The Instigator
eagleoftheeast
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
themightyindividual
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Facist economics vs Capitalist economics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
themightyindividual
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,069 times Debate No: 75951
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

eagleoftheeast

Pro

Pro will be supporting why facist economics is more efficient than capitalist economics.
Con will be supporting why capitalist economics is more efficient than facist eocnomics.
themightyindividual

Con

First of all, capitalism (free market economies) runs better for a wide variety of reasons. One of those reasons is individualism. Individualism is only present in a capitalist economy. It is essential because it allows people to be different. Fascism is the opposite, it allows nobody to be different, it relies on standardization of lifestyles. Under capitalism, I am able to purchase my favorite brand of my favorite product from my favorite store in my favorite area. If my neighbor does not want to purchase, say, a Dr.Pepper soda from an AmPm in Humble, that is fine and we can both coexist. Under fascism, we all vote on what we will buy, or even worse, a dictator tells us what we will buy. This eliminates individualism entirely or at least to a great degree.

In a free market, I can also pick what job I have. I am not assigned a job by the government, I can voluntarily go out and engage in a free exchange of my labor for my employer's money. If I were assigned the job "brain surgeon" and trained my whole life to become one, it may very well be that I would not be as good as my friend who was assigned the job "janitor". This is because I may not want to be a brain surgeon and my friend does, or it could be because of inherent traits I possess or my friend possesses. If the economy is to function at it's full ability, and therefore be what we call "efficient" we need individual freedom as opposed to collective will.

Another reason the free market is more efficient than fascism is because of privatization. Privatization in a capitalist form means that private parties (individuals, corporations, partnerships, etc.) can purchase and own property freely so long as those who they are buying it from wish to sell it. It is not just real estate that applies to this principle, it is also the means of production, material objects, contracts, intellectual property, and other forms of business-related and non-business-related things. "Why does this work so well?" asks Pro. Because, if I retain full property rights of my house and yard, I will definitely keep it clean and orderly and well built. I will not do the same to something that I do not have the full property rights, because it's not my problem, it's someone else's problem. Means of production (factories, stores, etc.) are kept to a very high standard and prices are kept low, because there are so many options that the proprietor needs to show customers he is better. This leads me to my next point.

The profit incentive is another reason why capitalism works. Under capitalism, everyone has the right to start a business and make as much money as possible, so long as they do not infringe on that right of others. This leads to a wide variety of options for consumers. Consumers will pick the best option, naturally. This rewards good businesses and punishes bad businesses. Since companies know this, they try to provide exactly what consumers want, better than any fascist government could. They lower prices, they raise quality, they clean their stores, they improve safety, they make more locations to make it easier for customers to get there, they advertise so that everyone knows where to get the best deal, they provide different types of products for different types of people, and they do much more than has ever been done under fascism. With this in mind, let us move on.

Many complaints against laissez-faire capitalism is that people are "selfish" and "greedy". This is true, but this is true under all systems. It's because no person ever has been truly altruistic, humans are selfish, as are most animals. Capitalism simply harnesses the power of the greedy, selfish tendencies of the human race, instead of stifling them like many systems do. It actually allows people to be more selfless than any other system ever devised. Here is an example:

I am a baker. I bake bread very well. I am selfish and want money, so I trade the bread to people who do not make their own bread for money. I trade this money for things other people make and I do not make. I realize that people like the bread more when it is baked at a lower heat for a longer time. I do this, even though it takes more of my time, and people like my bread better than other bread. I see that many customers are going to a bakery closer to their houses, even though they say my bread is better. They do not like treading through the snow and dirt to my far-away location and settle for sub-par bread. I spend the last of my money on another property closer to people's homes. I even take a loan from the bank to buy new equipment to make even better bread at the new location. I have seemingly sacrificed everything so that everyone can have very good bread very close to them. However, capitalism comes to the rescue and rewards me for my intelligent actions. I make more money than ever before as everyone goes to my business. The other baker only gets customers who cannot afford good bread. I am greedy and want those customers too. I find ways to keep the bread at it's high quality and sell it at a lower price for my low-income neighbors. The other baker cannot keep up and goes out of business. I am very greedy and and lazy and cannot work by myself feeding the whole town. I offer the other baker a job to help me make bread for everyone, he therefore can put food on the table for his family. Me and the other baker make a fortune and our town becomes famous for very good bread. We decide to take some of the money we made and make another location in another town. We and our families become very wealthy and go down in history for the best bread ever.

