upvote
Copying and pasting my reply elsewhere in the thread that summarizes my thoughts here as well:

I don't have the mental power at this moment to write out my full thoughts on the subject so forgive my vague thoughts (an aside- withdrawing from SSRIs is an _unpleasant experience_)

I think the problem I find with arguments that Capitalism is the best/least bad system tend to be that they start from a false premise, in my opinion. I have a friend who makes the joke all the time that any system of government works if people were just nice to each other, but he has a point. I often hear that "oh, communism doesn't work because humans are inherently selfish." That's true, if you believe that humans are inherently selfish, but my counter-point to that is asking how much of it is innate vs. how much of it is trained by our culture and reflects back in those communist attempts because the sudden change in social architecture didn't give enough time to 'train it out of' the culture.

Back to the thing my friend says - if you believe that communism doesn't work because humans are inherently selfish/greedy/etc, I'd say to you also that capitalism is currently not working _because humans are being selfish and greedy_ in a system _that explicitly rewards that_. Which, maybe is worse.

I don't pretend I have an answer for how we can get from point A (capitalist system) to point B (future space communism) in a way that slowly shifts human thinking towards mutual aid and collective action, but I think it's short-sighted to assume that the way humans act in a system that rewards greed/selfishness is innate.

reply
I believe capitalism is the least-bad system we've created so far. Perhaps there is a better one, but as I said elsewhere the failed experiment of communism isn't one we should keep attempting--the cost in human lives is far too high.

But, to your other point, I think human greed is innate. I can't think of evidence that would suggest that greed is somehow cultural or learned. Boil the system down to the lowest common denominator, you find greed. Scale it up: greed. No matter what you do, you cannot remove human greed systematically.

reply
The problem, generally, with this view point is that it attributes all of a societies ills to Communism and none of (or few of) societies ills to Capitalism.

For example, do you believe the Capitalist system has nothing to do with the eagerness of the United States to drop bombs throughout the world for the past 100 years? Personally I see these actions as unnecessary and evil but pushed to continue by the people who stand to gain the most wealth and influence from them.

reply
I did not excuse capitalism from critique. I'm not sure how you arrived there from my comment.
reply
The richest capitalist in the world unilaterally axed USAID at the behest of his cronies, and has directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children to date. Projections are 9-14 million overall deaths by starvation and disease by 2030. And that was just kicked off a few months ago.

Musk and Trump are doing a Holodomor in front of the world's eyes.

reply
What specific horrible evils do you mean? And how do you attribute them to, specifically, organizing an economy along communistic lines?

I ask because if we can take a country with a communist economy, or striving for one, and blame all its evils on communism itself, I have a few things I'd like to point out as being the horrors of capitalism:

1. Atlantic slave trade - millions dead (many on the ships), millions enslaved

2. Settler colonialism and indigenous genocide - British empire, all over the world

3. Congo Free State, Leopold II - 1 to 5 million dead via colonial extraction regime

4. British India famines - 3 million dead

5. Irish Famine - 1 million dead

6. Opium wars - directly caused by British using the military to defend market access. 100k dead, devastating to Qing China for a century

7. Indonesian anti-communist massacres - 500k-1mil alleged "communists" killed after the USA, UK, and Australian intelligence agencies propagandized against them

reply
The specific evil in my mind was the Great Leap Forward, but there are dozens we could draw from history.

And I attribute them to communism because that's literally how history attributes them, though obviously pro-Communism thinkers would disagree.

reply
Dozens means over 24 or more. Could you also provide a non-exhaustive list of such ills to be compared against the ones mentioned above?
reply
This is important and rarely discussed. I'd add that there's a larger pattern tying these cases together, one that also speaks to some of the Encyclical's broader points: whether it's the Politburo of the USSR, the Court of Directors of the East India Company, or the Board of the United Fruit Company, historical atrocities in any age, society, or economic system almost always occur in the context of enormous power concentrated in few hands. It isn't capitalism or communism but the absence of accountability.
reply
> What specific horrible evils do you mean?

The 1956 student massacres in Hungary, where my grandma was almost killed. The Holodomor, the various "Russianization" campaigns, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, The Great Leap Forward, etc.

reply
It sounds like Communism, Capitalism, and Fascism are all very bad, then. Maybe we can try something else? Do you have any ideas?
reply
No gods, No masters.
reply
Just so I'm not misunderstanding you: are you saying that those are not as bad as your list?
reply
A) Well, it's you vs. the Pope and I!

B) Fine, drop communism altogether -- it's evil and disgusting and bit my finger and should never be tried again. Can we work on a society where the means of production are owned by groups of laborers?

reply
> Can we work on a society where the means of production are owned by groups of laborers?

I have good news for you. As someone in my job's ESPP plan and with a 401k, it already is!

reply
A lot of the world is a free-market and labors can absolutely own the means of production. Is there some government regulation in particular that you think is preventing this?
reply
Re: B my guess is probably not (human nature and all that), but I'm open to ideas! I just think failed experiments where tens of millions died are probably not ones where we just flippantly "try again".
reply