Instigator / Pro

Resolved: Marxism-Leninism is an Overall Better Political Philosophy than Fascism (Group Debate)


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 7 votes and with 21 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

This is a group debate. Here are the rules:
One person accepts, each "team" drafts 1 person to be on there team. They can create there argument via PM's or a Google Doc. No trolling, or critiquing the resolution. The debate will begin only when both teams are created. BoP is shared, as PRO is proving communism is better, and CON is proving Facism is better.

Better: "of a more excellent or effective type or quality." NOTE: Economic benefit alone is not enough to prove that one is better.

Marxism Leninism: Marxism–Leninism is a political philosophy that seeks to establish a socialist state to develop further into socialism and eventually communism, a classless social system with common ownership of the means of production and with full social and economic equality of all members of society. Marxist–Leninists espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism, but they generally support the idea of a vanguard party, a communist party-led state, state-dominance over the economy,[1] internationalism and opposition to capitalism, fascism, imperialism and liberal democracy.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Round 1

M-Lt = Marxist-Leninist
Fst = Fascist
Sct = Socialist
Cpt = Capitalist
Cmt = Communist
Cmm = Communism
Fsm, Scm and Cpm = ibid pattern
M-Lm = Marxist-Leninism

Thank you BearMan and Whiteflame for accepting this group debate. We hope this will be a great and unique experience for us.

Fascism literally aims to be the greater evil.

Something quintessential to this debate will be the concept of ‘lesser evil’ ‘greater good’ and very much with regards to two very brutal political regimes, when enacted. Furthermore, we are to remind you as the reader and judge of this debate that we are debating about the political philosophy and not the enacted laws and means while in power.

Let’s begin with the aims of the two systems. 

Fsm. is defined, 

“a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda.” [5]

The Manifesto of Race (Italian: Manifesto della razza), sometimes known as the Charter of Race or Racial Manifesto, was a manifesto published on 14 July 1938 which prepared the enactment, in October 1938, of the Racial Laws in the Kingdom of Italy. The antisemitic laws stripped the Jews of Italian citizenship and governmental and professional positions. The manifesto demonstrated the enormous influence Adolf Hitler had over Benito Mussolini since Italy had become allied with Nazi Germany.”[6]

In contrast, Marxist-Leninism:

“The goal of Marxism–Leninism is the revolutionary transformation of a capitalist state into a socialist state… which is the lower stage of socio-economic development and progress towards the upper-stage communist society which is stateless and classless. It features public ownership of the means of production, accelerated industrialisation, pro-active development of society's productive forces (research and development) and nationalised natural resources.[7]

The system of M-Lm itself was made to serve the people and created for the greater good. Fsm identifies ‘greater good’ as an error, for it values national supremacy above greater good at all times. 

Burden Of Proof:
The Burden of Proof is now successfully shifted onto Con, who has to prove that the very philosophy that aims to separate us by things we cannot help (such as race, let alone where we were born) is justified in using the means that were not an iota less brutal than Marxist-Leninism used to achieve an end-goal of equality for all.

Con is free to shift this back onto Pro if Con can prove that the morality of the ‘ends’ that justify the means in Fascism even come close to that of Marxist-Leninism on any level at all.

What is a Political Philosophy/Ideology?
Before reading our opening arguments, one has to understand what a political ideology is. It’s a set of rules, ethical ideas, doctrines, and moral laws. It explains how a given society works. 

Political ideologies have two dimensions: (1) goals: how society should be organized; and (2) methods: the most appropriate way to achieve this goal.” [3]

If we parse this with the definition of ‘better’, it follows that the  more excellent or effective basis on which the society is organized and methodology of achieving it are how we can conclude the better political philosophy.

Contention A: The goals of Communism organised society on a more reasonable basis.

Both promise a significant uprooting in the society that will overthrow the current oligarchy in place, yet how do the promises differ? Nationalism plays a big role in a Fascist society and their means of achieving this are brutal. It is not an exaggeration to bring up how Hitler approached the Jews and disabled of his time. Anyone who was remotely ‘in the way’ of the supremacy of the ethnicity that he saw worthy of success, became nothing less than inanimate objects in his eyes. The gas chambers and inhumane camps are horrific, of course, and in later Rounds we shall explore that but it is important for us on the side of Pro, not to ignore the distinction between Nazism and Fascism. In Mussolini’s Italy, the simplest way to prove that at the core he had just as racist and ruthless an ideology as Hitler is the following:

By 1938 Mussolini supported racism, as evidenced by his endorsement of the "Manifesto of Race", the seventh point which states that "it is time that Italians proclaim themselves to be openly racist".[8][9]

The further proof is countless in terms of the amount of evidence. His entire regime had deep-rooted racism and Italian jingoism throughout.