That is basically the story behind McDonalds, except instead of bread, they made burgers. I hope Pro (and other anti-capitalists) has learned something from this. Being selfish is good, and helps everyone get what they want.
Debate Round No. 1
eagleoftheeast

Pro

Since fascist economics aren't as well known as capitalist or communist economics I will explain to all readers of this debate that it is fascism includes private ownership but state control on the exchange of goods in a way that is most beneficial to the state. It is generally seen as ordered, hierarchical, and structured economy that serves national interest and efficiency.

Individuality still exists in a fascist system as long as it's overall beneficial to the nation. That means if you wanted to buy Dr.Pepper soda and your friend didn't want to then that doesn't conflict with fascism unless the soda was overall harmful to the economy which no fascist regimes have banned unless there are harmful drugs in it. Where individuality is limited is when it hinders efficiency. Take opium industry for example. Under capitalist economics this industry could theoretically exist unless non-capitalist policies prevent its existence. Opium generally decreases efficiency within an economy because if we look at China and Opium wars then we see when opium was allowed to be bought, workers started overdosing and their worked less efficiently. Majority of other industries started producing less efficiently due to lower work productivity and economic crash happened in China. However under fascism the government would take strong steps to make opium purchase illegal to protect the efficiency of the economy.

Fascism also protects the environment efficiently because it's rarely self-incentive to be environmentally friendly. Although some users will try to buy green Earth goods only to encourage green Earth products in capitalist system, a corporation could just seem environmentally friendly but not actually be and still lull in those green Earth customers because its goal end goal would be selling its products and not protecting the environment. However under fascism if the government wanted to efficiently and effectively protect the environment then it would set regulations and check products to make sure they are environmentally healthy rather than only appear healthy to lull in customers. Having a healthy environment in and of itself also helps the economy efficiently. Under capitalism corporations would find it in their best interest to pollute rivers making fishing and other aquatic industries run less efficiently. Under fascism the corporations would instead clean the water before disposing it allowing fishery and other aquatic industries to run smoothly. Overall the economy would be more efficient if the waste water was treated before being disposed of.

If say a group of corporations in an area wanted to make a highway road to increase economic activity fascism can help those corporations more than capitalism can. Under capitalism we would get what is known as the 'Three monks' effect. Since capitalism is anti-tax and the only taxes that exist under capitalist countries are part of non capitalist policies, taxes will be less under capitalism. Therefore under pure capitalism the only chance of building this road is through a voluntary group donation from the corporations to fund road building. However it is in each corporation's best interest to contribute as little as possible and help for the others to fund the road. This means in the end an inefficient road is created if one is created at all hence 'Three monks'. However under fascism, the government will immediately try to increase the efficiency of those corporations by extracting money to construct the most efficient road possible. All corporations would benefit from this effective road even if all had to pay more each than if each corporation tried to contribute as little as possible.

If say a communist red army began invading a country to seize private property to distribute it and destroy the economy in the process then fascism would protect its economy much more efficiently. Under capitalism like in the above example military funding would be very hard because each corporation would avoid donating money and hope others contribute large sums. In fact some might hope other industries are overturned to destroys competitors! They would ineffectively try to protect themselves from a doomed inefficient economic system. However under fascism the government would take immediate action to withdraw funds and make the corporation contribute a lot more the war effort. This would increase the chance those corporations could protect themselves from communist invaders spreading inefficiency and all corporations would benefit from this.

Under fascism individual choice to occupation is performed unless its economically inefficient. Sometimes individuals themselves don't know what job best suits them and hence we have lots of government funded personality and work tests to find out best occupations suited. Fascist government helps individuals find the job they work most effectively which the individual may not have realized until the government helped out. Sometimes individuals don't have enough contacts and ability to reach co-workers who may have a specialized skill they may need to rely on but under fascism, government will actively seek out and put people who would be otherwise unreachable together so they together can work efficiently. For example if I needed an artisan who can decorate a pottery in a special way, the government which acts over the country can help establish communication between the few people that can do this and me rather than me going all over the country for this. This would promote efficiency.

A big difference between government influenced and privately incentived is end goal. Government would want companies to make best possible products while companies only need to appear to have best products. If a company could have a good quality product or a cheaper made product that appears just as high quality then companies would make that cheaper product as many do under capitalism today due to profit being end goal. Under fascism companies would manually have to make more usable products that customers can use more efficiently rather than ones that appear pretty. For a specific example if a company under capitalism wanted to sell fabric, it would be in its best interest to sell buffed up fabric because it appears big. Under fascism a company would have to make that size fabric with more actual fabric material. This means other industries who are unaware of how that company makes fabric will run more efficiently from the better quality fabric when making things like clothes.

