Instigator / Pro
Points: 4

Fascism is a right wing ideology

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
DieserDeutscheTyp
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
1) First of all, the right wing of the political compass is often associated by right wingers with " personal freedom" in and of itself, and by left wingers as traditionalism/authoritarianism. Neither is entirely true, and both of those conclusions are simply based in ignorance and bias. In reality, both the left and the right can be authoritarian or libertarian, the true defining characteristics of the two is collectivism and egalitarianism (left)  VS privatization and an "every man for himself" mentality (right). What this essentially means is that a far-left system would be highly democratic and the means of production would be publicly owned, whereas a far-right system is socially Darwinistic with people being stratified into classes based on their wealth, political power or both.

2) Fascism is a highly stratified system. It is actually the farthest right you can get just like Anarcho-capitalism. The difference between the two is that Anarcho-capitalism is 100% libertarian and fascism is 100% authoritarian. This means that in Anarcho-capitalism (also known as the "free market") everything is a "Darwinistic" competition for wealth everyone is expected to make their own way, and whoever plays the game the best owns the means of production. But in Fascism  everything is controlled by a totalitarian government, they become the owners of the means of production. In far-left societies (collectivism) the community as a whole would own the means of production, and thus we can conclude that Fascism is the exact opposite of left wing in that it centralizes the means of production rather than collectivizing it.

3) Fascists always lie and claim to either be socialists or Marxists when they are demonstrably the opposite. The reason they do this is so that they can gain the support of the masses with false promises and weasel their way into power. As I've already explained, Socialism/Communism is common ownership of the means of production, so when Hitler calls himself a "National-Socialist" or when Mao calls himself a "Marxist" and then proceed to centralize everything into the hands of the state, or even maintain a monetary system with limited privatization, then it should be easy to see that they are lying when they calls themselves Socialists and Communists.


Published:
Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for initiating such an interesting debate. Although this is a highly controversial question that several experts in the field find hard to tackle, I will try my best to formulate a logical stance with few subjectivities.

Observation

Although the opponent purports that the BoP is shared in this debate, I have noticed otherwise. Since there are no restrictions on the use of semantics, it has to be noted that my opponent argues on the side, in which he asserts that fascism is a left-wing form of government / ideological mindset. Consequently, it would be reasonable to deduce that the BoP lies on my opponent to prove that fascism is a political ideology belonging solely to the right-wing. Whereas as con, my objective is demonstrate that fascism can be documented as a left- or right-wing type of government. Should I achieve this, Pro's premise becomes invalid. 

Framework

As part of my framework, I will argue that fascism is an ideology that appears in several political regimes that promote a large government. Essentially, I will attempt to display the commonalities found in leftist and rightist authoritarian regimes that have their roots in the pillars of fascism (e.g. state-controlled economy, heavy indoctrination and propaganda, restriction of individual freedoms, etc.). For evidence, I would need to compare and parallelize the forms of government on the far-left and far-right that exhibit and share those pillars. Overall, my aim is to show that fascism is a political ideology found on both spectrums of the political scale. 

A1: Right-Wing Fascist Economics

Mussolini

Although fascists expressed their distaste for socialist and capitalist economies; despite the fact that a handful of those figures started their political careers as socialists, many of their economic practices and principles are emphasized heavily in several, modern socialist countries to this day, namely in the European Union. For instance, fascist governments, such as Benito Mussolini's Italy heavily supported practices like nationalization, large deficits, social welfare and high tariffs. To describe this system of economy, Mussolini preferred the term "state capitalism", which was originally used by Vladimir Lenin to describe his New Economic Policy (NEP). Essentially, the NEP was something that Mussolini became inspired by. A system that was able to operate in the center point of capitalism and socialism. Interestingly, this system would later be adopted by communist China, rebranded under a different name: "market socialism". Though the system of private enterprise didn't last long, due to the fact that Lenin succumbed to his illness shortly after the civil war. His system served to pave the way and model Italy's economy [1]. 

Nonetheless, there were many economists who asserted that Italy's system was similar to that of socialist systems in other European countries. For instance, german economist Ludwig von Mises compared it to British Guild Socialism and history expert Sheldon Richman described it as "socialism with a capitalist veneer". This may seem reasonable, since during the days of the Great Depression, Mussolini would later on denounce the values of capitalism: 

"The Fascist conception of life accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. . . . Fascism reasserts the rights of the state. If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government" [1]
- From "Doctrine of Fascism" by Benito Mussolini
In the following excerpt, we clearly see that Mussolini connects his nation closer to the state, rather than a system of corporate enterprises and free market economy[1]. Though some business in Italy did enjoy autonomy under Mussolini, government regulations never allowed the power of those enterprises to be even slightly compared with the state.  

