The Instigator
AtheniusPrime
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Fascism and her 'Institutes'

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,471 times Debate No: 9383
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

AtheniusPrime

Con

Some may question the "AUTHENTICITY" and "ORIGINALITY" of this argument ... it is in full faith a 'traditional', 'moving', AND 'AUTHENTIC' piece of 'ORIGINAL' work ... so to that note ... let the debate (opposition) to such explanation and defense begin!

* * * * * * *

This is a 'debate' of 'Unjust Hatred' (The poison and vile repute of an unjust hatred) [That which is against 'Inclusiveness']

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 and unity among people. Therefore, such blatant hatred and misuse of power and ill-gotten providence, repudiates the doctrine of unity - the epitome of selfless sacrifice.

War comes to the forefront when the bonds of diplomacy cannot be met with a perpetual peace! Life or Death becomes very real when the 'Evils of Fascism' plague the hearts of the people!

The Fascist reject the foundation of a harmonious community life within diversity and equality; bringing to the people of the community, the shadow of suicide and regret; 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!

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 her 'Institutes of Evil' bring complication to the system of sociological ideology and destroys it, whether in theoretical premises or in practical application. Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil' deny the good will of the people, it denies the purity of a social government, and individual authenticity by means of a periodical chastisement and dilution of the people, and it denies the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful equality that is duly a right to everyone.

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. Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil' conceives of the Alliance or Self-Governing State 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 of the people.

Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil' disorganize the Nations into a state of disarray and chaos, and leaves an insufficient margin of liberty to the individual people, which is a deprivation of freedom of choice, within resolve and unity of the greater whole of a collective and progressive society.

Let Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil', be crushed by the goodness and prevalence of diversity and equality of sociological ideology. Let Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil' in their rallies of death, destruction, and disunity die and wither themselves! Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil', no matter how many times she tries to birth a new seed of evil and conformity, will ever prevail. Only sociological ideology in light of its 'Doctrines of Goodness, Equality, and Diversity' has and will ever prevail!

The light of 'Socialism' and the many imbedded 'Doctrines of Progression' are ever here and shall ever stay; no matter what enemy comes to dethrone her glory and prestige. If there is ever a moment where sociological ideology kneels, it shall only be for a moment, for in its uprising, it shall consume the very facets of evil and disperse them to the abyss and beyond. Sociological ideology will ever move onward and prevail, through the claws of Fascism and her 'Institutes of Evil', or any other 'Institute(s) of Evil Conglomeration'.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for posting such interesting debate topic.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
AtheniusPrime

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for such pungency and articulation in his rebuttal.

Although this argument may seem to 'favour' the 'Socialist Movement', it is more-so 'favours' that of 'Social-Inclusive Unity', "based" on the very vast principles of 'Historic Socialism'.

On the premise of definition ... Communism is when the Government 'owns' the means and ways of the media, production, finance, and ect.; Fascism is when the Government 'controls' but does not 'own' the means and ways of media, production, finance, and ect.; Socialism is when the Government 'owns (for the most part) and directs, but does not control (entirely)' the means and ways o the media, production, finance, and ect.!

I also 'blindly' refer and associate 'Corporatism (Capitalism)' with Fascism and associate Social Unity with the basis of Socialism.

If you would like to think about this for a moment ... the current stage of 'Corporatism' is a step away from that of 'Fascism' itself and goes contrary to that of Society (Socialistic Principle). The 'Fascist and her Institutes' are really that of American and world 'Corporatism'. In light of this, I propose that this governmental basis is 'contrary' to the good of the people (Social well-being and universal equality), because it gives only for the basis of 'Big Corporations' in lieu of 'Big Government' working in tandem with labour of the people.

In further to my opponents argument and blatant denial of Social Progression, I also offer another defining moment in clarified definition ... Social Principle is the involvement of the government commanding and directing the 'Social' well-being and 'wholeness' of the people (as also, for the most part, the economical sector); Communism is involvement of the Government in direct control of the ways and means of the 'entirety' of 'Social' and 'Internal' conduct and principle; and Fascism is the involvement of the Government through 'entire' control of the information, and in extension, cultural beliefs and behaviours.