Many capitalist societies in fact have competition and greed directly conflict. Often corporations that make similar products will negotiate a deal to combat competition between them because they are greedy. They make agreements to limit products sold and shoot up the prices of each product. Since they are all agreeing to doing this then competition is destroyed by greed. However under fascism this would be an inefficient corrupt deal and government would prevent such a deal from occurring to protect competition and allow products to be made in larger bulks at cheaper prices. For a more specific example if only Mr. corrupt and me knew how to make flying cars then we would strike a deal where we both make fewer cars but each car is higher price then we would both make more money but economies that need people in flying cars would be less efficient and we circumvented competition that would otherwise drive down prices because our greed was uncontrolled. If under fascism we would never be able to do this and industries that rely on their employees using flying cars would be able to run more efficiently.
themightyindividual

Con

My opponent has not shown that fascism is more efficient because his argument is flawed for various reasons. Under a free market, taxes do exist. Taxes are necessary and any economist will tell you that capitalism only advocates taxes that are used for military, law enforcement (police), contract enforcement (court), and public infrastructure. Any idea that pure capitalist nations would not be able to construct roads is a myth and is an ill-founded concept. Taxes cannot redistribute income under capitalism, that is all. Now, of course some accidental redistribution will occur (e.g. if we all pay the same share of taxes but some people drive farther distances to work than others then the wealth is somewhat redistributed). But capitalism tries to avoid these "neighborhood effects".

Pro says that capitalism is not efficient because it's pillars of greed and competition cancel each other out sometimes. This is not true. Greed is what drives efficiency. Let us consider your flying car example. The inventors of the flying car are not socially obligated to tell others about their invention, it is theirs' and they can choose to do whatever they want with the idea. Now, if they choose to manufacture and sell flying cars at a high price and can make a profit from doing so, then good for everyone. Where leftists go wrong is that they seem to think that if you go through the process of discovering, theorizing, engineering, testing, marketing, analyzing, manufacturing, and selling something that changes the world forever, you are not obligated to sell it at a price that fits everyone's budget! If people are willing to pay ten million dollars for a flying car then that is the price: that is the real value. Even if you only manufacture one flying car and sell it for one hundred million dollars, you are still contributing greatly to the world, and you are being rewarded because obviously that flying car was worth one hundred million dollars (or no one would have payed for it).

You are correct that it would be in the "common interest" that the inventor be forced to sell his wonderful invention to the toiling masses who did not go through the painstaking process of making a flying car. But since when does "common interest" mean "right"? It would be immoral to do that. So fascism, unlike capitalism, does not focus on doing the right thing, only doing the popular thing. This is where lynchings, mobs, lootings, and general medieval collectivism comes about.

My opponent has forgotten that, even though capitalism specializes in creating wonderful inventions, it also specializes in making these products cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. Many great industrialists made their fortune on doing exactly what fascism tries to do. Henry Ford, King Camp Gillette, Thomas Edison, and many others made plenty of money inventing and changing previous inventions to make them better, safer, and cheaper. These entrepreneurs were supporters of capitalism and sold their products on the free market, making the world we see today.

Pro also said that capitalism leads to monopolies. This is not true because capitalism exploits private interests to help the "common interest". This is a constant truth and here is an example of how this relates to monopolies:

Auto companies X, Y, and Z enter into agreement that they will sell their cars at a high price and use their monopoly power to maintain the large profit margin. Two things happen now: first, the profitability of entering this industry and undercutting companies X, Y, and Z has increased exponentially and two, the profitability of either X, Y, or Z dropping out of the agreement and undercutting the price of the cars has increased exponentially. So one of these things (or more often, both things) happen and the monopoly is destroyed. Greed comes to the rescue, again.

In fact, the only way a monopoly is sustained is if the government prevents those two things from happening. Bureaucracy can contribute to this: the ability to create a public utility company or public transportation company is hard in places where capitalism is less present because the government has deals with the current company or companies and regulators would rather deal with one or two companies than deal with a free market. Therefore, the efficiency of the free market is hindered by bureaucracy. This is what fascism does.
Debate Round No. 2
eagleoftheeast

