communism is inevitable

My case is simple, that communism is inevitable. Before I explain why I'll take the time to set the definitions integral to this debate. The first term, inevitable, is pretty simple to define: unavoidable or certain to happen eventually or by some point. The other term, communism, is a bit more general and difficult to define. There are a lot of definitions of communism and sections of it that twist and turn words that make it more complicated so for the purposes of this debate we'll stick with the standard Marxist definition, that is: a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and need.

To make this easier to follow along my argument is essentially going to boil down into three points:

Let's start with the first point, that capitalism is unsustainable. Well, capitalism is inherently an unstable system. This isn't very difficult to understand because all we have to do to realize this is think about what capitalism is and how it works. Capitalism is, essentially, based upon business cycles, that is a cycle or series of cycles of economic expansion and contraction. For everyone who isn't familiar please see a rough depiction of a business cycle below: 

Essentially, capitalism has up points and down points because of the very nature of the system. When capitalism goes through a down point(a recession) the labor movement becomes stronger, that is the need for things like social programs and unionization. This is because the system of capitalism is no longer able to support these more underprivileged individuals, the 'working poor', during these down points. This is not even to mention the fact that those who are impoverished, stay impoverished under capitalism. Don't believe me? Think again about what capitalism is. A trade of goods and services. If you are impoverished what do you have to trade? Obviously, it is not quite as black and white as this but you get the idea, this will be important later. 

So now we have established that capitalism, because it is unstable and because of its nature, is not really ever capable of supporting the impoverishment and at the points when it crashes, due to business cycles, is not able to support even more people, usually referred to as the working poor. Precisely at these points, things like social programs and public ownership becomes more necessary to help out these people. With this, we can establish that one does not become a communist by choice but by necessity. You don't become a communist because you think it's cool or interesting, rather you become a communist because it is the only system in which you can survive. At a certain point, as we have established, capitalism is no longer able to support you, so you become a communist.

Capitalism, ironically, accelerates this number of people who are forced to advocate for things like communist and public ownership through its polarizing of wealth inequality. If capitalism was left to its own devices, the type of wealth inequality we see now(which is already pretty severe) would be nothing to what we would see in a generation or two alone. The only reason it doesn't crash immediately is because of things like social programs. However, these can only slow down the inevitable - which is the crash of capitalism and its replacement with communism. Capitalism eventually will impoverish more and more people who it won't be able to support. Things like AI will vastly expedite this process through the mass unemployment they will cause. Over time, even if it is a long time, more and more will lose jobs, wealth inequality will continue to polarize, and thus the number of people who are unsupported the capitalist system will increase. 

Precisely when the number of people unsupported, or rather exploited, by capitalism(that is the impoverished and the working poor) become the majority, they will revolt against the minority thus establishing a communist regime. Revolt is similarly inevitable as, in the words of Marx, when "you have nothing to lost but your chains", all you can do is revolt. That is the only and single choice that you are able to make in that situation. This point requires no economic or technical explanation, only common sense. Why do you think slaves stood up to their masters, why do employees stand up to their bosses? When you are in that situation there is nothing you can do but to revolt and establish a better one, by the definition of the relationship you are incapable of doing anything except revolting, which is clear through a plethora of relationships and times throughout history as well.

Thanks for reading everyone, I look forward to the next round. Vote PRO!

On that same note, CON also claims that capitalism is sustainable. Despite the fact that CON admits only one sentence later that capitalism has been changed and modified over the years, this still demonstrates another misunderstanding of my argument. My point was that capitalism is an unstable system because it is based upon business cycles(see picture from previous round). Based upon that, saying capitalism is sustainable because it's still around today isn't a valid rebuttal. My point is that capitalism is inherently unstable and that will cause it to have effects(like polarization of wealth inequality and displacement of more people into poverty) that will prevent it from being sustainable forever. Other than that, it's just simple logic that an unstable system will not be sustainable forever.

Additionally, my opponent goes on to argue about how every country experiences wealth inequality despite their economic system and cites Russia as an example. This demonstrates firstly that CON doesn't really understand what communism is or the definition I set for in my first round as well as the simple fact that no socialist/communist today would ever argue that real socialism/communism has ever been tried/instituted in any society yet that we've seen. So again, communism(according to Marx) refers to the complete public ownership of all things by the society and where people are paid according to their need. Capitalism and Russia are more capitalism on steroids than public markets. Hopefully, that clears that one up, let me know if I should elaborate more.

The last major problem with my opponent's argument is that in his summary of my argument he says that "social programs somehow collapse capitalism -> WWIII-> communism". Please go back and reread my argument. This could not be farther from what my actual point was. Instability of capitalism because of recessions via business waves make things like social programs necessary, this was a sort of proof for communism being necessary and thus inevitable.