"To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not; Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism and Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similitude can be seen in a common definition of fascism: 'A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)' " [Based upon: American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957]

"Dr. Peikoff notes: In the final months the Communists viewed the growing Nazi strength with equanimity. The triumph of Nazism, they said, has been ordained by the dialectic process; such triumph will lead to the destruction of the republican form of government, which is a necessary stage in the achievement of communism. Afterward, they said, the Nazis will quickly fade and the party of Lenin can take over. The Social Democrats, meanwhile, were being "tamed" in another way by Chancellor Franz von Papen. In July 1932, using only a token armed force, he ousted them illegally from the government of Prussia. The party leaders understood that this coup, if uncontested, would mean the loss of their last bastion of strength. But they observed the swelling ranks of the Nazis and Communists; the Prussian police and the German army brimming with nationalist militants; the millions of unemployed workers, which made the prospects for a general strike bleak -- and they decided to capitulate without a fight, lest they provoke a bloody civil war they had no heart to wage and little chance to win....There were not many Social Democrats who rose up in fury over 'the rape of Prussia.' The party had long since lost most of those who take ideas or causes seriously. there was not much youthful ardor to summon to the side of social democracy. "Republik, das ist nicht viel, Sozialismus is unser Ziel" ("A republic, that is not much, socialism is our goal") -- such were the signs carried in parades by young workers of the period."

The highlight is the failure to practice 'Social Principle', with a consequence of the fact that Fascism (that of Corporatism) has been inconsistent in theory. It is fully possible to argue that each individual should sacrifice for the whole of society, and have the expectation that each individual knows what 'society's good' consists of, without the means of having a 'Dictator' (or that of Corporate mangling) to tell them so.

"The main characteristic of 'Social Principle' is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, individual's retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the 'government' holds total power over its use and disposal.
. . .
Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it.
. . .
Under 'Fascism', 'the public good' is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are great differences of emphasis. The 'Social Principle' axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its people. The 'Fascist' axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The 'Social Principle' axis offers its people social ideal; the 'Fascist' axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national 'greatness' and merely extols leadership without purpose, program, or direction (and power for power's sake)."
~ Out of the book: The Fascist Frontier

"Yet what dictator ever brought prosperity by interfering with the economy? History is littered with catastrophes that occurred because dictators couldn't keep their hands off the economy. A century ago, exporting beef and wheat helped make Argentina one of the world's wealthiest nations; but by the late 1940's, after dictator Juan Per´┐Żn had introduced pervasive economic controls, there were chronic beef shortages... In China during the late 1950's, Mao Zedong ruthlessly enforced his orders about what people must produce, and the consequence was a famine in which as many 30 million people died. Russia used to be a major grain exporter; but the Bolshevik Revolution and decades of Five Year Plans brought shortages of grain and just about everything else ordinary people wanted... Wherever there is dictatorial power over an economy, wherever economic liberty is denied, people are sure to be suffering agonies of the damned."
~ Jim Powell's Book: FDR's Folly, Chapter 18 (2003)

"Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations. At a popular level in recent years 'Corporatism' has been used in a pejorative context to refer to the application of corporatism by fascist regimes or to mean the promotion of the interests of private business corporations in government over the interests of the public."
~ The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thoug
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for offering some further exploration of the terms at hannd.

My Opponent Argues that
"I also 'blindly' refer and associate 'Corporatism (Capitalism)' with Fascism and associate Social Unity with the basis of Socialism.

If you would like to think about this for a moment ... the current stage of 'Corporatism' is a step away from that of 'Fascism' itself and goes contrary to that of Society (Socialistic Principle). The 'Fascist and her Institutes' are really that of American and world 'Corporatism'. In light of this, I propose that this governmental basis is 'contrary' to the good of the people (Social well-being and universal equality), because it gives only for the basis of 'Big Corporations' in lieu of 'Big Government' working in tandem with labour of the people."