Hitler

In regards to Nazi Germany, it is no surprise that their system would heavily revolve around socialist ideals. After all, the party started out as a simple workers' party, which would later adapt the word "National" in it. The Nazis actually feared capitalism and classified it as one of their main enemies. Nazi politician and pharmacist Gregor Strasser at that time, said the following [2]: 

"We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!" [2] 
- Gregor Strasser
Even though many would point out that fascist governments formed stratified societies, the Nazis and even Mussolini's Italy strongly advocated for economic equality among the people. Hitler would later on coin the ideals of Social Darwinism with egalitarianism amongst the aryan race. It may seem, that the reason many would disagree with the assertion that Hitler was a socialist is because of his vehement stance against socialists and communists within Germany's borders. Mainly, due to the fact that he perceived Communists as essentially being descendants of Jewish Bolsheviks and the fact that he needed to eliminate all political rivalry against him. Nevertheless, the same has happened under Stalinism. All political competition was abolished. Hitler merely used the same tactics that Stalin, Mussolini or Mao Zedong would use to eliminate rivalry [2].  

Despite the fact that private enterprises also existed under Nazism, the system was still regulated under strict, socialist principles. Mainly, the production's use was only to be catered to the government and no other enterprise or country, unless it be requested by the government. Overall, the state had full rights for the ownership. The so-called "private owners" only decided what was to be produced and in how many quantities. In other words, Nazi Germany would exercise "fundamental collectivism" as economist George Reisman described it [3].

A2: Fascism Attempted to Install a Classless Society

One of the purposes of left-wing fascist regimes like Stalinism, Leninism and Maoism, was to build a classless society run by the workers' guild and council. Nevertheless, the same phenomenon has been documented in Hitler's Germany und Mussolini's Italy. Hitler came to power as a sympathizer of the working class. His initial plan was to infiltrate the worker's party because the middle-class suffered the most during the Great Depression. The party was originally known as the Partei des Mittelstands (party of the middle-class) and remained that way until the capitulation days. Forced labor was prevalent within Germany's grounds during that time, everyone had a "function". Moreover, it was common to find several youth and volunteer groups (one of the aspects of the fascist agenda). In fact, youth groups were present in Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union all at the same time [4]. 

One of the most significant aspects of the German society during that time, was the idea of the Volksgemeinschaft, which translates to "people's community". This was necessarily the force that attracted people to the party's cause. One of the aspects of the people's community includes youth groups and volunteer groups as mentioned previously. Essentially, the community could be described as an amalgamation of ideas and values that people shared. As an example, language, art (entartete Kunst), history, literature, etc. were practiced within the community and defined its very being [5].

This shows not only a way of uniting the people under a vast set of rules, but also uniting them in a manipulatively psychological manner, which has been often witnessed in all states that have practiced fascism, whether left or right. In fact, it is essential for a classless-like society to be present in fascist regimes because the main factor that unites the people together isn't their financial status, but their feeling of solidarity and loyalty to the one-party state. 

A3: Left-Wing Fascism

Although my opponent purports that left-wing fascism is simply a facade and disguise to "gain support of the masses", there are many experts who would argue against that proposition. It is widely accepted that the left-wing fascist regime is merely a different approach to achieving absolute power / single-party state. This is not only limited to rightist authoritarian states. It must also be noted that fascism also consists of a psychological factor, which drives the people to become a part of the cause. Fascism usually emerges during the time when great powers are under economic crisis, be it the in czarist Russia during the WWI or in imperial Germany during the Great Depression. Left-wing fascism acquires its roots from Theodore W. Adorno's Frankfurt school, in which "mass culture" is being painted as the enemy of the people and as something "banal" and "regressive" [6]. In his writings, Adorno emphasized the bastardization of such cultures where usually several aspects of life are dependent of commercialization and the heavy division of the upper and lower classes. Perhaps, this could have been the motive behind Lenin's intent of eradicating the elitist class, the class, which brought culture to the Russian society, in order to start all over again [6]. 

