Communism is Fascistic in Principle

Yes, sorry. I’ll try to make things as clear as possible in direct relation to the proposition. Rules “How does my opponent plan to sustain any of these strident, suppressive restrictions?”“The banning of private property, of personal power, of currency, of free trade, and the muzzle on human nature cannot… coexist with no authority”My opponent’s argument seems to be:1.A communist society, by definition, must operate according to rules2.It is impossible for any society to operate with rules without a government which enforces lawsConclusion: A communist society requires a government to enforce lawIn addition, he appears to accept the right of the ‘majority’ to force the ‘minority’ to live in a certain way, but claims that the majority will never accept my views and will thus have to be forced by a minority. If sufficient numbers of people accept anarchist communism, then the rest would likely conform due to societal pressure. Furthermore, ‘wrongdoers’, according to anarchist communism, could have force justifiably used against them by the people. Abandoning government and law does not mean that everything would suddenly become ‘permitted’, because the absence of a police force does not mean there is an absence of people who will use force to prevent wrongdoing, and the absence of ‘the law’ does not mean there will be an absence of social convention. Therefore, my opponent’s argument is flawed because, as I have stated many times, authority is not necessary for organisation. As far as I’m aware actors and actresses can manage to work together to put on a production without someone walking around with a stick ready to discipline them – even if it is a free show.Thus, my response is:1.A communist society, by definition, must operate by rules2. People are capable of observing rules without the threat of government forceConclusion: A communist society does not require a governmentAgain, however ‘unlikely’ you think it is for this to happen is completely irrelevant, since this is about the ideology in principle. Clearly I don’t think it’s unlikely, but regardless, this debate is not about how likely it is to happen, but whether a harsh military regime is necessary. Private PropertyMy opponent wants to prove not only that rules require governments, but that the rules that I propose are ones that require military regimes even if governments are not required for rules. “Con opts to redefine property to "assuming absolute control over something, which is both vague and basically just re-defining terms”“Absolute control of people is bad, of property is fine”I am confused. My opponent first declares that ‘I own X’ does not mean that I have ‘absolute control over X’, and he then proceeds to affirm that ‘having absolute control over X’ is fine, provided that X is an inanimate object. Apparently he is confused too: having absolute control of a plank of wood means I can do whatever I want to that plank, not that I can do whatever I want to other things with that plank. Property is about having inviolable control over a certain domain, here X. If I own X, then I can do whatever I want to X and X alone and no one else can do anything to X without my permission.“the ability to exchange goods and services, a right which is sacred”Assuming the right to private property is not particularly helpful. Am I despotic for refusing to accept that it is possible to make something your private property? I am not denying anyone the ability to do anything other than forbid other people to access things with they have no right to do. “Let us say that a hard-working individual chopped down lumber to build a large house, or a barn in which to raise animals. Would restricting this be a matter of morality, or of freedom?”I have no idea what I am meant to be restricting. Let us turn to an admired capitalist philosopher, John Locke. “It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others”.[1]My response is this: Why is there a need for property when it is clear that there is enough, and as good, left in common? It is also that Locke assumes self-ownership, which is completely unnecessary. It is clearly tyranny for this man’s neighbour to see this larger house and decide that he has more right to it than its current occupant, so property is completely redundant in this situation. Therefore, I reiterate, I have no idea what I am meant to be restricting. Furthermore, this is one of those capitalist objections that is completely removed from reality. If someone built a house all by themselves using wood, then the reality is that the extraordinary amount of time this would take them and the poor results of their hard work (a wooden house) would mean that this man was in fact a burden on society because instead of relying on a team of skilled house-builders with proper materials, he decided to waste all that time producing an inferior product, when he could have spent his time far more productively. I think you will find it is true for basically any endeavour that far more is achieved by cooperating with society to produce something than doing it yourself. If he had instead used bricks, mortar, glass, all produced by other people, and had built the house with the help of other skilled men, then he could have built houses for his entire neighbourhood of far higher quality than a silly wooden house for himself. New Harmony and IncentiveIt is my understanding that New Harmony was the insane experiment of man attempting to produce ‘perfectly virtuous individuals’ by having them all live in one building and live in a way that is superficially similar to anarchist communism. It is my understanding that he did not find a community of anarchist communists with a clear idea of what was to be done, but rather ordinary people. This is basically the equivalent of taking a thousand modern-day people and paying them all to be ruled by a king, who is also an ordinary person you have paid, and then when the ‘society’ you have created inevitably fails, you state ‘Aha! Monarchy is impossible’. You cannot take people accustomed to one form of society, place them in something completely alien, and expect results. It does not matter whether New Harmony was communist or not, since the methodology was so flawed. The idea of incentive in anarchist communism is that you are incentivised to work by the prospect of enjoying the product of your labour, or by the prospect of enjoying the product of the labour of society as a whole, to which you contribute. The capitalist response: ‘But if I already have a house, what incentive is there for me to continue making bricks? Why don’t I just sit at home?’. This is a silly response because the industries of society are inter-dependent. Bricks are needed not only for houses, but farms, factories and hospitals too. You may have shoes, but other people need the shoes you make so that they can produce the other things you enjoy. Under anarchist communism the incentive will be to work so that the economy you rely on to provide you with what you want will be as healthy as possible, so that your wants will be met to the greatest extent possible.ConclusionThere is absolutely no reason to think that anarchist communism is ‘fascistic in principle’. If you think that rules are best enforced by governments, laws and police forces, fine, but it is ridiculous to assert that this is the only method. That actually seems quite irrelevant. The contention, then, is essentially that private property is somehow a human right so inalienable that only a military regime could accomplish its abolition, as Ayn Rand attempts to argue:"the right to property is a right to action... to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object"[2] This is not the case. Turn instead to Chomsky:“Property rights are not like other rights… If I have the right to free speech, it doesn't interfere with your right to free speech. But if I have property, that interferes with your right to have that property”.[3]Property is a form of authority. Authority is something you have to prove that you ought to have over other people. Every other human right my opponent would identify would follow the formula ‘I have the right to not be oppressed in this way, because you do not have the authority to do that’. Property is the reverse: ‘I have the right to ‘oppress’ you in this way (deny you X), because I have authority over X’. Property is not necessary for any human behaviour. A world without property does not deny you the right to eat, sleep, dance, argue or love. Your right to do all of those things is not dependent on your right to control in a certain domain, but the absence of anyone's right to control you. If you think it would be inefficient, unsustainable, or impossible without the right kind of people, so be it, but none of that means that the ideology is ‘fascistic in principle’. Neither the Ukrainian Free Territory, nor Revolutionary Catalonia, employed martial law, and both were destroyed by conquest.[4][5] "Complete equality implies freedom, since those who suffer restrictions cannot be the equals of those who impose them".[6] I only defend anarchist communism. Thank you for the debate, and to anyone who has bothered to read this. I hope I've offered a helpful perspective. [1] Locke, J., ‘Second Treatise of Civil Government’, Chap. V ‘Of Property’[2] Rand, A., 'The Virtue of Selfishness'[3] [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] Rooum, D., 'What is Anarchism?' 1992