Pro

Even though most capitalist nations do have taxes as my opponent claims, that is because capitalist nations are implementing non-capitalist policies. Those taxes cannot thus be attributed to capitalism and capitalist economics but rather non-capitalist systems. As anyone who studies the philosphical roots and ideological roots of capitalism realizes in its purest form capitalism is anarcho-capitalism. This means security, defense, roads, and etc would have to be run by private corporations. Taxes are not capitalist in nature and are noncapitalist. Thus when my opponent refers to 'pure capitalist nations' he is referring to capitalist nations with socialist/fascist/communist policies of taxes. This should clear up how taxes can exist in capitalist nations while capitalism in its purest form does not advocate taxes whatsoever.
Even if capitalist nations do have taxes, they are usually not as efficient in protecting the environment and industries from foreign aggression than if those nations were fascist. Fascist nations have stronger governments so they therefore can do government related duties more efficiently like build roads, protect oversea corporations from attacks, and protect enviornment.
Also a point my opponent forgot to mention was that fascism will ban drugs and substances that decrease worker productivity such as opium, tobacco, etc. Banning these industries is essential to maintaining efficiency because the worker's work efficiency should be maximized for greater overall production efficiency. When workers smoke, they don't work and they aren't producing goods which leades to inefficiency. When smoking is banned; workers work more, earn more; more products are made; everything is more efficient except for tobacco industries. But this sacrifice is necessary. Because the Qing dynasty of China, chose to use free marketing to try to stimulate growth, a drug known as Opium was imported. When opium came into China; workers overdosed it, left work, and worked inefficiently. If the Qing China had a fascist market rather than a free market then it would have never allowed this drug to destroy worker efficiency.
Another critical point dropped out was the banning of polluting rivers or other instances where certain practices that would hurt efficiency are banned in fascist governments but not banned in capitalist governments. Even though one industry may run cheaper if it pollutes a river, it hurts fishing and other aquatic industries a whole lot more. The polluting of rivers would be overall inefficient. Similarly if a computer software company was making anti-viruses it might try to make everyone more vulnerable to viruses if not make viruses themselves so people will buy from that company. Since people now either have the choice of being vulnerable or buying from that software to counter their new vulnerability they will buy it if they can. Under fascism this practice would instantly be banned as under fascism the nation's efficicnecy comes as a priority before ths individual company's profits. The industry must either stop making computers vulnerable and making viruses themselves or be shutdown altogether.
Also another point dropped out was the fact that governments have more access to more people which means government could better find people jobs that better suit them.
During the great depression of the 1930s it wasn't capitalist or communist but rather fascist economics that could pull a nation out of that economic crisis. It's obvious why communist uSSr had to launch Holodomor genocide of 7+million Ukrainians during this period. However fascist regimes unlike capitalist regimes began governmengt project like road building which not only provided workers with jobs but increased efficiency of transportation. They also took out bank iterest. Although this makes banking industry less efficient, it makes more money for other industries to invest on which caused a resurgence in industries. Capitalist nations were simply not as effective with the government instituted programs that would improve efficiency.

Another point also dropped out is that individual corporations aim only for their own gain and not the nation's gain while fascist government aim for national efficiency over indiviidual corporation profits. I will restate a previous example I mentioned. A company under capitalism wanted to sell fabric, it would be in its best interest to sell buffed up fabric because it appears big. Under fascism a company would have to make that size fabric with more actual fabric material. This means other industries who are unaware of how that company makes fabric will run more efficiently from the better quality fabric when making things like clothes.

Now my opponent's main argument seems to be trying to refute my last paragraph. One has the right to sell it at what price he/she wishes to so long as no corrupt deal occurs that affects the price. Capitalism does lead to monopolies because once an industry becomes large enough it can make it's products at a price that would prevent newer industries from arising. Those compnaies my opponent mentioned are ont likely to drop out because if one drops out then he will increase chances others drop out and in effect hurt himself. THat means its profitable to be in that agreement to keep others in that agreement kinda like a safety bond. By bonding to that deal one keeps other bonded to so its in the best interest of x,y, and z to conitinue to be in that agreemnt. If x drops out he might worry that y and z will drop out and x will overall learn less profit due to y and z dropping out. However if x stayed in he could ensure y and z stayed in so he could make profit. Also if any new party joined in flying care industry then it's quite likely it would be invited into the deal so it can also derive the benefit of higher profit per item. Greed cannot overcome this problem.
themightyindividual

Con

My opponent obviously has no idea what he is talking about, and also his lack of spelling makes it hard to understand his sentences. First, to rebut Pro's argument for the environment, I must point out that under capitalism if a company is dumping industrial waste products into a river, and a fishing company sees that it is hurting their fish production they can sue the manufacturing or power company that is responsible. If you envision a system where you cannot sue anyone, that is not capitalism.