It is no surprise that all fascist parties attempt to infiltrate the working class. Mussolini also attributed the movement to the working class people. The Italian word fasces translates to a bundle of sticks. This way, Mussolini attempted to convey that should the unity of the nation be disrupted, the system will crumble. It shouldn't come as a surprise that besides Lenin (a communist) Hitler was a member and leader of the socialist party and Mussolini was a member of socialist party, from which he disbanded because they refused to engage in WWI [7].    

References
  1. https://bit.ly/2MFURNO 
  2. https://bit.ly/2OLSh6k 
  3. https://bit.ly/1Ubzj6E 
  4. https://bit.ly/2BuTfCg 
  5. https://bit.ly/2MoqzjE (scholar work)
  6. https://bit.ly/2PrOJY7 (Journal essay)
  7. https://bit.ly/2N55ZRr 










Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
Though my opponent has forfeited the round, I will still proceed on to the rebuttals. Should the opponent not respond in the following round, it should be perceived as a concession on the behalf of my opponent. All my arguments are to be extended up to that point.

To explain the formatting of my refutations, I will be analyzing the points made by my opponent by extracting / cutting out certain aberrations and fallacies that were made.

In response to the first clause:

My opponent purports the following in the middle of his clause. The summoned quote where the economic systems of right and left-wing states are being discussed is to be treated as misinformation:

"The true defining characteristics of the two is collectivism and egalitarianism (left)  VS privatization and an "every man for himself" mentality (right)".
First of all, the economic term "collectivism" is defined as follows [1]:

"Collectivism, term used to denote a political or economic system in which the means of production and the distribution of goods and services are controlled by the people as a group. Generally this refers to the state" [1]. 
-Definition by Armstrong Economics
I think both my opponent and I can concur that neither of the right-wing fascist states (namely Italy and Germany) were in favor of granting full independence to private enterprises. If you were to refer to my third source when reading my opening statement, you would learn that Nazi Germany had a collectivized economy, where the purpose of the production yield of so-called "private enterprises" was to be catered solely to the state. In fact, those private enterprises were usually owned by that very same state.  

Although Italy did grant their private enterprises a greater autonomy in comparison to Germany, privatization wasn't prevalent in the least bit. Arguably, it was't prevalent at all. Mussolini's Italy capitalized on nationalization massively [2]: 

"By the 1907 Act the government nationalized most of the lines and networks managed by private firms, and took over the two most important private concessionaires in Italy: the Società generali italiana dei telefoni e applicazioni elettriche, and the Società telefonica alta Italia" [2].
-Germe Bel, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics
I find it quite erratic that my opponent would omit the fact that a considerably large portion of the monopoly in right-wing authoritarian regimes was pretty much publicly / state-owned as well. After all, the very definition of fascism is a "dictatorial power" that "suppresses opposition" and practices a "regimentation of society and the economy" [3]. 

Lastly, based on my opponent's premise that the far-left system was "democratic" and "means of production were publicly owned", then it shall be deduced that right-wing fascism is also a far-left system because means of production were nationalized as well. As it is being demonstrated here, my opponent puts himself in a very vulnerable position by bringing up this slippery slope. 

In response to the second clause:

"Fascism is a highly stratified system. It is actually the farthest right you can get just like Anarcho-capitalism. The difference between the two is that Anarcho-capitalism is 100% libertarian and fascism is 100% authoritarian."
I have already refuted this statement within one of the clauses of my opening statement, however, I wanted to do a follow up anyway to strengthen my argument. Firstly, it has to be brought into consideration that Pro doesn't provide any evidence to substantiate the "heavy" stratification in fascist regimes.

Logically, it wouldn't make sense for the regime to be highly stratified because it would create a sense of disunity within the system and give rise to individualism. This definitely wasn't the case in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Both leaders created a cult out their personalities to be worshipped by the masses. For instance, Hitler was known as the Fuehrer and Mussolini was dubbed the il duce -- the same phenomenon was also documented in the USSR -- and both had their own youth groups. 

As for socio-economic differences, there were classes based on wealth; nevertheless, that wasn't emphasized heavily by the government. It has to be noted that the same socio-economic difference were seen in the Soviet Union and are seen in today's only Marxist-state of Cuba, where only a select 5 percent of the population has the comfort of enjoying internet access from their homes [4]. Essentially, all youth (teenagers and children) were required to participate in youth programs in Italy and in German; irregardless of the status that their families had in the society. 

Following, I will not respond to my opponent's contribution on Anarcho-Capitalism, since it doesn't really have any connection to the topic of fascism. It is rather redundant for my opponent to include something like this. 

