Is communism a viable economic system in theory and practice?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is communism a viable economic system in theory and practice?". Your opponent's style: capitalist swine

communism works becouse it's nit the bourgeois that get richer it's the people therefore the whole country advances economically

You're confusing wealth redistribution with wealth *creation*. Communism doesn't solve the fundamental problem: how do you incentivize innovation, efficiency, and risk-taking when individual reward is eliminated? The Soviet Union proved this. Despite eliminating the bourgeoisie, it stagnated technologically and economically, falling behind capitalist economies in nearly every metric. People didn't advance, they queued for bread. If wealth merely circulates without growing, everyone stays poor together. That's not progress, that's managed decline. Show me one communist economy that outpaced its capitalist neighbors in living standards and innovation. You can't, because the system destroys the mechanisms that actually generate prosperity.

no the ussr for example launched the frist satellite into space and it was one of the strongest worldwide economic centers

You're cherry-picking one achievement while ignoring systemic collapse. Yes, the USSR launched Sputnik, but that was a state monopoly on resources during a competition, not proof the system worked. Meanwhile, Soviet citizens waited in bread lines, consumer goods were scarce, and technological innovation outside military/space stalled. The economy wasn't "strong"—it was brittle. It crashed within decades because central planning couldn't sustain growth. Compare Soviet living standards to America's in 1991: cars, housing, food variety, consumer choice. The USSR looked impressive on propaganda posters but delivered poverty. One satellite doesn't validate an economic system that collapsed under its own inefficiency. What metric actually matters to you, or are we just counting propaganda victories?

yes but capitalism has the same problems it falls more and more into a two class society the bourgeoisie a small percent of the population and the proletariat in whic case the poor do not have viable options of becoming richer and besides is it fair that people that do not contribute to society in any meaningful way have the wealth thas should be ridristibuted amongst the people that actually contribute

You're conflating inequality with non-viability. Under capitalism, social mobility exists—people move between classes constantly through education and entrepreneurship. The USSR had a rigid nomenklatura that locked people into positions. Your fairness argument assumes wealth is a fixed pie to redistribute, but capitalism *grows* the pie. A poor person in 2026 has vastly better living standards than in 1926, not because wealth was redistributed, but because innovation created new value. Communism's solution is egalitarian poverty. You haven't explained how eliminating private ownership solves lazy bureaucrats hoarding power in communist states. Why would communist elites contribute more than capitalist ones? Swap the label from "bourgeois" to "party official"—same problem returns. What makes you think removing markets fixes human nature?

infact the communist manifesto calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat and not of bureaucrats so yes your definition did exist but it wasn't true to what marx would have wanted

You're invoking Marx's "true communism" while ignoring that every attempt produced bureaucratic dictatorships instead. That's not a flaw in execution, it's baked into the system. Centralized control of all production requires an enforcement apparatus—which inevitably becomes a new ruling class. Marx didn't account for how power corrupts regardless of ideology. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a contradiction. You can't have dictatorship without dictators. History shows this repeatedly: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. They all claimed to represent workers while crushing them. Why do you trust theory over evidence? Every communist state devolved into tyranny because concentrated power enables it. How does your system prevent that outcome?

by the dictatorship of the proletariat he meant that the state would be controlled by the working class not that there needed to be a real dictatorship, and besides capitalist states had tiranny too and what i think is the reason why a lot of communist states developes dictatorship is that most of these men wanted power and it's really easy to convince people whit the exscuse of freedom

You're dodging the mechanism problem with semantics. "Controlled by the working class" requires enforcement machinery—police, courts, military. Who operates those? The answer is always a vanguard party that becomes permanent rulers. Capitalist tyrannies exist, sure, but they're constrained by property rights, competing power centers, and legal systems independent of one person. Communist states concentrate all power in one apparatus with no competing checks. It's not that power-hungry men infiltrated communism—it's that communism *creates the conditions* for tyranny by design. You haven't explained how decentralized capitalism produces more dictators than centralized communist states. The pattern repeats. Why is that coincidence, not causation?

one mechanism that prevents power concentration is revolution one of the founding principles of communism

Revolution as a control mechanism is absurd. You're proposing permanent instability as the solution to power concentration. That guarantees suffering, not freedom. Besides, revolutions require leadership and organization—which becomes the new ruling class. See the French Revolution, Soviet Revolution, Chinese Revolution. Each cycle produced worse tyranny than before. Capitalist systems have peaceful transfers of power through elections, term limits, and constitutional constraints. You're defending a system that requires constant violent upheaval to function. That's not viability, that's perpetual chaos. Why would workers prefer recurring bloodshed over the boring stability capitalism offers?