Some versions laissez-faire capitalism include voluntary taxes, and some include extremely low mandatory taxes. The latter is the system I am referring to. This means that highways can be built if representatives elected by the people vote for it. These reps would be very well educated and would be chosen as the best possible representation of the people's opinions.

Also, Pro thinks that society's needs are more important than individuals' needs. This is not true because we are all individuals with different opinions and thoughts and skills, and these are the things that make society great. Society is nothing without the self-centered work of the individual persons. Suggesting that any person or company should be willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the group is called "slavery".

I was stunned to see Pro's idiotic rebuttal of my argument on the subject of monopolies. You said, "Capitalism does lead to monopolies because once an industry becomes large enough it can make it's products at a price that would prevent newer industries from arising". The main problem with this statement is that when I referred to monopolies I was referring to bad monopolies. If a company is providing a product that is high in quality and low in price and it continues to do so, it doesn't matter how much market-relative size it owns, consumers like it best. You then said, "However if x stayed in he could ensure y and z stayed in so he could make profit". My question is "how?". That is, how would company x keep companies y and z in agreement to keep prices high?

My opponent got the math wrong on the monopoly argument. You said, "Those compnaies my opponent mentioned are ont likely to drop out because if one drops out then he will increase chances others drop out and in effect hurt himself". It would actually decrease the profitability of others' dropping out if the first company drops out. This is because the first company has a competitive edge by being the first to lower prices. The next companies would not increase their customer-base very much and would probably stay in until the monopoly falls apart.

Pro's statement that any companies entering the flying car industry would "be invited into the deal so it can also derive the benefit of higher profit per item" is stupid because even if the new company, w, was invited to join companies x, y and z, company w would have a greater customer-base because no one would buy from companies x, y and z. Company w would make all the profit from selling at a lower price. If company w joined companies x, y and z it would have to split the profit made by selling to 1% of the demand with three other companies! The alternative is to keep all the profit from selling to, say, 40% of the demand.

There is no way that fascism could surpass capitalism and all the freedom that comes with it.
Debate Round No. 3
eagleoftheeast

Pro

Now before my opponent tries to condescend he should at least put himself in a high enough position to do condescend. And yes it does seem that my words were cut off at the end of lines by the strange mechanics of the site but it's easy to reform those words since they finish off immediately during the next line. Once again my opponent pretends that capitalism at its purest has taxes; it doesn't because those 'examples' of laissez-faire capitalism contain mixed components of other economic systems.

Original Resolution- As stated in technical terms in the resolution, my opponent must prove why capitalism is more efficient than fascism. This means he cannot go pranting on about how capitalism has low taxes without borrowing from non-capitalist policies because it's simply pointless if not irrelevant. It doesn't prove capitalism to be more efficient than fascism at government related duties. Fascism with it's stronger government will obviously be more efficient in reagrds to government policies even if capitalism had low taxes, rendering my opponent's whole irrelevant argument entirely obsolete.

Again with the environemental protection, fascism with it's stronger government will be more efficient with protecting environement. My opponent's attempt to prove that capitalism has lawsuits in now way shows that capitalism is more efficient with protecting the environment and is thus irrelevant.

My opponent attacks society as a form of slavery but of course humans are social creatures and the progression of humanity required knowledge and ideas to be exchanged. This means fascism which enourages more cooperation will run more efficiently.

YZ would both stay in simply because they all benefit if they all stay in and the net increase is best for all 3 companies if they eliminate competition.
themightyindividual

Con

My opponent has absolutely no care for using correct grammar and spelling. This renders it hard to read and so I urge Pro to consider looking at the screen as he types from now on. Thank you.

Anyway, capitalism allows unrestrained competition in the market, which we know leads to more innovation. A fascist government would stifle any invention it deemed not in the state's best interest. All decisions, in fact, would be made in favor of the government. A free market makes decisions that are best for consumers, this seems to work best. Under fascism, the government would nationalize most companies in order to create a monopoly, so that it has more control of prices and can make a bigger profit. Things like Costco Wholesale and 7-Eleven would be taken by force and the government would become communist.

This is because fascism is a system that allows the creation of a socialist state. Nothing would be efficient, because the profit-incentive would largely be erased. The book "We The Living" shows how this would work. I suggest you read this.