In response to third clause:

In this clause my opponent brings up yet another slippery slope: 

"Fascists always lie and claim to either be socialists or Marxists when they are demonstrably the opposite. The reason they do this is so that they can gain the support of the masses with false promises and weasel their way into power."
It would by quite difficult to argue this because we are engaging in a game of semantics. However, I will point out that there are noticeable differences between Nazism and Maoism (as an example). Left-wing fascism focuses on internationalism. For instance, in the Soviet Union, it was encouraged for people of different ethnic backgrounds to give Russian names to their children. Also, surnames were modified to sound Russian. Whereas, in Hitler's Germany only the German race was allowed to have basic rights and essentially be considered as "beings". However, in Italy, it was everyone who carried an Italian surname or if one's family came to Italy generations ago. 

If my opponent refuses to perceive the USSR and communist China as leftist governments, then I invite him to take a look at Cuban politics. Cuba is the only operating Marxist government on earth. Meaning, that they follow Marxist economics very intricately. It is also a country where the same party has remained in power for decades. In order for us to have excluded Maoism and Leninism in this debate, the opponent needed to specify a criteria for countries to be truly "communist" with left-wing / socialist values. After all, communism is an economic system and has been followed by the Soviet Union and is being followed by Cuba. 

Sources

  1. https://bit.ly/2LigFuc
  2. https://bit.ly/2MppfwK (graduate work)
  3. https://bit.ly/1KBj4sO 
  4. https://tinyurl.com/y9wbb9bo
 
















Round 3
Published:
"The Fascist conception of life accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. . . . Fascism reasserts the rights of the state. If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government" 

There is a central theme of your arguments from which all of your misunderstandings stem, and it is the conflation of state ownership of the means of production and a centralized economy with socialism. 

"In regards to Nazi Germany, it is no surprise that their system would heavily revolve around socialist ideals. After all, the party started out as a simple workers' party, which would later adapt the word "National" in it. The Nazis actually feared capitalism and classified it as one of their main enemies. Nazi politician and pharmacist Gregor Strasser at that time, said the following [2]:" 

"We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!" [2] 
- Gregor Strasser

First I will demonstrate that the Nazis' true enemy was Marxism then I will explain why they were not socialists. 
In Hitler's mind, communism was a major enemy of Germany, an enemy he often mentions in Mein Kampf. During the trial for his involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in "fighting Marxism".[102] Marxism, Bolshevism, and communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler as evidenced by their use in Mein Kampf:
In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.[103]
Later in his seminal tome, Hitler advocated for "the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms."[104] According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world and saw Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery.[105] From Hitler's vantage point, Bolsheviks existed to serve "Jewish international finance."[106] When the British tried negotiating with Hitler in 1935 by including Germany in the extension of the Locarno Pact, he rejected their offer and instead assured them that German rearmament was important in safeguarding Europe against communism,[107] a move which clearly showed his anti-communist proclivities.[108]
In 1939, Hitler told the Swiss Commissioner to the League of Nations, Carl Burckhardt, that everything he was undertaking was "directed against Russia" and continued with, "if those in the West are too stupid or too blind to understand this, then I shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union."[109] When Hitler finally ordered the attack against the Soviet Union, it was the fulfillment of his ultimate goal and the most important campaign in his estimation, as it comprised a struggle of "the chosen Aryan people against Jewish Bolsheviks."[110]
Biographer Alan Bullock avows, Hitler "laid great stress" on the need to concentrate on a single enemy, an enemy he lumps together as "Marxism and the Jew."[111]Shortly in the wake of the Commissar Order, a directive pursuant to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, SS Deputy Reinhard Heydrich informed the SS of Hitler's geopolitical philosophy, which conflated Bolshevism and Jews, writing "eastern Jewry is the intellectual reservoir of Bolshevism and in the Führer's view must therefore be annihilated."[112] Considering the eventual Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), no additional inducements are really requisite concerning Hitler's hatred of communism, particularly since the Nazi persecution and extermination of these groups was not only systematic, but it was extensive both within Germany and only intensified in the occupied zones during the war under Hitler's leadership.[113]
Because Nazism co-opted the popular success of communism among working people while simultaneously promising to destroy communism and offer an alternative to it, Hitler's anti-communist program allowed industrialists with traditional conservative views (tending toward monarchism, aristocracy, and laissez-faire capitalism) to cast their lot with, and help underwrite, the Nazi rise to power.[114][115]

The Nazis also maintained a degree of Capitalism and state-capitalism (which you addressed and misbranded as socialism due to your misconception of what socialism is)
Here are some informative videos that will address your misunderstandings (don't worry, they're not long):

"the Nazis and even Mussolini's Italy strongly advocated for economic equality among the people."

