The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Communism and Fascism are almost complete opposites

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 699 times Debate No: 54502
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




DEBATE MOTION: Communism and Fascism are almost complete opposites

Debate Format: 3 rounds, 72 hours to post, 10,000 Characters

Voting Format: Open Voting to people with ELO score of more than 1500 only, Select Winner

Debate Structure:

1. Round One: Acceptance
2. Round Two: Opening Statements
3. Round Three: Rebuttals and Case Building
4. Round Four: Rebuttals

If the opponent trolls, he will be shot by the gun of losing his this debate. If the opponent doesn't troll, then may the grace of the great fatherland and luck be with him.



The resolution states that they are almost complete opposites.

If I can prove that the are either absolute opposites (hence not 'almost') or not opposites but just different then I can win this debate.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Debate Motion: Communism and Fascism are almost opposites
Stance: Government
Burden of Proof: Communism and Fascism are almost opposites

Conservative politicians have often confused communism and fascism. Both are very unidentical, as one is a radical form of authoritarianism. Differences must be drawn, but similarities have to be realized too; as the opponent's burden of proof (very smart way of turning this debate around to your favor con!) is that the two systems are completely different. However, no system is completely different if we look at it from an overall perspective; after all, statism and anarchy have several similarities, although these systems are completely different in effect.

Before we define this debate, we must know what the motion doesn't ought to represent. This is not a Fascism vs Communism debate; fascism and communism certainly has it's flaws, and we should stick to the motion of this debate in order for this debate to a good entertaining one for the voters. This debate is not also a debate to point out flaws in both systems; this debate is a debate to clarify the understanding that many conservatives have on both systems.

So then, what is the debate motion we are presented with today? Some terms have to be defined before we come up with a more developed motion.

Communism is defined as (by Fridrich Engels in The Principles of Communism):

"when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."

It is defined more clearly by Nikolai Bukharin as a classless stateless society, where money has been abolished and all private (but not personal) property is held in common (Chapter 19, The ABCs of Communism).

Fascism, meanwhile, is defined as (by Benito Mussolini, the inventor of Fascism himself) a radical form of governing the society (or a country), based on intense nationalism, totalitarian thoughts, and the creation of a cult of personality based on the leader himself.

With these terms defined, we are to exclude several important "examples" of communism that many conservative politicans have used to define communism:
  1. The Soviet Union (of all era)
  2. The People's Republic of China
  3. Vietnam and Cambodia
These states were not, in the Marxist sense, communist, using these states as an example for an argument would be automatically considered void. Therefore, we can define the motion, in more detailed terms, as:

Communism, a strand of anarchy, and fascism, a form of radical nationalist rule, are almost complete opposites from each other. This is because of the following contentions:

1. Similarity: Communism and Fascism were both opponents to the Capitalist system

Followers of the Capitalist system have been attacked by both communist and fascist followers. Firstly, we shall look at the fascist critique of capitalism. Fascism comes from a background of highly anti-capitalist thought; Georges Sorel, the founder of the Syndicalist movement, hypothesized that workes will unite in the presence of a common myth and overthrow the capitalist system. He then came up with a more Syndicalist approach to the economy, but in society, he found satisfaction in French far-right groups. He joined reactionary monarchist and nationalist Charles Maurras, who had an important role in shaping fascism. Fascism (and national socialism) denounces capitalism as it "inteferes with the national will" This is expressed best through the writings of Spanish Fascist Jose Antonio De Primera when he says this:

" This system [fascism] will be deeply social but not demagogic – for it will have no reason to be – but it will be unrelentingly hostile to capitalism and communism."

Followers of the Communist system have the same feelings about capitalism, and oughts to destroy and replace this system. Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels had only that in mind; the destruction of the capitalist system and the liberation of the proletariat from the evils of the bourgeiosie. His tool for the destruction of this system? The Industrial Proletariat. As expressed in 1847, the industrial proletariat was never an eternal invention, but rather a direct result of the current capitalist system. As Marx states, the creation of the industrial proletariat was equivalent to "capitalism raising it's undertakers" Sorel was more of a result of revisionist Marxist thought, and therefore he expressed many anti-capitalist ideas. This directly influenced fascist thought, which was so based on the revolutionary syndicalism of George Sorel.

