Communism is Fascistic in Principle

I feel I and my opponent may have drifted away slightly from the original contention of the debate, more toward a general discussion about the merits of Anarcho-Communism rather than to its devolution, so I will make additional effort in this round to return the debate to its original tract. Power "If a leader is required, all that should mean is that a group desires guidance or rapid organization. " I'm dumbfounded. Read carefully, because this is very important. My opponent, in his demagoguery about private property, and the horror of having power over anything, cannot seem to understand one key point. How does my opponent plan to sustain any of these strident, suppressive restrictions? This is what I mean when I say anarchism and communism cannot co-exist. The banning of private property, of personal power, of currency, of free trade, and the muzzle on human nature cannot, I will say it again, can-not, coexist with no authority. To even suggest its feasible, I am sorry to say, is preposterous. Evil, fascistic countries are known for their tight grasp of objects like literature, money, and land. My opponent suggests we ban everything to the extent that we meet his arbitrary standards of "equality". Just imagine the magnitude, the power, and the brutality a government would have no choice but to employ to achieve these sinister goals. My opponent may no longer respond by saying "we simply won't have anyone with power". To say that is to not understand one's own theory, and I am calling him on it here. Communism equals power. I will at least give fascism this: it does not hide behind a veil of equality to justify the obliteration, the extermination, the bloody coup, of liberty. Anarcho-Communism: A Contradiction in Terms My opponent thought this line of argument was a cheap shot, exploiting the a-normality of the system he proposes. However, I don't find that my criticisms were based so much on the rarity of the suggestion as it's real implications. My opponent did, however, graciously respond. Now, the one sentence responses to each of the stringent requirements for Con's system to be effective were quite weak. Let's briefly go over them: 1. No Private Property: The intent here is to demonstrate how this goal could not be achieved without a form of oppression. Instead of a response to that, Con opts to redefine property to "assuming absolute control over something", which is both vague and basically just re-defining terms. You will, I think, see that even in Capitalist societies, "absolute control" is a bit of a misconstruction. Material objects are acceptable to possess because they are not animated; yes, I can choose to harm or destroy that which I own, but I could not, for example, use my plank of wood to beat something with. Absolute control of people is bad, of property is fine. 2. Selling/Bartering: Indeed, my opponent is correct that in his little utopia there would be no currency. Which is why I said bartering. Perhaps trading would have been the superior option, but the principle remains the same: the ability to exchange goods and services, a right which is sacred, and which to remove is a direct form of despotism. 3. Noone Having More than Anyone Else: Here we are again with re-defining terms. Obviously, when I imply equality in here, I do not mean "identical material wealth", as Con suggests, but instead a simpler version of freedom. 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? 4. As I devoted the semi-rant above to power, I will leave it be. 5. Pay: My opponent's theory is an interesting one, to be fair. He seems to be under the impression that "you do not need to be paid if you recognize why something should be done". The message appears to be that people will work simply for the sake of working. Despite the statement's obvious inaccuracy, I will provide a specific example. On this point, I will remind readers of the example used in the first round, the failed Communist experiment of New Harmony, Indiana. It's greatest fault, along with the underlying theory, was that work didn't get done, because no one really benefited enough to justify the labor. Pay is necessary as an incentive for completing a task which would otherwise go unfinished. Instead, it becomes a further ban on the road to that ever-elusive paradise, another form of tyranny. Conclusion "That is the impressive burden he (I) placed on himself when he states that it (Communism) is "Fascistic in Principle" In few instances have I had an easier proposition to act on. It is only necessary to point out the obvious destructions of freedom, violations that exceed that of any fascistic or dictatorial state in history. That which contends to ban almost everything of substance without delving into oppression is farcical. If this be utopia, may we never achieve it.