Greater barbarity: Fascism < Capitalism ?, page 1/
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 12:28 PM by nyk537
reply to post by Krisclin


The two don't compare.

What kind of debate is this??


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 01:31 PM by Scurvy
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.


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 01:55 PM by SugarCube
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.


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 02:56 PM by Scurvy
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."
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



The Internet as a case study of Socialism
  Posted 18 days ago with 7 member flags
Why the need for Constant Growth?
  Posted 4 days ago with 7 member flags
Real Socialists. The Friends Of The Conservatives.
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
The Greenbay Packer\'s Prove That Socialism Works.
  Posted 18 days ago with 5 member flags
On What Date Did Human Freedom End?
  Posted 14 days ago with 5 member flags