2. Difference: Anarchy vs Statism and Differences in Struggle

As stated before, even two systems, although opposites in a sense, can be similar. However, the differences of both society is, sometimes, too large to be overcome. Communism is a form of anarchy in the sense that the state will disintegrate into self-sustaining rule, while fascism supports the creation of a total state.

Fascism oughts to install a total state in many ways. It does this through millitarism (like the raising of a strong, capable army that will be used in times of war to secure both lands and resources) in order to exercise the will of the nation and in order to keep the unity of one nation. A totalitarian state is distinguished from an authoritarian state by the fact that a totalitarian state has complete legitimacy, a secret police, and an official ideology; knowing this, a fascist state would be an all knowing state, as one leader would have control over the means of media and means of gathering information. However, the main differences in both doctrines is that fascism does not want class warfare. Mussolini, the inventor of original fascism, stated that "fascism affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men." And this is a defining feature of fascism; where class interests will be casted out in favor of the national interests.

Communism is directly opposite to this. Marxists, or communists in a sense, sees the world divided into two social groups, the labour and the capital. The labour, in which Marx appealed to, was to wage a war on the capital. This war was to be the main core of the communist ideology; class warfare, according to Marx, has been present at all stages in history. Men are inherently more divided by class than by identity; even after a revolution, class warfare would be renewed (to a certain manner), but the state before communism was to inherently be a socialist one. Socialism was to wither away, after all class conflicts have been abolished, into a classless state, in which the state would then intefere with the classless status and create a ruling elite, and would soon have to be annihilated for the good of society.

Therefore, we could conclude that fascism and communism are two different things; fascists want to exercise complete power over the people, while communists ought to free it. Fascists want nation to struggle with/against each other, while communists wants classes to struggle against each other.

3. Difference: Fascism is Syncretic, while Communism is Revolution

A reactionary is a person who believes in sustaining, or the returning, to the status quo ante (which would most preferably be an equilbrium). A reactionary usually opposes social liberalization and progressive views on society. A revolutionary, in complete contrast to this, wants a complete change; in many to all aspects of life. Fascism is both reactionary and revolutioanry, while a communist is a revolutionary.

A Fascist is usually both a revolutionary and a reactionary; although seemingly contradictory to compare them together, fascism can be seen as syncretic. Firstly, it is revolutionary in the sense that it wants to entirely replace (and not reform) the current capitalist system for a more corporatist based system. This corporatist based system is a capitalistic system in the sense that there is class division; however, this corporatist model is socialist in the sense that government planning, not the market force, dominates the economy. After Adolf Hitler took power, the nationalization of many industries, accompanied by the privatization of some, led to almost the tripling of the German economy. However, the macroeconomic model adopted by Germany was mostly Keynesian. The government invested more into the economy, and the economic outputs grew. However, class inequality (as apart from class exploitation) existed. Fascists are reactionary, however, in the sense that the status quo ante of whatever period needed to be restored. Fascist are revanchists in a sense; Italian fascism wanted the Roman Empire restored, while Nazism wanted the 1914-frontiers to be restored

A communist is very different; a communist is revolutionary in ever aspect. In an economic aspect, the capitalist model failed to satisfy their class interests, and they wanted a new model. This model was to be based upon common ownership of private property. This socialistic system is accompanied by the want to replace the social order with a one-class one that will ultimately carry out the society into a more class based one. In social terms, communists want the abolishment of everything we know; money, the state, private property.

As we can see, the two systems have huge differences, and only slight similarities. This proves that fascism is an almost opposite of communism.



2Pro4U forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Remember, patriotism is a great gift!


2Pro4U forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


2Pro4U forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
"communist in the sense of maintaining the ideal of common ownership and control of at least the means of production "

When communism defined by Friedrich Engels is: when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
@Dmussi there is only one type of communism. You're talking about socialism there.
Posted by dmussi12 2 years ago
No I understand the differences but I don't know WHICH communism you are arguing about. Stalinist, Marxist, etc.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Well, no. If I do so, this debate will automatically be void because of the immense differences between both systems.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
I agree. A lot of people don't really know nor understand their differences.
Posted by dmussi12 2 years ago
Can you provide definitions of both?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments from Con due to FF
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF & the only one to make arguments.