The precise opposite is true, actually. They gave certain benefits to different classes and groups and systematically oppressed others both economically and otherwise, nothing could be further from equality.

"Despite the fact that private enterprises also existed under Nazism, the system was still regulated under strict, socialist principles. Mainly, the production's use was only to be catered to the government and no other enterprise or country, unless it be requested by the government. Overall, the state had full rights for the ownership. The so-called "private owners" only decided what was to be produced and in how many quantities. In other words, Nazi Germany would exercise "fundamental collectivism" as economist George Reisman described it [3]."

The fundamental ideological principle of socialism is that the community should have control over the means of production, not the state. During the theoretical conception of socialism, this was a paramount and central concept. Any deviation from this is not socialism but merely an ideological bastardization of it. I also will point out that collectivism is not the same thing as centralization. Basically, you are claiming that  the state owning the means of production but allowing some privatization other than the privatization of the state is the same thing as the people i.e the collective owning the means of production.


"One of the purposes of left-wing fascist regimes like Stalinism, Leninism and Maoism, was to build a classless society run by the workers' guild and council."

If that was their goal, then why did they centralize the economy even more than the governments that came before?

"His initial plan was to infiltrate the worker's party because the middle-class suffered the most during the Great Depression."

Yes, fascists infiltrated a worker's party because they saw that as their best chance to gain the support of the middle class, problem?

it is essential for a classless-like society to be present in fascist regimes because the main factor that unites the people together isn't their financial status, but their feeling of solidarity and loyalty to the one-party state. 

Except anyone with two neurons to rub together can see that no fascist society was ever classless. There was still a Jew class, a middle class, a wealthy class, and a political elite in Nazi Germany. Quite similar to modern day America actually, except many of the wealthy elites and political elites are Jews, the wealthy elite are more powerful than the political elite and the "Jew" class is mostly comprised of black people, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.


 "It is widely accepted that the left-wing fascist regime is merely a different approach to achieving absolute power / single-party state."

What you are basically saying is that collectivization is merely a different approach to centralization.

"this could have been the motive behind Lenin's intent of eradicating the elitist class"

You mean replacing?

"It is no surprise that all fascist parties attempt to infiltrate the working class."

Indeed, just like it is no surprise that Darth Sidious infiltrated the Galactic Republic. Believing Fascists when they say they are Socialists and they care about the working class is like believing Darth Sidious when he says he believes in Democracy.





"Collectivism, term used to denote a political or economic system in which the means of production and the distribution of goods and services are controlled by the people as a group. Generally this refers to the state" [1]. 
-Definition by Armstrong Economics

It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, once you really think about it, that "the people" controlling the means of production is not the same thing as a totalitarian state controlling it. In fact, this should be fundamentally obvious. Once again, Socialism is rooted in collectivism, NOT centralization. Armstrong economics is a predominantly right wing, capitalist source. If you want to know what Socialism is ask a Socialist.

"Nazi Germany had a collectivized economy, where the purpose of the production yield of so-called "private enterprises" was to be catered solely to the state. In fact, those private enterprises were usually owned by that very same state."

By now you should understand that state control is not collectivism any more than dictatorship is democracy. But I'm afraid I will also have to point out that having less of a "free market" in capitalism where everyone can own their own business doesn't make it less capitalist. Fascist states, without exception, have a "state monopoly" on the means of production wherein the state is not only a political dictatorship but a corporate dictatorship as well. If you look at the structure of such societies, they usually allow a little wiggle room for private enterprise and even have a wealthy elite class but the state ultimately serves as the "parent corporation" and oversees and has the final say on all matters of production, exchange and distribution. In this way they are just as capitalist as a free market which is the purest expression of capitalism, only they are capitalist in the exact opposite way and have a total state monopoly on capital and resources.

