Hi and thanks for accepting the debate!
Dialectical argument is based on law of non-contradiction.
It is made of:
Thesis is the first position.
Antithesis is negation of thesis.
If antithesis is true, the thesis is false.
If antithesis is false, thesis stands true.
Synthesis either maintains original thesis either creates new thesis which is different from the original one.
Synthesis is one of these:
1. Negation of the antithesis while maintaining thesis
2. Negation of antithesis while changing thesis, creating new thesis
3. Negation of thesis while upholding antithesis, where antithesis becomes new thesis
Lets now look at how dialectical materialism applies law of non-contradiction to society.
Capitalists are seeking to get as rich as possible.
Workers are seeking to get as rich as possible.
There are limited resources in society.
Therefore, the more capitalists get rich, the less wealth is there left for workers.
1. Worker's wealth is thesis
2. Capitalist's wealth is antithesis
One cannot increase without other decreasing, because they are in contradiction.
My opponent might try to counter this by saying that capitalists increase total wealth, so both wealth of workers and of capitalists increases.
But wealth does not increase by a large amount all the time, and the word "wealth" already includes all wealth.
Since wealth is limited, not infinite, it follows that when distributed between two groups, if one group gets more, the other has to get less.
By basic laws of math, if wealth is limited, the more you give to one group, the less you are able to give to other group.
So the wealth of two groups is in contradiction even when total wealth increases, because even increased wealth still has to be distributed to two groups.
Wealth doesnt increase very fast, but in fact very slowly, and the two competing groups still must fight over who gets more.
The synthesis only has 3 options:
1. Negation of worker's wealth
2. Negation of capitalist's wealth
3. Balance between capitalist's wealth and worker's wealth which creates a new thesis.
Karl Marx argues that both 1 and 2 lead to Communism, as it is not possible to abolish worker's wealth or capitalist's wealth without abolishing capitalism.
While Karl Marx concedes that option 3 maintains capitalism, he argues that option 3 is much harder to achieve correctly than option 1 or option 2, and much harder to keep in good balance and prevent one side from prevailing more.
This is because correct balance in option 3 is the only thing maintaining capitalism in existence, and both workers and capitalists are actively working to abolish the correct balance in their favor.
Marx argues that crisis in capitalism is caused when capitalist's wealth prevails over worker's wealth, or when worker's wealth prevails too much over capitalist's wealth which places capitalists in desperate position.
Since its impossible to keep them in balance all the time, crisis happens often which shakes foundations of society.
Since government regulated economy is, by nature, difficult to keep in check, since it often either leans to workers or to capitalists, it is not good solution to the given problem.
In capitalism, not only is capitalist's wealth an antithesis to worker's wealth, but there are also richer and poorer workers, the unemployed people, the workers working more for very little money.
If richer worker takes more wealth, he leaves less wealth for poor workers.
So a richer worker's wealth is an antithesis to poor worker's wealth.
This creates a great amount of injustice and poverty crisis, because richer worker naturally seeks to get richer, and is able to, because you are able to make more money if you start with a more significant amount of money than if you start with smaller amount of money.
The one with more money is more willing to invest it to make more, as he has extra, where the ones with small amount of money are unwilling to risk as they barely have enough to cover basic needs.
This creates a system where the richer you are, its easier to get even richer, and other way is true: the poorer you are, the harder it is for you to get any richer.
We can see from the start that Capitalist system is immoral, where people step over each other in competition to take from the available supply of wealth, and those who succeed in taking more are enabled to take even more in the future.
Communism solves this by its very definition: to each according to need.
In fact, "from each according to ability" comes into agreement with "to each according to need",
as one is less able to work properly and contribute if his needs are not being met.
Communism, as taken from agreed definition, is a society where means of production and wealth are collectively owned.
So the ownership is democratic in nature.
The ownership is based on democracy and a democratic vote, as opposed to private ownership.
So in this sense, distribution of wealth is also done in a democratic way, as opposed to being privately managed.
So the management of a workplace is also done in a democratic way.
Since its practical to let workers manage the workplace and work to produce and sell their product, it follows that this practical way is the way which Communism will be implemented,
and is being already implemented in forms of worker coops everywhere around the world, and those coops are already more effective in terms of profit than typical capitalist mode of production.
Since workers in workplace get richer if they produce more, each worker makes sure the other worker does his job, removing the need for extra supervision needed in capitalism.
The economy of workplace would still be based on costs and profit, just managed by the workers who are working there.
Communism does not abolish cost and profit, but abolishes Capitalist's ownership by creating democratic ownership.
This is done on an increasing level in many countries in the world through distribution.
Since capitalist cant take extra wealth and buy himself a new house, workers have more, which they can either use to increase their wages either invest in improvement of production or safety in the workplace.
Since ownership based upon democracy is the most desirable ownership by tautology, since votes are an expression of a desire, and democracy ensures that largest number of votes are fullfilled, thus greatest number of desires in society are fullfilled.
So the Communist society is most desirable, the highest form of democracy possible, not just democracy in politics, but also in ownership and workplace.
The decisions which are unpractical to be made by a large scale democratic vote, such as smaller decisions in a workplace, are done by small scale democratic vote of those involved in that workplace.
The democratic ownership of everything on a large scale is moved to democratic ownership of everything on a small scale, so people in a small place make decisions about their own lives.
This is the highest level of democracy a society can have.
It is also morally good that each person gets a say, which is most possible in Communist collective ownership.
Greatest democracy is the greatest form of government, since all other forms are logically non-democratic or less democratic.
And since Communism is greatest democracy possible, it follows that Communism is the greatest form of government.
In non-democracy, needs of the few outweigh needs of the many,
But in democracy, needs of the many outweigh needs of the few.
Good is that which is desirable.
Communism satisfies greatest amount of desires.
Saving society's resources
Since the amount of resources in the world is decreasing, not increasing, it is better to share resources democratically to ensure everyone gets enough while contributing to society if able,
as opposed to some getting too much while others living in severe poverty which causes less stable society which is more likely to collapse in revolt.
So the more resources are used to buy expensive houses, expensive boats, expensive cars... the less resources are left to solve poverty and build the rest of society, and the less resources are there left for poorer parts of population.
This brings more balance to society, as opposed to Capitalist's extreme wealth for some and extreme poverty for some.
Wasting resources and increasing poverty when resources are limited increases possibility of war and civil war, as society due to incorrect distribution needs more resources than it has to sustain its population, causing part of population to be unsustained, as those who took more have basically took the sustain from others.
Capitalism by basic law of math, by greatly increasing the wealth of one small part of population, demands more resources to properly maintain other parts of population,
Where Communism, by not wasting resources to multiply wealth of few, demands less resources to maintain other parts of population, and is even able to direct more resources towards many.
Since in Communism, everyone contributes according to ability and gets according to needs, this further helps those in poverty.
The needs, contrary to the popular belief, are not to be given anything you want, but are equal to needs of other people, as wealth is distributed in a more equal way,
the balance between needs of all people is met.
When faced with these options:
1. Society in which everyone has basic needs met
2. Society in which some people have too much, while some other are denied of many basic needs
We see that society 1 is more moral and more desirable to live in.
From any of these 4 main points, which all stand true, follows that Communism is good.