Communism is Fascistic in Principle

Although the different font and many quotes he uses may not seem necesarry (believe it or not, the fact that someone said something doesn't make it true), they do serve to make my adversary seem much more intelligent and researched. In this round, I think i'll pretentiously quote some intellectuals as well, thus both making myself look well-versed and relieving me of my responsibility to write something original! "Now let's begin. " (John Kern, 1932) Yeah, I know i'm having way too much fun with this. Anarcho-Communism: A Contradiction in Terms My opponent's cases hinges to a great extent on the claim that his own brand of communsim, the anarchy kind, is communistic in nature, and needs no liberty-shunting reinforcement to ensure its survival. For this to be true, anarchy must result in the following: 1. No private property 2. No selling/bartering 3. Noone having more then anyone else 4. Nobody having any kind of power over anything 5. Nobody getting paid to work It would almost seem a waste of time to exand on this at all, given that my rebuttal basically writes itself. When Con says "If men are too despicable to be trusted, then why do we trust them with power? ", I must ask: could there be any system of existence which relies more heavily on men being good then your own, Sir? I need not explain why anarchy could not possibly result in any of these eventualities. And here is the most potent reason why Communism of this type will result in dictatorship. All of these things I listed, and a great many more, cannot co-exist within an utterly, or even partly free society. Since the system is anarcistic, I must then be able to produce and sell commodities, and through doing that make myself wealthy and succesful. Since the system is anarchistic, I must then be able to claim a space as my own, and defend it from all intruders, be they criminals or my own neibhors. Since the system is anarchistic, I must then be able to hold power over my body, the things I make, and the space I claim for myself, right? No. Anarchy is not Communistic, and there is no way outisde of fascism to prevent people from doing what is right, and what is natural. Anarcho-Communism is simply an oxymoron, and it requires, and I do mean requires, repression for it to work. The Abolishment of Power This is an ideal topic to address, because it allows me to both take a jab at Communism and simultaneously discuss the proposition. (My opponent often sacrifices the latter for the former). I will confess that such an impressively-worded phrase sounds very tantalizing, but there are two claims in it that I think ought to be examined: 1. Power Can be Abolished 2. Power is by Neccesity Evil Neither of these implications seem true upon investigation. For the first, power is just too important, in some variety or another. Enforcing law or morality is power, ownership or the use of anything is power, and even raising one's children is a very direct form of power. And none of these things is evil, or removable. But how, you may ask, does this relate to communism and dictatorship? Well, because power of some sort (the most notable example a police force) is an absolute necessity, it can from there be controlled and regulated. The worst thing that can be done in relation to power is to pretend it need not exist, or can be eliminated. As in the case of every "Communist Utopa" ever attempted on a large scale, power did rise, as is inevitable to maintain any order, and because there were no reasonable limitations or a healthy mistrust of authority, these people were allowed to run rampant, essentially giving themselves all power. Private Property Is it evil to possess private property? Certainly it can be, and I accept many of the criticisms Con puts forth. But if I hunt and gather food, build myself a house, or produce my own objects, have I no right to keep or use those as I see fit? May others make a claim of my food and water? Banning private property is fascistic in its absolutism; it is one thing to restrict or place limitations on what you may own or what you may use, and quite another to ban it entirely. Cars are dangerous, both to humans and the environment. Shall we ban them? It is puerile and fatuous, and yes, tyrannical, to ban that which is so fundamental and in many cases good. Remember, this debate focuses not on Capitalism or whether private property is universally good, but rather whether banning it is inherently despotic, which I hold it is, and seems quite evident in the nature of property and of the government which exterminates it. (Oh. I forgot. No government. How is holding property supposed to be prevented again? ) I will leave my round 3 arguments here. It seems clear that having no government is infeasible, and moreover a foolish venture, and that the void of the much-needed power results in it getting put into the hands of the wrong people. Furthermore, I saw little response to the point about suppressing human nature. Good luck to my opponent in the next round.