In September 1920, Benito Mussolini stated:

When dealing with such a race as Slavic - inferior and barbarian - we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy.... We should not be afraid of new victims.... The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps.... I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians....
— Benito Mussolini, speech held in Pula, 20 September 1920 [9][10][11][11.1

The fact is that Fsm is deeply rooted and a completely irrational and horrific basis that things you can’t control about yourself (your place of birth, your race, what your ancestors did) are a basis to completely alienate you and harm you in the name of national safety. This ‘basis’ for organizing society is nowhere near as valid as M-Lm’s.

The goal of Marxist–Leninist political economy is the emancipation of men and women from the dehumanisation caused by mechanistic work that is psychologically alienating (without work–life balance) which is performed in exchange for wages that give limited financial-access to the material necessities of life (i.e. food and shelter). That personal and societal emancipation from poverty (material necessity) would maximise individual liberty by enabling men and women to pursue their interests and innate talents (artistic, industrial and intellectual) whilst working by choice, without the economic coercion of poverty.[12][13]

We, as Pro, cannot even begin to fathom how this can be an inferior basis on which to organize society than a racist, brutally ignorant ethos based on separating use and harming us solely based on things we can’t control and with an end goal of unfairness in the name of Jingoism.
This doesn’t even begin to explore the sexism and homophobia (only hints at the view on the disabled) in Fsm, we await Con’s ability to defend such unjust political philosophies and will rebuke it once this is attempted.

Contention B: Communism aims for flexibility in how it approaches people and adapts. Fasicms is rooted in rigid prejudice and means of achieving goals.

A Marxist-Leninist economic system enables the government to mobilize resources in a short period of time. Communist governments can then build useful or massive projects quickly. 

“It (a communist government) can move so effectively because it overrides individual self-interest and subjugates the welfare of the general population to achieve critical social goals.” [1]

After a war, a Communist government can rebuild an economy extremely quickly and effectively because of the quick mobilization of its resources. For example, in World War II, a Stalinist Soviet Union quickly mobilized resources to aid its effort in defeating the Fst, Nazi, forces attacking them. The USSR could mobilize their resources quickly and efficiently. They built massive projects as stated above and had arguably the best space program and nuclear weapons program during the mid to late 20th century. This is all made possible because of the economic system in play, which is M-Lm. We challenge Con to prove differently or call us out on this, rather than us proving every detail of Soviet technological and scientific achievement.

Additionally, when Fsm shows off how much it discovered scientifically, let’s not forget that it tortured human beings against their will in the name of this research (entirely based on racist or ruthlessly psychopathic means of punishing people for things outside of their control).

When things become very tactical and the path to victory or helping the nation thrive is bleak, M-Lm completely thwarts Fsm because its very political philosophy is based on adapting to oppressive threats and strategizing how to take them down in order to free the oppressed class(es). This mentality explains how it isn’t actually a coincidence that M-Lm defeated Fsm in WWII and note that at the beginning, Mao’s China was also M-Lt though it evolved into a different branch of Cmm and Scm. While both regimes end up tactically outfought later on in the Cold War, it is important to note that both sides of the Cold War readily allied one another to take down Fsm, which they both agreed was not just the greater evil but clearly was also the easier one to pick on. If the M-Lt ideology allows your nation to compromise with non-M-Lt nations in order to defeat Fsm but the reverse is untrue, it highlights only one of many reasons why the rigid ‘our nation above all’ mentality of Fsm backfires, for it is this very rigid thinking that lets it have no adaptability or mobility when things become chaotic and alliances with other regimes become a necessity.

It is most undeniably blatant by the fact that Fascist Italy betrayed and helped defeat Fascist Germany[16] by being a significant turncoat nation in WWII’s ending.

M-Lm is a better political philosophy than Fsm because of its less brutal means of achieving similar goals, its ability to mobilize and command resources quickly, and the longevity of practically applied societies. Thank you, and we yield the next argument to CON.

While this Round from us was brief, we believe that these Contentions A and B will win us the debate alone. This is not out of laziness nor disrespect to Con, it is that all other ways that M-Lm is better than Fsm as a political philosophy, stem from both the errors that Fsm makes itself, and M-Lm’s goods. 