The reason why capitalism in it's pure form is not being used currently is because it is hard to achieve, and since governments are being run by Republicans and Democrats but not Libertarians. This will change in the next fifty years, but until then we can only theorize. Fascism had it's chance and the first half of the twentieth century was devoted to testing socialism and fascism while the second half was mostly devoted to taking down the out-of-control experiment that had resulted in communism. Obviously, fascism works to begin with but slowly degenerates into something less efficient. Thus, fascism, which can make trains run on time by the power of soul-crushing policies and the nationalization of Costco Wholesale and 7-Eleven, becomes inefficient quickly.

Along the lines of environmental protection, I do believe that in today's day and age a fascist government would adopt environmentalism as a way to gain control of private property and the means of production. So yes, with the current (but soon-to-be-fading) green fad, I'm sure fascism would do a good job making the economy efficient by regulating the production of gasoline and driving up the cost of gas to $5.00 a gallon.
Debate Round No. 4
eagleoftheeast

Pro

Misspelling a couple words and making mistakes is one thing, it"s a whole nother thing to drop out whole arguments. My opponent chooses to avoid too many points and focuses on a few points I addressed. After All a few misspelled words can still provide arguments but not addressing arguments properly definitely cannot provide counter refutes. It"s much better to misspell while making a point than to not make a point at all and many would agree.

Once again my opponent thinks fascism is somehow anti-private property and anti-initiative. All fascist regimes support private initiative and private property. Fascist governments do not actually own the companies as that is simply not fascism, that is communism. If my opponent wishes to debate why communism is bad then he can save that for another debate. Since it would not be beneficial for the nation to have the government seize control of 7-11 or Costco, fascist regimes simply won"t do that because that is once again, a communist thing and not a fascist thing. My opponent goes on to say capitalist free markets allow initiative entirely and fascism hinders the development of things harmful to the nation. Given common sense it"d be more efficient to get rid of what"s harmful to the nation. I once again bring back my opium and tobacco examples. The Chinese had a free market that allowed the import and production of opium which when consumed by the everyday chinese worker made him/her overdose and work less efficiently. Tobacco has the same effect.

Once again fascist regimes are not socialist and private property is initiative is still protected unless its harmful like Opium. My opponent clearly does not understand fascist regimes allow private initiative. In fact " Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" A direct quote from a fascist dictator should be enough to get the point across.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Fascism had its chance to test it"s economics and it was fascist regimes especially Nazi Germany and not communist nor capitalist regimes that pulled out of the Great depression. I will explain once again, taking out bank loan interest provided more investing security and initiative allowing fascist regimes to prosper due to increased efficiency. Once again fascism does not use economic policies not useful to the nation so if it happened that taking a private industry like 7-11 was bad then it simply doesn"t happen. My opponent once again cannot tell the difference between fascism and communism.

My opponent"s response to my claim of fascist governments are more efficient at protecting environment is that capitalist regimes dig up oil faster. Digging up oil faster does not make capitalist regimes more efficient with environmental protection, in fact quite the contrary for obvious reasons. Thus he never actually tried to refute it by proving how capitalist regimes are better with environmental protection. The argument of fascist regimes being better protectors of the environment still stands.

My opponent addressed less than half of the arguments presented in this round and since he provided nothing to refute them I will simply copy paste those arguments to make a point.

If say a communist red army began invading a country to seize private property to distribute it and destroy the economy in the process then fascism would protect its economy much more efficiently. Under capitalism like in the above example military funding would be very hard because each corporation would avoid donating money and hope others contribute large sums. In fact some might hope other industries are overturned to destroys competitors! They would ineffectively try to protect themselves from a doomed inefficient economic system. However under fascism the government would take immediate action to withdraw funds and make the corporation contribute a lot more the war effort. This would increase the chance those corporations could protect themselves from communist invaders spreading inefficiency and all corporations would benefit from this.

A big difference between government influenced and privately incentivized is end goal. Government would want companies to make best possible products while companies only need to appear to have best products. If a company could have a good quality product or a cheaper made product that appears just as high quality then companies would make that cheaper product as many do under capitalism today due to profit being end goal. Under fascism companies would manually have to make more usable products that customers can use more efficiently rather than ones that appear pretty. For a specific example if a company under capitalism wanted to sell fabric, it would be in its best interest to sell buffed up fabric because it appears big. Under fascism a company would have to make that size fabric with more actual fabric material. This means other industries who are unaware of how that company makes fabric will run more efficiently from the better quality fabric when making things like clothes.

