Anarchism vs Marxism-Leninism

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato Hello and I would like to concede the definitions provided by the Affirmative case. These are adequate definition as well as providing insight to someone new to political theory. I would add one. Totalitarianism: : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority ===Con Case=== My opponent has done a predictable means of attack, attacking the transitional state phase. However Pro attacks the straw man and actually his case helps my own. You see the debate of Anarchism versus Marxism-Leninism needn't be actually be the debate on how to achieve anarchism because for all practical purposes as my opponent himself concedes Marxism-Leninism leads to a totalitarianism regime or at least better so than Anarchism. The problem with Anarchism is it fundamentally is contradictory with progressive society or progressivism at all. But I will wait to attack my opponents case till next round. Even though my opponent fundamentally attacked the straw man. So my argument will have no perceptions about Anarchism except that its aims are as defined in the definition. My deductive argument is as follows P1) Marxism-Leninism makes way for Totalitarianism P2) Totalitarianism is preferable to Anarchy C1) Marxism-Leninism is preferable to Anarchy. P1) Marxism-Leninism makes way for Totalitarianism My opponent points out that Marxism-Leninism creates a political class that is "State previously served to protect economic interests, the establishment of State socialism created an elite class interested in protecting it's current power" and that is the tell tale aspect of totalitarian regimes. The fact is in its creation of the proletarian the state ends up becoming a entity itself. Genuinely interested in protecting its power and helping humanity or at least those under him. The fact is for all practical reasons (as far as we have seen) the Marxist ideology leads to Totalitarian regime. My opponent even concedes the point it creates a politically powerful class that is interested in protecting its own power. It seems like this is the rather obvious that at least considering history and my opponents case that at the very least leads to Totalitarianism more effectively than Anarchy would. If that is simply true and the other main premise holds true than my opponents case falls. You see if Anarchy is less preferable than Totalitarian regimes and the Marxism better leads to Totalitarian regime than my opponent loses the debate because that means it follows Marxism-Leninism is preferable to Anarchy(better leading to a good form of government, instead of the undesirable lack of government). P2) Totalitarianism is preferable to Anarchy. Totalitarianism even in an imperfect state is preferable to Anarchy. The simple problem with anarchy is it simply contrary to progressivism. Society is allows individuals to succeed. The only value of an individual is their utility to the state. Individuals only look out for themselves. "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man." Thomas Hobbes This is the reason anarchy can never work it contradicts human nature. Even granting not all humans are inclined to destroy things or enslave other people or violate people's rights regardless there are individuals that aim to do so. The individuals 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. Cold corpses speak louder than abstract freedoms Totalitarianism is stability at all costs. Totalitarianism is only interested in maintaining or expanding laws to cover every foreseeable problem within society without compassion or moral judgment. The government in such a regime is advantageous to other forms of government as it shortens political processes while still maintaining the same result. Other advantages include dictators in a fascist reigime can (if they are uncorrupt) concern themselves fully with the best thing for their country, rather than trying to stay in power and not be voted out in the next election. Totalitarian regimes tend to be non-benevolent in nature, however stability is presumed value is much higher than any moral questions raised from such actions. Totalitarianism maintains a system of governance without giving in to major corruption because it attempts to control social behavior. Also it keeps elements of insured stability (unlike Anarchism) while maintaining a healthy and socially acceptable environment at any costs. Some people claim that Totalitarian regimes must be either racist or atheistic or both, however, its non-sequitur. The Italian Fascist regime was officially neither. It is necessary that regime is racist or atheistic all it need be is value insistent. C1) This is a valid argument. It may be complicatedly set but it doesn't contradict itself and does follow. I turn to my opponent for objections Works Cited "Marxism-Leninism Today." Marxism-Leninism Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 July 2012. <http://mltoday.com...;. "Totalitarianism." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 16 July 2012. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;. De Felice, Renzo Interpretations of Fascism, translated by Brenda Huff Everett, Cambridge ; London : Harvard University Press, 1977 "Anarchism vs Marxism-Leninism." Debate Topic: Anarchism vs Marxism-Leninism. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 July 2012. <http://www.debate.org...;.