The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
The first thing that needs to be done in addressing these issues is to disambiguate the term "capitalism" so that we know exactly what we are talking about. It's one of those hot button terms that is used too loosely and polemically by both critics and defenders, and I don't think it is helpful to begin by asking about "alternatives" to capitalism before it's made clear exactly what one means by capitalism. The popes of the great social encyclicals -- e.g. Leo XIII, Pius XI, and John Paul II -- are always careful to emphasize that there are different strands in the modern so-called capitalist economic order that need to be carefully distinguished, and that just as it is wrong to endorse all of them uncritically, it is also a mistake to condemn them all en masse.
Consider that, when people hear the word "capitalism," some of the things they might have in mind are:
1. Private property, including in the basic means of production
2. Market competition
3. The existence of corporations as legal persons
4. Inequalities in wealth and income
5. An economic order primarily oriented to the private sector, with government acting at the margins and only where necessary
Now, there is nothing wrong with any of this per se. Indeed, some of it is required as a matter of natural law (e.g. property as an institution, subsidiarity).
On the other hand, other people using the term might have in mind things like:
6. Doctrinaire laissez-faire
7. The market as the dominant social institution, with an ethos of consumerism and commodification of everything as its sequel
8. Corporations so powerful that they are effectively unanswerable to government or public opinion
9. Doctrinaire minimalization or even elimination of social welfare institutions, even when there is no feasible private sector alternative
10. Globalization of a kind that entails dissolution of corporate and individual loyalties to the nation state
Now, these things are all bad and should be opposed on natural law grounds.
The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but just illustrative. And what they illustrate is that it is just unhelpful to talk about either embracing or rejecting capitalism full stop. And the way the issue is usually framed generates heat and reduces light. When people say "I support capitalism," they often mean "I support 1-5" but their opponents hear them as saying "I support 6-10." And when people say "I oppose capitalism," they often mean "I oppose 6-10," but their opponents hear them as saying "I oppose 1-5."
An important further issue, of course, is whether you can in principle or in practice have (all of) 1-5 without (at least some of) 6-10. To analyze this issue no doubt requires further disambiguation.
Anyway, as this shows, the issue is more complex than many friends and critics of capitalism realize.
Taken from a comment by philosopher Edward Feser.
Read the full article: Adventures in the Old Atheism, Part IV: Marx
Consider that, when people hear the word "capitalism," some of the things they might have in mind are:
1. Private property, including in the basic means of production
2. Market competition
3. The existence of corporations as legal persons
4. Inequalities in wealth and income
5. An economic order primarily oriented to the private sector, with government acting at the margins and only where necessary
Now, there is nothing wrong with any of this per se. Indeed, some of it is required as a matter of natural law (e.g. property as an institution, subsidiarity).
On the other hand, other people using the term might have in mind things like:
6. Doctrinaire laissez-faire
7. The market as the dominant social institution, with an ethos of consumerism and commodification of everything as its sequel
8. Corporations so powerful that they are effectively unanswerable to government or public opinion
9. Doctrinaire minimalization or even elimination of social welfare institutions, even when there is no feasible private sector alternative
10. Globalization of a kind that entails dissolution of corporate and individual loyalties to the nation state
Now, these things are all bad and should be opposed on natural law grounds.
The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but just illustrative. And what they illustrate is that it is just unhelpful to talk about either embracing or rejecting capitalism full stop. And the way the issue is usually framed generates heat and reduces light. When people say "I support capitalism," they often mean "I support 1-5" but their opponents hear them as saying "I support 6-10." And when people say "I oppose capitalism," they often mean "I oppose 6-10," but their opponents hear them as saying "I oppose 1-5."
An important further issue, of course, is whether you can in principle or in practice have (all of) 1-5 without (at least some of) 6-10. To analyze this issue no doubt requires further disambiguation.
Anyway, as this shows, the issue is more complex than many friends and critics of capitalism realize.
Taken from a comment by philosopher Edward Feser.
Read the full article: Adventures in the Old Atheism, Part IV: Marx