Communism > Capitalism

I will organize my rebuttal using my opponents RD 1 order. Look to my tags. On a lawless society: The reason I stated that there are no 'laws', is because a ruling body is needed to carry out these 'laws', and since government is abolished, these types of 'laws' cannot exist. Though, there is such a thing as abiding by the laws of nature. Humans are not lawless and don't believe anything they do should go unpunished. Incredibly influential philosopher John Locke properly characterizes the nature of man in the following, from his Second Treatise of Civil Government: "But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. .. " In the event that someone were to murder, steal, or rape, he or she would be at the mercy of his or her community in which he or she lives in. Though vigilante justice, in this particular case, is almost democratic, this doesn't negate the fact that Communism cannot exist. It proves a possible flaw in the theory, or even just a spot in the theory that is indeterminate, but no political theory is infallible. However, to say that it can't exist because one piece of it is problematic is silly, and does not give us enough reason to believe Communism can never exist. Furthermore, keep in mind that Communism is more than just a change in regime or government structure. It is a change in culture. With that change comes a necessary change in natural laws. If people act as John Locke would have them, abiding by the Golden Rule and rationally trying to further their own species (which can be taught if we are diligent), then the capacity for human beings to live without the need for strict legal enforcement increases dramatically. Don't let my opponent limit the potential for humans to grow and evolve, since that potential is limitless. On currency as motivation or materialism as motivation: There hasn't always been 'money'. Bartering societies have thrived for extremely long periods of time, prior to outside influences. The only reason most of those societies have changed, is because they have been conquered and forced to accept a new way of doing business. Man does not inherently require a monetary supplementation to quench a genetic thirst to buy things with 'money'. Extrinsic incentives are not the only incentives that can motivate an individual to want to succeed and provide for his/her community. Intrinsic motivators are arguably more effective, as they pierce the conscious and are more understandable than flimsy green paper, or a record of wealth in a bank account. Communism thrives on intrinsic motivators, because a desire to provide according to one's ability, in order to sustain a society, can be great motivation. Where exactly in Communist theory, are workers not given the right to strike? Freedom is the main proponent of Communism, this confuses me. .. It's becoming apparent that Con's arguments seem to be relying largely on the idea of currency. There is no set wage for workers in a Communism; because there is no money. I understand this might be hard idea to conceptualize, but it is necessary if you are to truly understand Marx's vision. The incentive to produce is provided by the community. If the writer needs ink and a book to write in, the positions are filled by those who can fill them, in order for the writer to be able to spread knowledge. Or the butcher needs a knife, the knife maker plays his part, and he and his community are provided with meat. My opponent's criticisms of Communism seem to originate from criticisms of Socialism, which is where most of our preconceived notions about Communism come from, rather than actual Communist theory. On supply & demand, as well as citizenry needs. There is nothing in Communist theory that says production is controlled and surplus is non existent. The only thing that it does do is prevent any surplus from being controlled by a single party and possibly be exploited by withholding the surplus in exchange for greater payment. In regards to a time of famine; any producer of food would be largely motivated by self interest and altruism alike to provide even greater for the community. In a Capitalistic society, the poorer citizens would starve in a time of famine because of their inability to pay for food. Take for example, the Great Depression. The lower and middle class suffered the most, as they could not pay for the most necessary things (i. e. food, housing, electricity etc). The rich also suffered, but were still able to afford necessities. A poor man deserves to live just as much as rich man. On equality & rights How does Communism take away the rights of body, life, mind, and actions? And where does it strip one of their intellectual property? This isn't Big Brother. Also, the problem of some individuals working harder than others will arise, there is no doubt of that. But the idea of all contributing equally in their society would spread quickly through education, as it is a learned altruistic behavior. Though, in round one, I asked that we skip the idea of the long enduring learning process. How is a Communistic society a forced equality? It is the people themselves who strove for the system. Also, to believe that a 'lazy worker' would thrive in a Communism, is quite naive. Communist need to survive as well, they will not just sit idle if this were to occur. On education It is not true to assert that Capitalistic education systems would surpass a Communistic counterpart. Many of the education systems in self proclaimed Capitalist nations aren't working out so well. The U. S. is a perfect example. To look at it from a Capitalistic perspective, how motivated is a teacher in a society where in a public system they make 50,000 a year even after 10 years of service, while a professional athlete will make 10 million in a single contract. Good system eh? Also, in the nations with the most successful school systems, education has taken a Communistic approach. On competition Just because there is no one company attempting to monopolize a product doesn't mean there won't be incentive to go far and beyond. The incentive would be community driven. The desire to serve the community does not logically hinder individualism or creativity. Human beings are naturally ingenuitive, and will be so under any political system, be it Capitalism or Communism. People innovate even in the most oppressive environments, like totalitarian dictatorships. My opponent has yet to prove conclusively that Communism will hinder the human capacity to innovate. Now, my opponent uses Biological Determinism and Social Darwinism to flaw Communism. Some people will, without doubt, inherently be smarter, faster, and stronger than others; does this also mean that they should have a more luxurious life? Everyone has a skill, and everyone can contribute to society in some way. Maybe not entirely as effectively as someone else, but does this mean they should be punished for it? The rewards of a successful and striving individual will be intrinsic, rather than materialistic and hollow. My opponent uses the Soviet Union to attack Communism. I hope that voters will see that this is a terrible example of anything similar to Communism. The USSR was a totalitarian government lead by a demagogue who made his citizens believe they were all being treat