Communism is Fascistic in Principle

The theory is based on a belief in the abolishment of private property and capital, replacing it with a communal system of decision-making with no real Government. Additionally, everything must be shared equally. (1) With minor exceptions in Spain during the civil war and the "Free Territories" in Russia, anarcho-Communism has never been put into widespread effect. Over the course of this debate, it is my prerogative to demonstrate how this invites tyranny and requires control over mind and body. Real Communism I always allow for a small chuckle when I hear Communists deny that the Soviet Union and North Korea and Red China did not, and do not, practice "real Communism". While history itself will not be the prime focus of my arguments, be wary, readers, of this fallacy, that because Communism is not supposed to result in what I claim, and what history shows, these miserable nations cannot be "real" Marxist states. It is akin to suggesting that because Toyota brakes aren't supposed to malfunction, the cars in which they do are not "real" members of the Toyota brand. (2) Nor, it should be mentioned, am I contending that Communism is not economically feasible (although it isn't), but simply that by it's very nature, any state that adopts the theory will quickly devolve. Defying Human Nature The violation and oppression of human nature has not proven very effective throughout history. Whenever someone or something attempts to suppress the national tendency for, say, privacy, miserable failure is the result. No nation, no structure, no system is shorter-lived than that which tried this impossible feat. However, when it is done, there is exactly one way the tyrants always work to maintain this greatest of evils: an absolute crackdown. The Soviets, the Nazis, the Kim regime and Red China share this common experience, of going to more and more extreme lengths to continue their coup against human principles, which prolonged but did not prevent their decline. Communism is the greatest oppressor in this manner, the antithesis of human nature in many regards: Greed It pains me to use this term, as society, and mankind in general, has saddled it with bad connotations. But the desire for property and money, and by extension the free market, is entirely natural. In a communist state, the idea of making one's own business, working for one's own benefit is profane. Thus any attempt to decide one's future, to improve one's lot in life, is forbidden, and those who try, as is their rite, must be repressed. Privacy Possibly even more fundamental then self-making is privacy, inseparable from the right to property. To have a place of your own, where no one may trespass, to conduct your business or raise your family is the most basic of instinct and simply put, ingrained. Making it illegal to the point of calling it morally untenable is undoubtedly and inevitably temporary. Incentive Children don't like to work, and will not do so without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. Some things don't change, and in a communist system, no incentive means little work or little effort. This point connects to my description of New Harmony (under "Communism and Government", where jobs that needed doing we're not done; after all, why should someone do it? Nothing is lost or gained by working for the common good (whatever that means). What is the result? People need to either be forced to work, or be threatened with harsh punitive measures. One example of this is the Soviet Union. (3) Communism, for the system to operate, must extinguish the humanity of its people, which is, I'm afraid to say, totalitarian. Government and Communism The general intention of Communism, and especially true of Anarcho- Communism, is to eliminate Government-hence "Commune". Rule by the community. However, this is already a failed proposition because of the role government must play to maintain the security and stability of a country. To emphasize this point, here are a few of the most vitally important tasks government must assign itself: *Control of nuclear weapons/ WMDs *Printing of money *Diplomacy/Foreign Relations *Military *Police I would submit that a system without a government is already a failed proposition. If my opponent has any suggestions on how these can be handled without administration, I am open to ideas. But back to the matter at hand: how is this in any way authoritative? Well, it is this very impossibility of no government that allows the sinister and malevolent into power. A void appears which must be filled by whomever wishes the power and theoretically the responsibility. Since there is technically no government, it becomes a matter of much ease to control everything. Case in point: Robert Owen, a welsh millionaire and socialite who founded a Communist township in Indiana, called "New Harmony". (4) Despite Owen pouring in money to afford food and housing and essentials to his followers, the experiment failed in two years. Why? Because no one did anything. (5) They had no guidance, and no motivation. Not only does this speak to the necessity of government, but it begs the question: on a countrywide level, how hard would it have been for a despot or psychopath to declare themselves in charge, especially as the people of New Harmony struggled financially and in rations. History History is not a point I will emphasize too stridently, but it is important on garnering an understanding of this issue. Examples like China, the USSR and North Korea are blatantly not the intended look of Communism. But whatever lessons you take away from those disasters, it is easy to see how easy it is to rule, to abuse, and to modest under the guide of Communism. It shouldn't be so easy to justify murder and genocide and dictatorship by declaring the "worker's revolution". It seems to me history demonstrates two important things. 1. Whatever the intent, the "Communist" countries of history quickly devolved into a quagmire of misery and horror. I challenge my opponent to name one that didn't. 2. Communism is a great tool for evil to control and manipulate people. Again, I challenge my opponent to deny this. My opponent is welcome to disagree, but these implications should not be overlooked. Communism is irreparably flawed. In it's very theory. It both intentionally calls for suppression, as in the case of human nature, and accidentally invites in evil, in the case of government. And history shows it. I will leave it here. I look forward to my opponent's opening statements. (1) . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.autonews.com... (3) . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (4) . http://xroads.virginia.edu... (5) . http://robert-owen-museum.org.uk...