with the world. Listen here:1. If the wealth of the world is constant, then someone who become richer results in someone else becoming poorer.2. The wealth of the world is constant.3. Therefore, when someone becomes richer, it results in someone else becoming poorer. A main goal of Communism is to prevent this from happening. When one country benefits from another country, another suffers. When one conuntry suffers from another country, another benefits. This creates social classes. This creates exploitation of the poor. This creates racism. London also experienced a series of socialist movements in the 1800's, most notably the Charstist Movement, . http://en.wikipedia.org... was no need for a "purely Capitalist state" to improve the lives of immigrants who either had to work for little or starve to death. This is an example of exploitation, which could only be and was solved by social reform. In a perfect world, with no scarcity and perfect humans, anything would work. Socialism and communism failed because they ignored human natureI was referring to a "united" world rather than a genuinly "perfect" world. But even then, in a perfect world nobody would strive to achieve more power or more wealth. Communism would occur naturally, people would give to those who need. Capitalism would not occur naturally in a perfect world, because it still would promote social classes. No where in the definitions i viewed of socialism or communism mention . . . equalityCommunism removes social classes. Social classes are a difference between humans. Therefore, by removing them, you make humans more alike, and thus more equal. In a Capitalist system, however, people do not get equal chance in the world. A man born to rich parents will definately have more chances, even in a Socialist system, than a man born to slaves. Capitalism represents nobody, and Communism represents everyone equally. As for freedom, my opponent fails to address the freedom of people born as slaves, or in the colonies of imperialistic nations. These people definitely do not have the same freedoms, as they were born in oppression. Communism is more concerned about the state of the people than the peoples liberties. In other words, they are more concerned with the state of the man without the home than the man with the money to renovate his own. Is exactly representative of what would happen in a socialist or communist state, the government in a socialist or communist state has complete ownership over the means of production and therefore has a complete monopoly over all means of production. Monopoly: The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. . http://www.google.com...; The only difference between a state owned monopoly and a privately owned monopoly is that Communsim gives back to the people. It acts out of the benefit of the people. A privately owned monopoly only acts out of benefit from its owners, and doesn't care about the people they are exploiting. Although in capitalist systems the freer and less government control there is the less likely it is for monopolies to form. Actually, reality is exactly the opposite. May I inform you of John D. Rockefeller? His company was the first to use pipes to transport oil long distances, a very efficient technique, and gained control of over 90% of the oil market. [1] The fact there was no government control made it that much easier. Nowadays, almost all governments have passed Anti-Trust acts to prevent monopolies from forming, which is Socialist reform. And actually, Icelands economy is only 77.1% free. Thats 22.9% socialist. Bad example. Austrian economists of where government spending and government control eventually led to a huge bust in the 1930's. How was the Great Depression caused by government spending? It was caused by people spending money they didn't have, and when someone suddenly realized this, they took all their money out of the stock market, and so did everyone else. The people who didn't react quickly enough were left in poverty. Ask yourself this, why has socialism failed in most regions where it was adopted, whereas capitalism and freetrade hasnt? Because government does not exist by default. People naturally act greedy, and want to be more powerful than their fellow man. Capitalists embrace this, while Communists try to remove the greed, which leads to social class, exploitation, and slavery. Social reform has provided enough to prevent the latter 2 from happening, but only full economic revolution will fix the problems the world bares. CONCLUSIONCommunism represents people as a whole, prevents social class, and prevents individual poverty. Capitalists leech off of the work of others, encourage exploitation, and rob people of their ability. Which is worse? Well that is for the voters to decide, but I don't think Communism falls below the 30% range I defined in round 1 of this debate, which remains unchallenged. I await my opponents response! _______[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...