Fascism and her 'Institutes'

My Opponent Argues that "I also 'blindly' refer and associate 'Corporatism (Capitalism)' with Fascism and associate Social Unity with the basis of Socialism. If you would like to think about this for a moment . .. the current stage of 'Corporatism' is a step away from that of 'Fascism' itself and goes contrary to that of Society (Socialistic Principle). The 'Fascist and her Institutes' are really that of American and world 'Corporatism'. In light of this, I propose that this governmental basis is 'contrary' to the good of the people (Social well-being and universal equality), because it gives only for the basis of 'Big Corporations' in lieu of 'Big Government' working in tandem with labour of the people. " However corporatism is not synonmous with Capitalism, Corporatism does not mean a system of the corporations as in big business. But it is actually where the Government includes and therefore co-opts the various bodies and special interest groups in the country. . http://en.wikipedia.org... As my opponent will see if he reads down to the third 'paragraph', "Corporatism has been supported from various proponents, including: absolutists, conservatives, fascists, progressives, reactionaries, socialists and theologians. " So therefore Corporatism is a feature of both fascism and socialism and many other systems. Also my opponents contention that this Corporatism by which he appears to Captalism is flawed because it only serves the will of the big business is flawed. Though I conceed that companies are more concerned with profit than public good it can be noted that Capitalist countries are able to make more use of their wealth and are more likely to raise the standard of life for the average citizen. For all the equality of the USSR and for all the 'greed' of Capitalistic USA people in the latter group seldom had to queue for hours for a loaf of bread. "In further to my opponents argument and blatant denial of Social Progression, I also offer another defining moment in clarified definition . .. Social Principle is the involvement of the government commanding and directing the 'Social' well-being and 'wholeness' of the people (as also, for the most part, the economical sector); Communism is involvement of the Government in direct control of the ways and means of the 'entirety' of 'Social' and 'Internal' conduct and principle; and Fascism is the involvement of the Government through 'entire' control of the information, and in extension, cultural beliefs and behaviours. " Again I object to this, Communist countries also extend control over information, cultural beliefs and behaviours. In this regard Nazi Germany is identical to the USSR, China and North Korea. My opponent quotes, "To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not; Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism and Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similitude can be seen in a common definition of fascism: 'A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc. )' " [Based upon: American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957" I believe that a better definition would be to replace the word 'controlling' with the word directing, however in what way does the above quote succeed in establishing a proper distinction with any socialist model? "The main characteristic of 'Social Principle' is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, individual's retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the 'government' holds total power over its use and disposal. " I would counter with this, though my opponent talks of the social principle he has made connections with Socialist regimes. Under Socialism/Communism private property is suppressed or outlawed. In name property belongs to the people, in practice it belongs to the state and in reality that means a small wealthy elite ruling class. Fascism, with merely alters or goes with Capitalism does allow for private property, whilst at the same time demanding exactly the same levels of 'co-operation' from their citizens. As it is obvious that being able to work for your own personal profit, and to collect purchase and inherit property is part of being free and happy we must conclude fascism to be the superior doctrine. In conclusion I feel I have been able to at least mitigate many of the accusations laid at the door of fascism. My opponent who has presented Socialism as a superior alternative has failed to define socialism as a truly seperate concept from fascism, and has failed to establish how it is in any qualititive way superior. My opponent has introduced the concept of the social principle, but has not demonstrated how this is different, or redeeming in regards to Socialism and Socialist regimes. It is thus for that reason I consider my opponents position negated and I urge a vote in my favour.