Communism is Fascistic in Principle

Thanks for the challenge! I'll do my best.Anarchy and CommunismWhile viewed as a variation of communism, I think most anarchist communists are of the opinion that "Anarchy leads to Communism, and Communism to Anarchy, both alike being expressions of the predominant tendency in modern societies, the pursuit of equality".[1] The notion of "equality" referred to is critically important. It is commonly thought that if you and I are to be equal, then we must live lives which are, generally speaking, identical. We must live in identical houses, wear the same plain clothes, etc. This is not at all what the anarchist communist means when he advocates a society of equal, rather, he means that he is "truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free".[2] It is equality of power that the anarchist communist desires, because he sees that a free society is one in which no man has power over another. The modern notion of "liberty" contains with it the notion of "economic freedom", but we anarchist communists reject this. "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality". [3] That may seem a little contradictory, since I earlier stated that socialism is an element of liberty, but what Bakunin means is that eliminating all inequalities of power apart from private property leads to privilege and injustice, and eliminating private property but not other inequalities of power leads to slavery and brutality. The Soviet UnionThe argument that communism requires dictatorship can only be based on the notion that it is impossible to abolish private property without permanent brutality, and in favour of this the example of the Soviet Union will be cited. If we hold communism to be a society of equals, as I do, then it is clear that the Soviet Union was antithetical to communism. Lenin believed that "unquestioning subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary" to the "the interests of socialism".[4] He quickly moved to destroy worker control, creating the Supreme Council of the National Economy, which, as E. H. Carr notes, functioned to "replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers' control".[5] How does Lenin describe this situation? He calls it "state capitalism".[6] He argues that it "is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism".[7] Even to Lenin himself, the Soviet Union was not worthy of being called communist. It was a state capitalist society, because he alleged that "it is one and the same road" that leads to both state capitalism and socialism.[8] The reason he uses the phrase "state capitalist" is clear, since if the economy is controlled by the state, and the state is controlled by a dictator, then this is simply a country where that dictator is effectively the "owner" of all industry, since he alone has the right to use it as he wishes. If we understand private property to be something that only the owners have the right to use, the the Soviet Union did not abolish private property at all, they simply concentrated all property in the hands of the dictator, as he alone was ultimately in control of it. Whether I can say that Lenin was against socialism or not I cannot really say. The Bolsheviks followed the teaching of Marx, who, according to Goldman, taught "that a social revolution is possible only in countries with a highly developed industrial system and its attendant social antagonisms. They therefore claim that the Russian Revolution could not be a social revolution" .[8] Regardless, this belief led to the suppression of socialism. In Russia, the people wanted ""The land to the peasants, the factories to the workers", and ""All power to the Soviets".[9] The soviets were originally conceived of as workers councils, i.e. a soviet was a delegation sent by a group of workers to practice direct democracy. This is socialism " "the Revolution was to find its highest, freest practical expression through the Soviets". [10] However, " as soon as the Communist Party felt itself sufficiently strong in the government saddle, it began to limit the scope of popular activity".[11] How could the people be subordinated to a single will if they had the democratic Soviets? Lenin had to destroy them, because they "threatened the supremacy of the State".[12] It is well established that the Communist Party alone had power in the USSR, and not the socialist soviets of the workers. As Wikipedia aptly states, the "decisions of state policy were decided within the organs of the Communist Party" while the soviets acted as a system for public approval of implementing the Party's programme".[13]I believe with Goldman that "the Russian Revolution has demonstrated beyond doubt that the State idea, State Socialism, in all its manifestations... is entirely and hopelessly bankrupt".[14] The idea that communism as "fascistic" has arisen because of the irreconcilable tension between a Social Revolution and a State. It is impossible to desire both equality and subordination, and so it is impossible to desire both communism and a state. The purpose of the state must always be the "subordination of the individual";[15] it is a matter of definition. A state which has power over no one is no such thing, and an entity which as power over someone necessarily creates an inequality of power, and violates the first principle of a free society.OrganisationI am aware that "the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labelled 'the people's stick'".[16] This is why a Social Revolution can only succeed by "free self-organization and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence from above". [17] Kropotkin agrees: "a free society" must seek free groups and free federations of groups".[18] This is one of the hardest elements of anarchist communism for people to understand, as "we have come to believe that man would tear his fellow-man to pieces like a wild beast the day the police took his eye off him; that absolute chaos would come about if authority were overthrown".[19] Even if we do not forsee a descent into savagery, we still believe that no one work would, because, "nothing gets done... save by order of some master".[20] I have come to see this as pure dogma; "the prophets ever ready to deny other men"s courage, good sense, and intelligence, and believing themselves to be the only ones capable of ruling the world with a rod" ignore the simple truth that "men, as soon as their interests do not absolutely clash, act in concert, harmoniously, and perform collective work of a very complex nature".[21][22] The only government a communist society needs is "free agreement" and "free organisation".[23] Any function of the state is a function of organisation, and people are perfectly capable of freely organising.Private PropertyProperty is often considered an element of freedom. First I point out that "As long as Capital exists, the Greater Capital will oppress the lesser".[24] The richer man may not destroy the poorer at a whim, but he nonetheless has more power. This is displayed most clearly in labour. Private Property makes "the labour of the many the wealth of the few" by the very fact that there are employees working for an employer.[25] It is said that the difference between slavery and employment is that the employee may one day become an employer. Attempt to use this justification for any other crime and you will see its absurdity. The absolute lack of democracy and autonomy in the workplace is a clear indication that employment has no place in a free society.Furthermore, private property is an insanely arrogant notion. "Each discovery, each advance, each increase in the sum of human riches, owes its being to the physical and mental travail of the past and the present. By what right then can anyone whatever appropriate the least morsel of this immense whole and say " This is mine, not yours?".[26] The means by which private property is attained is incoherent. Do I own the air I exhale, because I worked to change its chemical composition? The absurdity of the lie is magnified when the outrages of wealth inequality are investigated, as the statistics would have us believe that a tiny percentage of the population are somehow responsible for producing half of the material we enjoy in life.AfterwordHow can it be that "Men are not good enough for Communism, but they are good enough for Capitalism?".[27] If men are too despicable to be trusted, then why do we trust them with power? Eliminate power; at least then these evil men will not be encouraged and enabled to harm the good people, who will prosper in freedom. "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'" - Martin Luther King [1] Kropotkin, P.A., "The Conquest of Bread" p.23[2] Bakunin, M.A., "Man, Society and Freedom"[3] Bakunin,M.A., "Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologianism"[4] Lenin, V.I., "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government"[5] Carr, E.H., as quoted by Chomsky, A.N., "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism"[6] Lenin, V.I., "The Tax In Kind"[7] Ibid.[8] Goldman, E., "My Disillusionment in Russia"[9] Ibid.[10] Ibid.[11] Ibid.[12] Ibid. [13] http://en.wikipedia.org...(council)[14] Goldman, E., "My Disillusionment in Russia"[15] Goldman, E., "Anarchism and Other Essays", p.62[16] Bakunin, M.A., "Statism and Anarchy"[17] Ibid.[18] Kropotkin, Pa., op cit. p.32[19] Ibid. p.113[20] Ibid. p.113[21] Ibid. p.123[22] Ibid. p.114[23] Ibid. p.125[24] Ibid. p.117[25] Marx, K.H., "The Civil War in France", p.24[26] Kropotkin, P.A., op. cit. p.8[27] Kropotkin, P.A., 'Freedom' June 188