That's not so wrong for the nazi ideology, since they wanted to breed a better and healthier mankind with the help of evolution theory. The result was murder, cruelty, destruction.
As Sorabji used to say, this process was doomed before the start, since the régime in Nazi Germany was run by people with a surfeit of ideas about ideology but not the slightest ideas about genetics - hence the exact results that you state here.
Look at what are the consequences of capitalism on the earth: murder, cruelty, destruction.
I will have to disagree with you here. The undoubted "murder, cruelty, destruction" wreaked by mankind is a consequence only of the wills of those members of the human race who choose to wreak it; its only conceivable connection with "capitalism" is that of a perversion of capitalism that results in the prioritising of greed above all else. In other words, it is not reasonable to blame these global ills on "capitalism"
per se - and capitalism is not all about greed.
Capitalism is often regarded as a kind of opposite to communism, which is only partly true, since capitalism is a concept based largely upon economics whereas communism at least appeared to seek to be something rather more wide-ranging than this. If one attempts a realistic practical comparison between the two concepts, one must therefore consider only the economic aspects of communism, in order to try to match like with like. When one does this, the only material difference between them appears to be in the level of state interference in the national economy.
In a capitalist society, the profit motive is a given, as is the existence of competition in the business market place. In a communist state, however, much the same applies in practice, even if those capitalistic aspects are partly covered up by the state panoply. By this I mean that almost every person who offers him/herself and his/her goods and/or services for hire places him/herself, by definition, in potential "competition" with every other person that does the same, whether in a capitalist or a communist society; the only material difference in most instances is that, in the former, each person offers his/her wares to a mixture of private and public sector employers or through his/her own business, whereas in the latter he/she is more often than not obliged to offer them to the state system alone.
The potential and actual levels of economic corruption (competition abuse, black marketeering, favouritism, shady deals, etc.) are pretty much the same under either kind of régime.
Even a communist state depends for its economic survival on the making of profits - and no state, capitalist or communist, is economincally self-sufficient, so that economic survival invariably depends to a greater or lesser extent upon the existence and successful development of import/export relationships with other states; this latter means that communist and capitalist states are, to varying degrees, economically dependent upon one another (although, China excepted, this interdependence has, of course, lessened considerably over the past quarter century or so, due to the collapse of many of the old communist régimes).
One problem with so many anti-capitalists' attitudes appears to be in their habitual regard of profiteering as essentially and unavoidably "evil" by nature, yet profit-making is essential if ever-increasing levels of goods and services are to be provided to humans by other humans under either capitalist or communist systems. Capitalist countries with well established publicly funded health, transport and education systems (which, of coruse, is not all of them) are at least in part dependent upon profits from those three industries for their survival and development of those industries, but they are also heavily dependent on tax revenues, which can only be collected from taxpayers (corporate and individual) as a consequence of the profits that they have made elsewhere.
I am the first to admit that capitalism as we have so far experienced it is a flawed system; the widespread collapse of communism appears to demonstrated that it is an even more seriously flawed system.
One problem with certain pro-capitalists' attitudes (and it was especially evident in UK during the Thatcher régime in the 1980s) is in their assumption that everything must make a profit or it is no good and must be discouraged or scrapped. As a composer in UK, I am regarded by the UK tax authorities as a business just like any other business and am accordingly expected to generate a profit and pay tax on it. In real life, of course, it doesn't matter how much or how little I receive for my pains, the music I write does not, of itself, generate any "profit" as such at all - in fact, by definition, it is almost guaranteed to create disproportionately high losses; if that does not immediately sound credible, just think of all the costs involved in the production, distribution, marketing, rehearsing, performing and even reviewing of new music - all of those activities almost always generate losses which, in most cases, simply cannot be recovered from box office takings and sales alone and so are heavily dependent upon subsidy from the state, private industry, private individuals, charitable trusts and, frankly, any other goddam' source that can successfully be tapped for it. This situation cannot be avoided and has to be accepted as fact, however unacceptable in principle it may seem to certain folk of hardened and inflexible capitalist bent; in accepting it, I nevertheless recognise, however, that every penny of those subsidies which are the economic life-blood of my profession will derive from the profits of others and, if those profits are not made, no such funding will be forthcoming.
Of course, some of those capitalists will say, in their defence (and I've heard it often enough) "ah, but you know that composition and all that fallout from it is congenitally incapable of making a profit, so you shouldn't expect to derive a living from composition; you should make a profit at something else from which you should subsidise yourself to compose, distribute, market, rehearse, perform, review, etc. in yours and your professional colleagues' spare time". This attitude is, of course, seriously flawed on many counts, as I have no doubt members of the piano fraternity here would understand rather better than most (even if many of them are not actually composers themselves). There is a precedent, however; Busoni (no less) advised van Dieren (no less) to do something else for a living so that he could free himself up to compose just as he wished - and Busoni himself subsidised his own compositional activity by - among other things - conducting and performing (though not teaching - of which more later - because he famously refused on principle to accept payment for teaching); great, one might say - and Busoni died in his mid-50s and van Dieren in his 40s.
The most frequently heard argument is that "composers should teach for a living"; now I have to say that the notion that each composer should devote large swathes of his/her professional life teaching lots of younger composers-to-be has never quite struck me as economically tenable, given that the inevitable end result will be an infinitely greater number of composers struggling to derive a living from composition and having therefore to resort to teaching even more of them - on top of which, of course, the teaching of composition itself generates no financial profit as such, yet someone nevertheless has to find the money from somewhere to pay those composers to teach.
It's all the work of evil forces, or - as pianistimo would say - of the devil.
If all of the above can be construed as "the work of evil forces", then so be it - and perhaps what you claim as "pianistimo's" version of this - i.e. "the work of the devil" - might actually possess some credibility in this particular context at least, since, as is well known, "the devil has all the best tunes"; it might be nice to think that he/she has "all the best 'counterpoint'", too...
Best,
Alistair
Topic: Halleluja, I have seen the light