Communism is an ineffective system.

Before I begin I would like to congratulate my opponent for his skill in the debate so far. Although he has committed numerous fallacies, and although he has defended a ridiculous belief he has also managed to twist the debate away from it's initial meaning. He appears to have spent innumerable hours conjuring up ways of avoiding my questions. Wether or not Cuba is socialist at this time is not (and never has been) the subject of the debate. I mentioned Cuba along with Vietnam, North Korea, the USSR, and China so as to make the point that altruism has never succeeded thus far. An altruistic state should imply selflessness and lack of greed. Thus, a state where "Kim Jong Un hogs all the cake" isn't socialist a totalitarian state where Kim Jong Un"s dynasty rules the nation is not socialist. Socialism implies egalitarianism, none of the above are, at present, egalitarian. Now, in light of this new evidence I asked why these altruistic systems did not produce a society conscientious of their social class. If North Korea truly had achieved altruism, bronze statues of it"s dynasty would not be seen all over the country[1]. If Vietnam truly was altruistic, the presidential mausoleum in Hanoi wouldn't exist in it's present (grandiose) state[2]. If China truly was altruistic, chairman Mao Tse Dong would not have lived in a palace[3]. If Cuba truly was altruistic, capitalist interests (except for those of Coca Cola) would not rule supreme[4]. If the USSR and the Warsaw pact members truly had been altruistic, the Nomenklatura would not exist[5]. In conclusion, I asked you why these systems, which were supposed to promote selflessness, instead bred a race of bourgeois politicians detached from the realities of their countries. Instead, you declared that I had committed an ad hominem in an unrelated statement [6] and had continued to debate wether or not you had committed a no true scotsman fallacy [7] With this in mind my opponent is, in fact, very clever. This can be seen by the fact that he has successfully (thus far) managed to provide cop-out answers to my questions so that he can move on to isolated cases to justify altruism. He has, instead of questioning my argument, tried to pick apart the peripherals of my examples and definitions. You have strategically disguised your makeshift rebuttals with walls of unnecessary text. You have constructed elaborate covers for your broken ideology. In essence, you have attempted to engage me in a semantics debate. I speak on the behalf of the voters when I say that people want clarity. Numerous times you have evaded my questions and have disguised them with answers such as "your argument are weak". You have insulted me instead of refuted me. The audience requires that both sides answer the questions they have been asked. the audience demands that time not be spent arguing the true definition of poverty. The audience will not have it. You, much like the bourgeoise of the USSR, have bottled yourself behind a concrete wall. You dispute Cuba[8] North Korea[9] and Vietnam [10] as opposed to the (metaphorical) homeland of your side of the debate. However, the USSR"s weakness was it"s inability to communicate with the outside world. As it pushed itself further and further into its Warsaw-Pact cave it ate itself to death. Not having food or energy it flitted away. An incompetent and selfish upper class and a tired and dispirited lower class ate the corpse of the socialist utopia. They drained it of it"s energy, they drained it of it"s power to act. The once (relatively) proud Russia led by Stalin and Lenin before him in the fifties which then led the first man into space (after Stalin) rusted away. As the economy grew ,methods of control grew harder and harder to administer. Failed foreign policy led to import cuts and thus cuts in the standard of living of the people. Russia"s inability to listen to it"s enemies led it to bread lines and a ruthless secret police. Old communist party member after old communist party member tried to fix the system. They used old fixes to attempt to mend new problems. By the 1970"s the USSR was a ghost of it"s former self, by the 1980"s it was falling rapidly under new failed strategies and by 1991 the communist dream was killed[11]. It was the close minded nature of the communist world which led to it"s demise. In this debate, I hope that my opponent does not meet the same unpleasant fate. With the unpleasantries out of the way I will now, to avoid being hypocritical, invade the "motherland" of your debate. Throughout this debate I have come to believe that we have concluded that communism is only effective if it is possible, and that it is only possible if altruism is possible. Now, you have attempted to justify your belief using the "Asch" experiment. You believe that because people can be told to be a certain way by society and because altruism is a way to be ,society can teach people to be altruistic. I did not refute this because it is completely unrelated. If altruism is not "possible" or "a way to be" then it simply cannot be taught by society. To paraphrase my opponent, " Altruism is a stagnant goal that is impossible to achieve in a short period of time." (Citation needed relative to Mao). Now, obviously there is a difference between impossible and very,very difficult. However, considering the population of the world and considering the fact that attempts at altruism thus far have always been met by failure I believe that it is highly improbable that socialism and the preceding communism would ever be possible and that thus it would never be effective. Why should anyone defend a political ideology which probably won"t work? Now, in light of the erection of this solid conclusion I will allow my opponent to unconditionally surrender his position. If he does so he will not be ridiculed or insulted face to face. He must merely forfeit or leave a message announcing his concessions and no more shall be added to the debate. I am glad we have had this discussion and hope that my opponent has not taken his failure to heart. If he has, I apologize. [1]http://www.reuters.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]https://www.flickr.com... [4]http://www.meliacuba.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]An adhominem is an attack on the individual instead of on the argument. An example would be "Your argument is wrong because you are fat" I insulted you, I did not use an ad hominem. I merely stated that "You are fat". http://en.wikipedia.org... [7]No more shall be added. http://en.wikipedia.org... [8]Resorts which are owned by individuals are present in Cuba, thus, Cuba is not socialist. Altruism did not triumph. [9]I concede literacy rates, however, starvation is common place. I"d rather have food than know how to read. http://en.wikipedia.org.... To address poverty, I concede that a communist world wouldn"t be "poor" because everyone would be equal, but I still hold that it would have a low standard of living, which is the most reliable criteria. http://content.usatoday.com... [10]Vietnam has a low standard of living http://www.globalexchange.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... . Quality of life is subjective. Anyway, Vietnam has Limousines driving around through it"s streets, it isn"t even socialist.http://www.saigonlimousine.com... Yet another example of how altruism has not been successful. [11]http://en.wikipedia.org...