"I find it quite erratic that my opponent would omit the fact that a considerably large portion of the monopoly in right-wing authoritarian regimes was pretty much publicly / state-owned as well. After all, the very definition of fascism is a "dictatorial power" that "suppresses opposition" and practices a "regimentation of society and the economy""

I find it quite bizarre that you would provide no evidence that the monopoly is publicly owned and state that a large portion of it is when all you have done is conflate state ownership, regimentation and ideological conformity with collectivism. Here is a definition of collectivism from a source that is non biased:


There is only one type of collectivism that Fascists condone, and that is ideological conformity. This is not a sign of economic collectivism but rather authoritarianism. A true far left-wing brand of extreme authoritarianism would be one in which you would see a "tyranny of the majority" and everyone would be expected to conform not to a state/party derived ideology, but one derived from the will of the collective in an extreme democracy. Everyone would be expected to think the same and act the same, and have the same economic status as everyone else.The reason for this is because political/economic collectivism means decentralization and destratification, it means that everyone is the same socially, politically and economically. Fascism is highly centralized and highly stratified. It may appear that they practice collectivism because they have a strong group identity and sense of conformity, but upon closer examination it becomes clear that the group identity does not equalize different groups and classes but instead further cements their stratification. For example, Hitler's Aryan "collectivism" is nothing more than placing one group above all others, and thus creating more class stratification rather than making people the same.

"based on my opponent's premise that the far-left system was "democratic" and "means of production were publicly owned", then it shall be deduced that right-wing fascism is also a far-left system because means of production were nationalized as well. As it is being demonstrated here, my opponent puts himself in a very vulnerable position by bringing up this slippery slope."

This is perhaps the most blatant example of your conflation. You just used the term "publicly owned" and "nationalized" as if they are the same word. public means the general population, nation on the other hand can mean anything depending on what type of nation it is.

"Firstly, it has to be brought into consideration that Pro doesn't provide any evidence to substantiate the "heavy" stratification in fascist regimes."

I didn't think it would be necessary to point out why a society where certain groups are completely dehumanized and placed in ghettos and forced labour camps while a low, middle and wealthy class are maintained and a party-class with total centralized authority runs everything is stratified. If you need further elaboration I suggest you start taking fish oil or something.

"Logically, it wouldn't make sense for the regime to be highly stratified because it would create a sense of disunity within the system and give rise to individualism. This definitely wasn't the case in Hitler's Germany"

Do you think Hitler was afraid of disunity between Aryans and Jews? Sure, maybe before he got them in the ghettos and concentration camps and admitted he hates socialism.

"Both leaders created a cult out their personalities to be worshipped by the masses. For instance, Hitler was known as the Fuehrer and Mussolini was dubbed the il duce -- the same phenomenon was also documented in the USSR -- and both had their own youth groups."

Yes, they had an oligarchical state ruled by a dictator who they elevated to demigod status and they gave priority and privilege to certain groups and classes and oppressed others. How does that make them left wing again? Oh that's right, it doesn't. It makes them the exact polar opposite of Marxists/Socialists who want a classless and democratic society where the community owns the means of production rather than the state, in fact we don't even want a state at all. Fascism on the other hand, and fake communist parties are all about state ownership.

"Following, I will not respond to my opponent's contribution on Anarcho-Capitalism, since it doesn't really have any connection to the topic of fascism. It is rather redundant for my opponent to include something like this."

It did end up being relevant, because you claimed that a lack of "private enterprises" in the free market sense of the phrase indicates a lack of capitalism, when in fact Fascism is just as capitalist as a free market except for the fact that instead of economic freedom it creates economic centralization and a state monopoly.

"Left-wing fascism focuses on internationalism. For instance, in the Soviet Union, it was encouraged for people of different ethnic backgrounds to give Russian names to their children. Also, surnames were modified to sound Russian. Whereas, in Hitler's Germany only the German race was allowed to have basic rights and essentially be considered as "beings". However, in Italy, it was everyone who carried an Italian surname or if one's family came to Italy generations ago."

Hitler's stratification of society focused on race, other Fascist regimes either didn't care as much or didn't have many other races to deal with. That doesn't make them collectivist, it means their stratification isn't based on the same criteria.

"If my opponent refuses to perceive the USSR and communist China as leftist governments, then I invite him to take a look at Cuban politics.Cuba is the only operating Marxist government on earth."

There has never been a Marxist country in human history. Marxist communism was originally intended to be the final culmination of socialism, Socialism itself was invented by Marx as the series of intermediate stages between capitalism and communism. Communism is when there is no government or monetary system and everyone is socially equal and all resources are shared collectively. Socialism is a series of steps towards that goal. Fascism is the exact opposite of this, because it creates a highly stratified series of classes and institutions and everything is controlled ultimately by the state rather than by the people.














