Fascism and her 'Institutes'

Though my opponent does not indicate a single position upon which to argue, he has entitled the debate Fascism and her institutes, has taken the con/against position, has posted several criticisms of fascism and has praised Socialism presenting it as adversary and alternative to Fascism. By taking the Pro side it shall be assumed that I am to defend fascism whilst undermining Socialism. The burden of proof is upon my opponent to show that has criticisms of Fascism are accurate and that Socialism is superior. It goes without saying that as this is a debate my politics and that of my opponents has no bearing on the debate. What is Fascism? A concise summary of Fascism is hard to achieve, Encarta defines fascism as, ‘dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favours dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism' . http://uk.encarta.msn.com... Wikipedia offers a fully explanation here, . http://en.wikipedia.org... What is Socialism? Socialism is possibly harder to define, it has a greater scope of time and space to allow for variation. As my opponent has not seen fit to refine this scope I am able to compare and contrast Fascism with any Socialist movement regime I deem fit. An explanation of Socialism is offered here. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent claims that, "Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil' on the future and the development of society, believes neither in the possibility or the application of permeating peace" This holds some truth, however I refute it on the basis that throughout all recorded human history there has always been war and conflict. There are currently no Fascist regimes, yet there is still war. Though the fascist regimes of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy were pre-occupied with military matters and waged aggressive war it is almost certain that any regime in those countries would have taken the same course. The annexation of Austria and the Sudentenland (technically these were ‘diplomatic actions but they were aggressive and did lead to war) were events predicted back in the days of Bismarck, before Hitler had even been born. Any reinvigorated Germany would have sought the return of her Polish territories. A strong Germany would have inevitably led to conflict with France and the wider international community. Likewise Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia was simply fulfilling stunted Italian ambitions from the 1890's. Conversely Fascist Spain enjoyed peace for nearly 40 years. "and unity among people. " My opponent claims that Fascism also denies the possibility of unity amongst people. This needs to be clarified. Domestically Fascism strives to create a united country, this is both possible and desirable even if the methods to reach it are not. In terms of foreign affairs it may be observed that people are not united, they are divided by nation, many divergent political ideologies caution as to the risks of internationalism. For instance there is a traditional suspicion of the UN amongst members of the American far right, large sections of the Republican Party, Libertarians and Anarchists. My opponent must clarify the charge of disunity and show that it is a negative. "The Fascist reject the foundation of a harmonious community life within diversity and equality;" The more diverse a community is, the more likely it is to face problems of disharmony. Fascism promotes a mono-cultural society based on a single national and/or racial identity. This is a valid approach to forming a society as it is natural human instinct to form communities based on similarities. Even in the most diverse and multi-cultural societies ethnic minorities will congregate together, social barriers to the detriment of the wider society will form. Again Fascism shows that it is based upon natural normal human behaviour, not in opposition to it. Objectively that can not be regarded as a negative. Fascism also promotes a certain degree of equality within it's desired racial/national group. It does this by emphasising race, nationalism, hard work, money and loyalty to the state over and above such concerns as social class. Fascism is therefore very egalitarian. "for the Fascist rather conceive life as a meaningless duty and a conquest for ultimate control, as above all else, deems to control those of far distance and ultimately bring them under their evil ideologies and inhumane practices! Such are many in the vast Nations! " Here my opponent seems to claim that the ideology of fascism is hell bent on world conquest. Though the Nazis did pursue military aggression the stated ideology of Adolph Hitler was to establish a Eurasian state dominated by a German racial majority. He specifically condemned the nature of the British Empire due to it's far flung nature and the fact it was ruled by a racial minority. His stated ideology was not to conquer the world. These ideas are contained in the Mossback Memorandum, . http://www.yale.edu... To again reference Franco he concentrated solely on internal improvements, not on any extension of foreign influence. "Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil' are in complete opposition to the Socialistic principles that drive authenticity and truth. Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil', in the past, now, and evermore into the future believe in the death of a diverse people and a 'collective whole', they deny the very abilities for a continual transformation and progression of society. " Fascism and Socialism are not opposites, they overlap and have points in common. Fascist Germany was ruled by the National Socialists. Fascism and Socialism are authoritarian and emphasise the importance of the state over the individual. Both Fascist and Socialist regimes crush internal dissent, and exert influence over Media and Art. Both regimes are able and willing to kill vast quantities of their own people for racial and/or ideological purity. Hitler had his holocaust, Stalin had his Ukrainian Genocide (amongst others). Both Fascism and Socialism are ‘revolutionary' movements who have resorted to violent, illegal and pseudo-legal methods to usurp power and having done have completely altered the nature of society and politics. Hitler and Mussolini both held negative views on organised religion thus clear parallels can be drawn with Soviet Russia. Hitler introduced a number of social reforms that would otherwise be described as socialist. Both ideologies lead to authoritarian regimes, exerting a great degree of State control and/or oversight in personal affairs and the running of the economy. "Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil' deny the good will of the people," It is commonly recognised that people are not innately good, indeed they are rather selfish. "it denies the purity of a social government," A Government by definition is social, the concept of purity in Government needs to be clarified. My opponent charges that, The foundations of Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil' are the very selfish corruptions and weavings of 'inhumane submission', which permeates a lasting hatred and disgust of individuality and equality. .. an absolute power of dictation, without room for a 'Diplomatic Resolve' or 'Compromise' on behalf of the people; for the State of Fascism is itself ill-conscious and has itself a will of hatred, and furthermore, a stale personality that denies true grow and harmony" I feel that these same charges can be presented to Socialism, and that I have mitigated the points of my opponent, thus I negate the argument.