Sources Listed:
[8] "The Manifesto of Race" (PDF). 1938. Retrieved 1 March 2019.
[10] Sestani, Armando, ed. (10 February 2012). "Il confine orientale: una terra, molti esodi" [The Eastern Border: One Land, Multiple Exoduses]. I profugi istriani, dalmati e fiumani a Lucca [The Istrian, Dalmatian and Rijeka Refugees in Lucca] (PDF) (in Italian). Instituto storico della Resistenca e dell'Età Contemporanea in Provincia di Lucca. pp. 12–13.
[11]  Pirjevec, Jože (2008). "The Strategy of the Occupiers" (PDF). Resistance, Suffering, Hope: The Slovene Partisan Movement 1941–1945. p. 27. ISBN 978-961-6681-02-5.
  • [11.1]^ The Ciano Diaries 1939–1943: The Complete, Unabridged Diaries of Count Galeazzo Ciano, Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1936–1943 (2000) ISBN 1-931313-74-1
[12] Pons, Silvo; Service, Robert (eds.). A Dictionary of 20th Century Communism. Princeton, New Jersey; Oxfordshire, England: Princeton University Press ISBN 0691154295.
[14] "Nazi Medical Experimentation". US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 23 March 2008.
^ [13.1]"Nuremberg - Document Viewer - Table of contents for prosecution document book 8, concerning medical experiments". Retrieved 2017-04-14.


Burden Of Proof: Shared Position: Con Debate Type: DebateArt/Online Debate

Key Definitions:

Better- “of a more excellent or effective type or quality.” (Oxford Languages) 

Marxism-Leninism: Marxism–Leninism is a political philosophy that seeks to establish a socialist state to develop further into socialism and eventually communism, a classless social system with common ownership of the means of production and with full social and economic equality of all members of society. (Definition Provided By the Affirmative Side of this Debate)

Fascism: Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries. As this is prior to the rise to power of Mussolini and Hitler, this means is partly distinct from the methods used by these two leaders. As opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.(Definition Provided By the Affirmative Side of this Debate)


  1. Benefit of Fascism’s Ultra-nationalism 

Ultra-nationalism benefits the military and protection of citizens. Fascism traditionally values military thinking, courage, discipline, loyalty, and honor. Fascists have a thirst for imperialism and national strength. This results in the founding and upkeep of a strong military.[2] In combination with this military might, the strong sense of national pride and the supreme control over the laws of the land also makes fascist nations extremely safe to reside within, and crimes that plague more liberal societies like burglary and trespassing are essentially non-existent in fascistic societies. This is part of why fascistic systems demonstrate internal stability: fascism is built on strong national unity and utilizes this pursuit to galvanize its people against issues that would undermine said unity.
A central tenet that separates fascism from other political philosophies is that it truly benefits all people within a given society. Marxism-Leninism, meanwhile, is driven by upending the existing system and striving one subset of it: the working class. Marxism-Leninism prides itself on enforced equality and accomplishes this task by bringing those who are not working class down to the same economic strata. That portion of the population is unlikely to accept this, hence Marxism-Leninism advocates for revolution and the instatement of a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an unavoidable consequence of Marxism-Leninism, yielding a degenerated workers' state where some unaccountable bureaucratic elite forces those who are opposed to the system to contribute to it. Those who restrain the revolution that makes this possible are often killed. Proletarian violence like this was on full display during the Cultural Revolution in China, which resulted in the deaths of as many as two million people.[4] The Stalinist government was also an inevitable result of attempts to implement Marxism-Leninism: “the commitment of Marxists to a political belief at one and the same time both deterministic and utopian was a form of "gnosticism," a heresy of hubris, leading them inexorably to the monumental crimes of Stalinism. In this view, the Marxian vision dictated the Stalinist outcome not because the communist utopia was inevitable but because it was impossible."[5] Stalin “always continued to consider himself a Marxist, and that he was uninterested in other systems of thought”, further demonstrating the connection between Marxism-Leninism and Stalin’s leadership.[6]
Similarly, the lack of a national identity relegates these workers to a system where loyalty to leadership is their only incentive to work hard and be productive. “While there are many benefits from equality, if pushed to an extreme it robs people of an incentive to make an effort. There was little if any reward for hard work or innovation and a lack of punishment for poor or inefficient work. The lack of incentives was a major reason for the poor performance of Eastern Europe economies. Why bother working hard if the reward was the same as doing the bare minimal?”[7] Moreover, many of the methods based in communist philosophy of state-dominated enterprises lead directly to efforts to collectivize industries like farming, resulting in genocidal policies aimed at eliminating an entire social class known as the kulaks. These efforts led directly to mass famines under Stalin, an issue that was entirely absent under the nationalistic efforts of Hitler and Mussolini, which were bolstered by both a strong push for public works and their military enterprises.[8-10]