Published:
I would first like to thank my opponent for his extensive response. I shall now proceed on with the defense of my arguments. 

(Opponent's arguments are italicized) 
 
My opponent begins rebutting my arguments by bringing up Mussolini's quote from my opening statement. My opponent claims that this is the central theme of my argumentation. By bringing up this quote, I attempted to define fascism based on Mussolini's ideals, after all, Italy is where fascism (arguably) was born. This quote is simply a definition and I by no means intended to structure my debate upon it. 

While reading my opponent's rebuttals, I have also noticed that he is mainly refuting the cases, where I allegedly claim that fascism is similar to that socialism. To be clear and succinct, I am not asserting that right-wing fascism is a socialist system; it is a system which adopts many of the socialist principles on the economic spectrum, which arguably makes it a socialist state from an economic point of view. I am simply pointing out that the economic system in most fascist states is similar to that of Lenin's NEP and the economic structure of many countries that practice market socialism. The political structure, nationalization and restricted autonomy of private businesses is something that is commonly known throughout socialist states. 

In response to Marxism and Hitler: 

It is irrefutable that a large portion of Hitler's propaganda revolved around the idea that communism and marxism was an enemy of the German people, which is understandable since Hitler was strictly against internationalization. Nevertheless, this doesn't exclude the fact that anti-capitalist epithets were also prevalent. The Nazi ideologists believed that capitalism, which promotes free-market enterprises, would create "disloyal big business" and give dominance to the private structure, rather than the public. Here is what Hitler's party had to say about it [1]:  

"The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism" [1].
Furthermore, Hitler argued that capitalism put corporate interests on top of national interests. Hitler was a strong supporter of mercantilism because of the idea that property with rich resources should be seized by force. In fact, he expressed his anti-capitalist ideas in his book Mein Kampf. Hitler's propaganda minister believed that capitalism and communist were the "two great pillar of materialism" and had to be combatted under all costs [1].

Lastly, I didn't misbrand anything. Nazis didn't maintain capitalism because the enterprises that were present in Germany during that time were state-owned. In Italy, the system was known as "market socialism". This probably also won't be accepted by my opponent because it isn't "real" socialism. Yet again, placing me in a game of semantics.

In response to collectivization and socialism:  

This particular clause is also pretty hectic to respond to since my opponent tries playing the game of meaning as well. My opponent needed to place certain definitions in the description in order for this to be avoided. As defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, socialism is

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" [2].
-Merriam Webster
When I respond to something in regards to socialism and marxism, my opponent would argue that my definition is faulty because of the absence of its "realness". Nevertheless, it has to be understood that the principles of of socialism and communism -- though introduced by Marx -- were developed and practiced later on by other figures, which also contributes to the theories meaning / definition. This is the reason Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. are all classified by several researches and experts in the field to be subdivisions of communism. 

In regards to collectivization my opponent asks a simple, historical question about the reason the Soviet Union implemented it. Collectivization is one of the fundamental pillars of communism. The agricultural sector at that time was mainly owned by christian farming communities who were opposed to the new communist government, since it meant the confiscation of their property and their ultimate demise. 

In response to commentary:

"I didn't think it would be necessary to point out why a society where certain groups are completely dehumanized and placed in ghettos and forced labour camps while a low, middle and wealthy class are maintained and a party-class with total centralized authority runs everything is stratified. If you need further elaboration I suggest you start taking fish oil or something."

The main theme of this debate is fascism. I am comparing the fascism that is found on both spectrums of the political scales. If you're disregarding the fact that left-wing fascism exists on the political scale, then you're seamlessly agreeing that communism was a right-wing ideology. 

"There has never been a Marxist country in human history. Marxist communism was originally intended to be the final culmination of socialism, Socialism itself was invented by Marx as the series of intermediate stages between capitalism and communism. Communism is when there is no government or monetary system and everyone is socially equal and all resources are shared collectively. Socialism is a series of steps towards that goal. Fascism is the exact opposite of this, because it creates a highly stratified series of classes and institutions and everything is controlled ultimately by the state rather than by the people."