Also shockingly my opponent drops out his main point about companies X, Y, and Z. W doesn"t want X,Y, and Z to drop out so W rather than being foolish and just sell directly, will probably instead just join the agreement. Like if x,y, and z were selling flying cars for 20 million dollars and my company could sell it for 10 million and cause those companies to drop down to 10 million price or I could join up the high price wager and we all do 20 million then I"d much rather go with 20 million rather than have other companies drop out of an agreement that I want them in.

And of course my opponent finally admits pure capitalism is hard to achieve in this round implying that he agreed that pure capitalism has no taxes.

Not only that but fascist regimes putting more money into road building than capitalist regimes do will cause the nation to industrialize much faster.

Another point my opponent does not address is governments are simply better at finding the nation"s people and resources. Under fascism individual choice to occupation is performed unless it's economically inefficient. Sometimes individuals themselves don't know what job best suits them and hence we have lots of government funded personality and work tests to find out best occupations suited. Fascist government helps individuals find the job they work most effectively which the individual may not have realized until the government helped out. Sometimes individuals don't have enough contacts and ability to reach co-workers who may have a specialized skill they may need to rely on but under fascism, government will actively seek out and put people who would be otherwise unreachable together so they together can work efficiently. For example if I needed an artisan who can decorate a pottery in a special way, the government which acts over the country can help establish communication between the few people that can do this and me rather than me going all over the country for this. This would promote efficiency.

My opponent"s dropping out arguments is very much like forfeiting the debate. This makes the debate a lot less interesting much in the same way a forfeiture does even if lesser so.

Vote Pro!!!!
themightyindividual

Con

Obviously, my opponent is over-idealistic and under-realistic. What he fails to realize is that the government has great power over the economy under fascism and that this is a risk. I understand that my opponent would LIKE the government to weed out bad companies and make everything perfect but this will not happen. The government is run by human beings, who are naturally selfish. Those human beings, who only have to appeal to the majority of voters, have unlimited power and can use it for professional and/or monetary advancement. This is called "corruption". Pro did not consider that if the government was able to do anything, regardless of individuals' rights, this may lead to a greedy, self-serving government.

If it is in the state's interests to nationalize 7-Eleven and Costco Wholesale, they will do it and can claim it is for the "common good" any which way. Most people (especially under fascism) would not question the state's decisions and therefore this sort of thing would happen all the time. In fact it did happen all the time.

Nazi Germany saw it in the state's best interest to slaughter those who opposed the will of the mighty fascist government and in fact nationalized businesses, land, natural resources, homes, and other things because they could get away with it. That's the way that all big leftist governments work. And it's why all governments that are allowed to do anything for the "common good" do so.

Pro has confused my comparing communism to fascism for changing the debate's premise. I compare these two systems because they lots in common. If Pro doesn't understand this, as I'm sure everyone will soon, I will point out some facts:

-Both share the goal of "collective efficiency"
-Both share the idea that man's sole purpose is to work
-Both share the notion that the government should have greater power than any individual
-Both share the same economic premise that "efficiency and greatness can only be achieved through big government control.
-Both support the idea that individuals are less important than groups, this idea has hindered progress throughout history.
-Both support an attack made against people of different religions, races, and ideologies in order to "further mankind".
-Both only support institutions that are good for everyone, even if it means tearing down great institutions and replacing them with government-run institutions.
-Both pick equality over freedom and security over privacy.
-Both prefer increased government surveillance.

There are more traits shared but that is probably enough. Even if Pro would like fascism to be efficient, as it is on paper, he fails to consider human nature and therefore does not recognize the reality of the situation. This has been an informative debate, I thank Pro for the arguments given, I have enjoyed this and I hope people vote with common sense and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Reported, huh? Interesting.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
******************************************************
>Reported vote: whiteflame// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Comments 12, 13, 14.

Reason for report: (no reason was provided)

[*Reason for non-removal*] Voter explained arguments in sufficient detail.
************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

Let's be clear on this: both debaters are idealizing their systems. Con is idealizing the competitive nature of capitlist societies and Pro is idealizing the interventions that fascistic societies will commit to. That's to be expected " each of you is trying to flaunt the benefits of your systems. However, I would have liked to have seen some worst case scenarios played out here in order to clarify this debate. If all I have is mainly best case scenarios to work with, then each of your call outs for idealism just nake me question why ether system is beneficial.

But since neither of you spend the time here, I'm going to have to spend my time examining what I'm presented with. Both of you beg more questions than you answer about your particular systems. For example, Con talks about how capitalism upholds individualism, but I'm unclear on why individualism is something that we should necessarily uphold. The same's true for many of Pro's arguments. I don't feel like either of you are taking the time to explain why we should care about your arguments, and much as you've provided some of the necessary links, the impacts are often missing from your points.

