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

BE IT RESOLVED: 
MARXISM-LENINISM IS AN OVERALL BETTER POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THAN FASCISM. 
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)

CONTENTIONS

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REBUTTALS
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.
Fascism:
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
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.
[1] https://spartacus-educational.com/GERunemployment.htm
[2]https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Conservative-economic-programs#ref219370
[3]https://aeon.co/ideas/fascism-was-a-right-wing-anti-capitalist-movement
[4]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/the-cultural-revolution-50-years-on-all-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-political-convulsion
[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.
[7]https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/04/20/why-did-communism-fail-3-incentives/
[8]https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin
[9]https://www.hoover.org/research/stalins-genocides