Yet again, there are several sub-divisions of socialism. For instance, Lenin was the first person to implement market socialism and it was then adopted by China. In regards to Marx's notion of the monetary system, the following was asserted [3]: 

"As value is but the embodiment of socially necessary labour, commodities exchange with each other in proportion to the labour quanta they contain. This is true for the exchange of iron against wheat, as it is true for the exchange of iron against gold or silver. Marx’s theory of money is therefore in the first place a commodity theory of money. A given commodity can play the role of universal medium of exchange, as well as fulfil all the other functions of money, precisely because it is a commodity, i.e. because it is itself the product of socially necessary labour" [3]
Clearly, Marx doesn't deny the use of money as a commodity, which serves to repay the workers labour. Moreover, the idea of the government wasn't denied by Marx, what my opponent suggests here is Anarchy. Marx explicitly stated that the government is to be controlled by the workers. 

Sources

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-capitalism
  2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism 
  3. https://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/txt/1990/karlmarx/6.htm 








Added:
Sorry, meant to add the arguments vote on top of the other 2 but I doubt severely that the one I voted for is going to lose. If you do lose let me know and I'll get the admin to add the 3 points. Otherwise I do not want to hassle him.
#15
Added:
ok, thanks
Contender
#14
Added:
In the future, link this in your debates, it enables people to screen your URL in a safe manner.
http://www.cekpr.com/decode-short-url/
#13
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
I use URL-shorteners. Idk, it is an old habit of mine from DDO.
Contender
#12
Added:
One thing I don't like about the sourcing of Con is it requires trust. He could be linking to porn or a virus for all we know based on the URL.
#11
Added:
This is the first debate where Type1 has genuinely impressed me even though he forfeited as per usual. He's improving, I like it.
#10
Added:
Edit in "Observation": My opponent asserts that Fascism is a right wing form of government*
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @DieserDeutscheTyp
However you want lol.
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @Type1
What about the formatting? How does it go?
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @DieserDeutscheTyp
Yes, I will accept you as an opponent. Just post whenever you're ready, my schedule is loose. I will initiate the first round some time today.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @Type1
Okay, I guess that is reasonable. How does your schedule look like? Would you be willing to accept me as your opponent?
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @DieserDeutscheTyp
Also you can argue that it's left wing or that it's neither, or even that it can be both. As long as you're arguing against the notion that it is right wing.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @DieserDeutscheTyp
In my view the whole burden of proof thing is usually just a cop out from defending your position so in most cases (such as this one) I would say burden of proof is equal.
Instigator
#3
Added:
Edit: Left-wing ideology*
Contender
#2
Added:
I would be willing to accept this debate, but I would like to know where the burden of proof lies. Is it the contender's BoP to prove that fascism is a right-wing ideology, or can the contention purport that the ideology is neither left or right? That would be my take on this topic.
Contender
#1
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I don't usually give the Conduct vote to the one forfeited against because I think it's not bad conduct to forfeit and not good conduct to get forfeited against but in this case I will. The reason I give the Conduct vote is that Pro, clearly with forethought, saved more arguments for the last Round of debate than the entire 2 rounds above. Additionally, I know for a fact that Pro was not inactive on the site during the time he had to post Round 2. Posting so much new content in the last Round is not damning in my eyes since Con is the second one to argue and has a chance to retort but it's extremely poor conduct because now Con can't bring new points or evidence against you without looking like the bad guy themselves (since you, Pro won't get a chance to fight back).
I will also give sources to Con because all were extremely reliable and used in severely relevant ways to the case he made. Pro embedded by copying and pasting pre-made hyperlinks that link you to a pre-typed Reference on Wikipedia and only about 2 of them was actually relevant to proving that Nazism directly opposed Marxism which still doesn't mean it could be a form of Centrist or left-wing politics that differed to Marxism. These sources were not even all that reliable in and of themselves and the reliable ones were the ones that proved something about Nazism that wasn't to do with the resolution in my opinion.
Pro did a very good job ignoring conduct (he was also rude in a couple places on top of the post-order conduct) at proving that Fascism stands against Libertarianism and Marxism but never once explained how this forces it to not be centrist and/or something beyond the wing dichotomy (he didn't ever specify what the wing dichotomy was only what it wasn't). Con wins because Pro proved 2 things that were not directly the resolution and because Con successfully turned back on Pro the fact that Stalin used Fascist means to stay in power and said that it is actually the Nazis and Italians and such who used Socialist policies and masked it as right-wing and not the other way around. This was really interesting because it conceded the overlap and flipped the narrative.
Pro does a good job fighting it back in Round 3 but never explains why Fascism is inherently right-wing because he never explains what it is to be right-wing the entire debate (only what it is not).