Anarchism vs Marxism-Leninism

I concede Con's P1 (that Marxism-Leninism leads to totalitarianism) and concede the validity of the argument, meaning if the premises are true then so is the conclusion. I will of course attempt to show in this debate that the premises are in fact not true though. Totalitarianism- Some problems.(A) Power structures and Corruption.Con from what I can see mostly just ignored the concept of a corrupt dictator or totalitarian regime. The problem with this though is that not only would a totalitarian regime create structural incentives which would attract corruption, but there would be no check if a dictator in control of such a regime actually became corrupt. So under totalitarianism, we would see a large likelihood of corruption, coupled with no way to stop or resist it. As far as the structural incentives which I mentioned, the point which I made in arguing against the idea of a State naturally withering away (after it has been infused with so much power) applies just the same. Consider my opponent's contention regarding the baseness of human nature: "without society or system of consequences(even granting that people at times try to defend people) there is no motivation for resisting the urge to take advantage of people and taking what they want from them when they want it." It's certainly an interesting point and works well in refuting Con's point. For consider the tenets of totalitarianism. Under said system, political power is entrenched with one person (or one small group of people). Where exactly is the "system of consequences" needed to deter the people at the top of a totalitarian dictatorship from abusing their power. That's just it, there are none. Because totalitarianism disarms completely the majority of the population while giving a small number of elites near unlimited power, those in power will inevitably use those resources to exploit those weaker then them. It appears totalitarianism is ironically itself guilty of the argument used to supposedly make anarchy untenable (I will respond to this point below). (B) Mass Murder and Death.Con made an interesting note in his round. He claimed that "Cold corpses speak louder than abstract freedoms". Perhaps. I would also say that they speak louder than abstractions on the preferentially of totalitarianism. Consider the empirical evidence from various totalitarian regimes. Around 1.66 million deaths by democide[1] under the current totalitarian regime in N. Korea[2], almost 4 million under the Khmer Rouge totalitarian regime[3], and at least 20 million killings by the German Nazi regime[4]. Add on the mass killings under the Maoist, Stalinist, and Leninist regimes and the deaths speak for themselves. Totalitarianism does not lead to more security (unless one refers to those who are themselves wielding the power), instead it leads to mass murder and essentially no security for the citizenry. [5]Anarchism- A defense.(A) Utility Contention. One of the claims regarding the tenability of anarchism made by Con was that value of an individual lies only in its utility to the State. The point (while being entirely unsubstantiated and really just an assertion by Con) fallaciously mistakes the State as an entity on its own. But the State is nothing but a group of people with the power to project their edicts on a populace. It is not some separate entity other than the individuals which make it up. So to claim that individuals are only worth what they're worth to the State is essentially to claim that individuals are only what they are worth to other individuals who claim State power. Seeing as this is the case Con has the burden to substantiate this categorical distinction between people part of and separate from the State. (B) Human nature. Not only does totalitarianism exacerbate the supposed problem which my opponent has pointed out regarding human nature (see Totalitarianism, point A), but a state of anarchy is actually in a special position as the only form of political organization which would be apt to deal with the problem. Under anarchism, there is no institution within society who's relative power over the rest of society is expanded so much as the State. In anarchy, the concept of political power would be abolished. Since political power is simply the most powerful weapon which criminal persons use to extend their will over the weak, abolishing this would also mostly abolish the problem my opponent has pointed out. (C) Individual safeguards. Now one might still object to anarchism because of the thought that anarchism really would be what Hobbes described as war "against every man". The contention though is hardly supported by anything in my opponent's argument though, short of undefended assertions. Furthermore, research into game theory has produced favorable results on the question of the need for a central authority for society to function[6]. On top of that there have been several points of thought looking into possible stateless and polytheistic forms of law which could exist under anarchism from private law[7] to federative or syndicate community setups. In conclusion, the Hobbesian nightmare of perpetual war is entirely unsupported as the supposed inevitable result of an anarchist society. ===Sources====[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.hawaii.edu... (Statistics of Democide by R.J. Rummel, Chapter 10)[3] Ibid (Ch. 4)[4] http://www.hawaii.edu... [5] http://www.hawaii.edu... (Figure 1.2)[6] http://www.spunk.org... (Anarchism and Game Theory by Doug Newdick)[7] https://cis.org.au... (Polycentric Law in a New Century by Tom Bell)