  1. Economic Benefit

The unemployment rate in Post-World War One Germany was 30% [1] (1932). This was caused by inflation, which explained simply, is a rapid decrease of value in currency, and by withdrawal of American leftist loans. By 1937 (when Adolf Hitler and his Fascist ideals were in office), this was decreased to six million, and then to one million (where it began before WWI). Our opponents continue to boast about how quick Marxism-Leninism deploys their resources, but doesn’t actually take a look at fascism. In five years, fascism was able to repair an economically destroyed country into a powerhouse. It is clear that because fascism was aiming for good national identity, it was able to successfully employ more of the population by taking away some worker’s rights for the benefit of the nation. 
Similarly, in Italy, the liberal government failed to do its work. Italy was on the verge of collapse before the fascists took control. They swiftly improved the economy and culture. They created youth groups and sports activities. They were beginning to build a national community, which is sacred in fascism. [3] This building of economy and national community is what made Italian fascism so popular. 
In both of these examples, it has been proven that when the liberal governments fail, fascism both fixes the problem, and addresses other problems. It is clear that fascism has saved where liberalism has failed.

On the definitions, we have some points that we wish to challenge.

Political Philosophy:

The problem with our opponent’s definition is that it remains very vague. They provide no clear standard for what is a "more excellent or effective basis" for organizing a society, nor any clear metrics by which to assess this. How do we measure excellence or effectiveness? More excellent or effective for whom? We would argue that the standard that must be employed is a more excellent or effective basis for advancing and improving the lives of a given nation. Meeting some phantom threshold for better organization will be impossible to measure, whereas we can assess the effects of each system on the nations in which they were utilized.

Focus of the Debate:

Shockingly, our opponents have defined themselves out of most of their own arguments. According to them, this debate regards “political philosophy and not the enacted laws and means while in power”. Strange, then, to see our opponents spending ample time in their arguments talking about Mussolini and Hitler, which are making regular appearances throughout their arguments. Much as Stalin, Mao Zedong and, Kim Il-Sung, and Pol Pot labeled themselves as communist, what they represent is the enacted laws and means of using Marxism-Leninism. The same holds true for Hitler and Mussolini: facism, as a political philosophy, is not inherently anti-semitic, nor racially motivated. This means that, while each of these have elements that make them fascistic that can and should play a role in this debate, there are many decisions they made that are distinct enough to render them non-topical. Pro would have to show that these are inevitable results of fascism, as we have shown with communist examples like Stalin.


Pro consistently misrepresents the aims of fascism. They talk about how fascism somehow doesn't see a greater good, when in reality, fascism sees the concept of nationalism as achieving the greater good, i.e. what’s good for the country is good for everyone. Marxism-Leninism pursues a perceived greater good for the working class at the expense of others, whereas fascism pursues a greater good at the expense of those who would undermine national identity.

Pro also employs an odd method of trying to shift burdens that they themselves defined as shared in the description. They cannot shift the burden of proof onto us simply by stating that there are potential problems with fascism. It's a shared BoP because a) it’s established in the description, b) we're comparing two systems and assessing which is better, requiring assessment and comparison of both Marxism-Leninism and fascism, and c) no matter how bad fascism may be, Marxism-Leninism could always be worse.


Fascism is simply a better political philosophy because it sees to the national interest rather than to the interests of one subset of the population. Both systems employ brutal methods to achieve their goals, but only fascism achieves a strong economic benefit and commands greater social stability. We keep our round short as well, though not out of misplaced confidence. We simply do not see any reason to overcomplicate the comparison.

[5]Daniels, Robert Vincent (2007). The Rise and Fall of Communism in Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300106497.
[6]Ree, E. Van (March 1997). "Stalin and Marxism: A Research Note". Studies in East European Thought. Springer. 49 (1): 23–33. doi:10.1023/A:1017935822255. JSTOR 20099624.

Round 2
We extend our argument.
Round 3
Our opponents have full forfeited. Please vote con.