However corporatism is not synonmous with Capitalism, Corporatism does not mean a system of the corporations as in big business. But it is actually where the Government includes and therefore co-opts the various bodies and special interest groups in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As my opponent will see if he reads down to the third 'paragraph',
"Corporatism has been supported from various proponents, including: absolutists, conservatives, fascists, progressives, reactionaries, socialists and theologians."

So therefore Corporatism is a feature of both fascism and socialism and many other systems.

Also my opponents contention that this Corporatism by which he appears to Captalism is flawed because it only serves the will of the big business is flawed. Though I conceed that companies are more concerned with profit than public good it can be noted that Capitalist countries are able to make more use of their wealth and are more likely to raise the standard of life for the average citizen. For all the equality of the USSR and for all the 'greed' of Capitalistic USA people in the latter group seldom had to queue for hours for a loaf of bread.

"In further to my opponents argument and blatant denial of Social Progression, I also offer another defining moment in clarified definition ... Social Principle is the involvement of the government commanding and directing the 'Social' well-being and 'wholeness' of the people (as also, for the most part, the economical sector); Communism is involvement of the Government in direct control of the ways and means of the 'entirety' of 'Social' and 'Internal' conduct and principle; and Fascism is the involvement of the Government through 'entire' control of the information, and in extension, cultural beliefs and behaviours."

Again I object to this, Communist countries also extend control over information, cultural beliefs and behaviours. In this regard Nazi Germany is identical to the USSR, China and North Korea.

My opponent quotes,
"To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not; Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism and Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similitude can be seen in a common definition of fascism: 'A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)' " [Based upon: American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957"

I believe that a better definition would be to replace the word 'controlling' with the word directing, however in what way does the above quote succeed in establishing a proper distinction with any socialist model?

"The main characteristic of 'Social Principle' is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, individual's retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the 'government' holds total power over its use and disposal."

I would counter with this, though my opponent talks of the social principle he has made connections with Socialist regimes. Under Socialism/Communism private property is suppressed or outlawed. In name property belongs to the people, in practice it belongs to the state and in reality that means a small wealthy elite ruling class. Fascism, with merely alters or goes with Capitalism does allow for private property, whilst at the same time demanding exactly the same levels of 'co-operation' from their citizens. As it is obvious that being able to work for your own personal profit, and to collect purchase and inherit property is part of being free and happy we must conclude fascism to be the superior doctrine.

In conclusion I feel I have been able to at least mitigate many of the accusations laid at the door of fascism. My opponent who has presented Socialism as a superior alternative has failed to define socialism as a truly seperate concept from fascism, and has failed to establish how it is in any qualititive way superior. My opponent has introduced the concept of the social principle, but has not demonstrated how this is different, or redeeming in regards to Socialism and Socialist regimes. It is thus for that reason I consider my opponents position negated and I urge a vote in my favour.

I'd like to thank my opponent and all those following the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AtheniusPrime 8 years ago
AtheniusPrime
I must say that this has been a hot debate and wish my opposition the best. (I care less if I win or fall out!) I am happy with what I have posted and would not do it any way other! This is the door to my future in the presentation field. Thank-you!
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 8 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Out of interest can we have a RFD, especially for those 7 points for con!
Posted by Superintendent 8 years ago
Superintendent
Keep It Clean
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 8 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Right, I now have a headache but I actually read the whole thing, I am honestly tempted to take it on!
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Reminds me of this site: http://www.elsewhere.org...

Postmodernism random essay generator.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 8 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
If the text did not make my brain bleed I would be more than happy to take it on!
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
At a guess, that Socialism is better than Fascism. As Ragnar noted, much lols.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 8 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Hmm... what actually is this argument?
Posted by Floid 8 years ago
Floid
Though it appears your spent some time writing the argument, there isn't much content to debate. It is part simply a definition of fascism, part asking someone to defend fascism as good, and part rambling conjecture that doesn't tie to any argument. I don't see any of those three things as debatable.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FormAndTheFormless 8 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
AtheniusPrimeCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by AtheniusPrime 8 years ago
AtheniusPrime
AtheniusPrimeCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Floid 8 years ago
Floid
AtheniusPrimeCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07