It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Greater barbarity: Fascism < Capitalism ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:19 AM
I'll be participating in a debate tomorrow and one of the arguments is to be the comparison between fascism/nazism and capitalism. More specifically why capitalism is a greater barbarity than fascism/nazism...
And as there is no better site that deals with serious topics I would like to ask of you all if you could provide me with some info that would additionally strenghten this argument.

Thank you very much and I apologize for my english which is not well developed!

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:41 AM
The only real problem i've ever had with capitalism is that it stifles innovation in order to profit off of it. Comparing it to fascism is a stretch in my mind.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:17 PM
Well, according to some, when Capitalism fails, is when we try and mix it with Socialism. That means 'too big to fail's and bailouts. It becomes kind of like fascism, or corporatism then, as the government takes over companies, and just gives money to their friends companies, forming a oligarchy who have a de facto insurance scheme on something that should not be insurable.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Krisclin

The two don't compare.

What kind of debate is this??

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:31 PM
They are difficult to compare but I think some comparisons can be drawn. In terms of barbarity fascism isn't less barbaric than capitalism; they both are in their own rights.

Capitalism can be seen as barbaric for several reasons. First of all it creates a hierarchy based on wealth. Secondly it is chaotic; there is no one telling you how much money you can make or where you can spend it. With the freedom of spending comes the creation of useless products that create chaos because those with the money want to buy everything while those who do not possess money are left with nothing and often have a very difficult time acquiring wealth. Capitalism can be seen as a form of enslavement, allowing few to possess great wealth while allowing others to die in gutters of hunger. This form of system can be easily manipulated by those who possess the wealth.

Now you have to take into account that capitalism is an economic system whereas fascism is a political system. That makes contrasts difficult. Economically fascism isn't bad in theory but it's playing an entirely different game.; fascism is closer to a Marx "utopian" view than capitalism in that the state provides the income for those who do the work. It is also a realist/Darwinist approach in that those who do not work do not get paid. This can be seen as "realistic" but it could also be viewed as barbaric by the "politically correct" views of N. America and Western Europe. Politically and socially it is a very barbaric system. It promotes nationalism and authoritarianism; ignorant ideologies that encourage racism, hatred, and arrogance. It breeds violence but takes care of its own and encourages them to be the best they can be, at the cost of others if need be (or if it can be worked in

Just my opinion, I'm not an expert on the matter, just how I view it with my basic understanding of political ideologies.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by Scurvy

An excellent summary Scurvy! There is an interesting point that you didn't mention though, which concerns the idealistic "definition" of fascism and the actual implementation of fascism.

The two largest "failures" of fascism are exemplified by Italy and Germany during the 30's and 40's (earlier perhaps, but generally concerned with these 2 decades). However, these examples were let down by the usual problem of fascism which is the absence of a distinct social policy contrasting with the presence of specific ideology in developing a national identity.

It could be argued that it was the failure of specific policies of Nazi Germany that caused the failure of fascism rather than anything specifically to do with fascism itself (especially since its definition is so ambiguous).

Fascism can use methods of capitalism and (traditional) socialism to effect its ends, however, the largest point of contention is the scope of definition of the "social class" - that is, that group which fascism has been introduced to serve.

In Nazi Germany the delineation was very clear, based on racial grounds. However, this is not a "given" aspect of fascism - again, this is an issue of "implementation" against "idealism".

If we consider a society where everybody puts in their share and each receives their share according to a supposed "equality" measure, then this is well within the boundaries of fascism, as it is with socialism.

If we consider the ideals of capitalism, which is predicated on the inequality of workers as opposed to "investors" and the supremacy of "finance" above the human condition, then we have to question whether it really is the best implementation of democracy.

Fascism in itself is not necessarily mutually exclusive with democracy - although each implementation of it has been regarded as a "dictatorship" because singular individuals have aspired to represent the masses which are defined as the "choosen people".

Although not defined as a "buzz word" until Mussolini came along, fascism has been around for many many years in one form or another. The whole ideal of "Moses and the chosen people" could be considered to fascist, the Roman empire under the Emperors could be considered fascist. Most forms of feudalism could be considered fascist.

Whether or not people would be better off under a fascist regime is a somewhat moot point since there has never been a recent implementation that failed specifically because of fascism rather than other ideological or policy aspects.

That is a bit of a hard pill to swallow but basically a sound argument. Now, a more salient question would be whether one would wish to be a member of a "fascist" society that is run by the same guys that run the capitalist society. I believe the answer to that would be a resounding "No" and rightfully too. Fascism is an ideal, but mankind is just too selfish and primitive in civilisation to make it work properly.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by SugarCube

Thank you SugarCube. I never thought of mentioning the theory vs. practice piece; I think you explained it MUCH better than I could have anyway. Fascism is much like Communism in that sense. It has yet to be carried out properly and I think you nailed it on the head when you said "mankind is just too selfish and primitive in civilisation to make it work properly."

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:02 PM
Ah, excellent! Thank you for your replies as they are truly great.

What kind of debate is this??

The title of the debate is:
Fascism and Nazism are the greatest barbarities of the modern times.

I need to find as much arguments as I can to negate this statement and at the same time learn as much as I can to negate those who will be defending this statement so all your help is very much appreciated.

Again, thank you very much!

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:57 PM
The question itself is totally unansweable. It's like saying, "which is better, freezing to death or burning to death?" Or more generally, "which is better, hot or cold?" Obviously either one taken to extremes will be horrific, while versions closer to the center have the potential to be a bit better.

Somebody once asked the Dalai Lama whether he thought communism or capitalism was better. He replied something to the effect of: "A viable society is possible under either system, or any one of a number of of other systems, if the people in charge act with compassion, honesty, and righteousness. If the people in charge are lacking these qualities, then it doesn't matter which system you choose: the end result would be bad." I wholeheartedly concur.

new topics

top topics


log in