I think a lot of what's problematic in this debate is that there seems to be a substantial disagreement on what a fascistic economy is. Both sides try to clarify it, and each of you disagrees. I'm not given any substantive reasons to agree with either side in this regard since both of you are just making assertions without any evidence as to how fascistic economies are run. Eventually you both get to an example (in R5...) but by then the damage is done and the debate is already heavily confused. That does no favors to either debater.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

Neither does the general shift in focus towards fascistic economies. After R3, capitalistic economies vanish into the rear view mirror as fascism becomes the sole focus of the debate. I'm not clear on why the shift occurs because capitalism is where Pro starts off spending most of his time. He points out some of the drops, but doesn't spend a lot of time harping on their importance in the final rounds, which places his argument at greater risk. If it's the only thing I'm putting under the microscope by the end, then I'm going to spend less time paying attention to Con's case by that point.

But I am paying a little more attention than that. I'm noticing that it's Con who ends up dropping a lot of the responses, and while Pro doesn't revisit them as well as he should, those responses don't disappear. The potential for abuse in a capitalist economy is therefore very potent. But so is the potential for abuse in a fascistic economy, where a government's influence is corrupting.

What could have won this is the presentation of more evidence. I think both debaters do themselves a disservice when there's almost no comparison of economies that exemplify their views. The only actual example I get that gives me any basis for viewing either type of economy in a realistic light is Nazi Germany, which comes up too late to really do much. It might have been enough by itself to showcase the improved economies that can result from fascist regimes, but without more analysis, it's not enough to sway me here.

So I could look at the debate in two ways. I could analyze it as a comparison between two idealistic worlds where everything goes right. I don't want to do it this way because it ignores the realities of each system in favor of hypotheticals.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

As such, I turn to the question of the realities behind them. Each side presents me with a number of potential problems that could come with them, and many of these problems could be devastating to societies. Since neither side compares the severity of these harms, I'm left to compare them, and the only way I can compare them without inserting my views into the debate is to look at how likely each of the harms is.

Pro's case doesn't provide any way of addressing the potential for corruption. Much as I feel that there are means by which he could have done this, I can't insert them into the debate. So he has a high likelihood of those harms coming to pass.

Con's case allows for a lot of corruption by design. In fact, he uses corruption as a means to avoid many of the problems that accompany it. While I find many of those points baffling, Pro's lack of rebuttal on them just leaves me scratching my head. Con had to present some reasoning as to why competition either never happens or does nothing to reduce corruption. I don't see those arguments, just pieces of them. All I can do is accept that there's a chance that competition will reduce corruption, even if, in many instances, that competition won't happen.

So while capitalist economies can be terribly corrupt, they have a slightly lower chance of being corrupt than fascistic economies. As such, I vote Con.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
@themightyindividual - This is not a presidential campaign. A debate is meant to be judged with absolutely no bias going into it, and by stating how people should vote, you're subsequently biasing that vote. Don't argue the issue, just don't do it in the future.
Posted by themightyindividual 1 year ago
themightyindividual
I was only alerting them to the debate's existence and anything I said that may have persuaded potential voters to vote a certain way is pure opinion, I am not forcing anyone to vote a certain way.

Ask yourself, is it wrong for a presidential candidate to try and convince voters to vote a certain way?
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
You can't contact debaters and ask them to vote a specific way, that's unethical. I'll look at this also.
Posted by themightyindividual 1 year ago
themightyindividual
To Ragnar:
Shut up.
Posted by themightyindividual 1 year ago
themightyindividual
To F-16_Fighting_Falcon:
There is an explanation for the vote, he stated it clearly. You are biasing the poll, and that is unjust. I have seen many voters get away with posting pretty much nothing in the Reason For Voting box and you are just using your power to influence the results.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
eagleoftheeastthemightyindividualTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. I'm not awarding source points on the basis that the one source that is presented comes so late and doesn't have an effect on the debate as a whole. S&G was not so bad by either debater as to warrant awarding it, either.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
eagleoftheeastthemightyindividualTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll refrain from voting for now. It's not as if either side did anything that sets them apart from the other side, though con did seem more knowledgeable on the subject matter. I'd advise both parties to spend more time defining the terms of the debate. There are several different types of economic systems that could be called fascist or capitalist. I could argue that the type of economic system pro argued for is capitalistic. Maybe I'll allocate points later, maybe I won't. Either way, get semantics out of the way ASAP, so you can focus on content, and just do better next time.