Which is more dangerous

For me, capitalism.

Edited by condor - August 20 2017 at 16:54

A Person wrote: As someone who would very vaguely describe themselves as "to the left of bernie," I would have to say capitalism. I don't wanna really go into it but it would suffice to say that I feel capitalism's constant need for expansion will make it impossible to avert disastrous anthropogenic climate change without a fundamental change in economic relations.

Since the three ones are NOT mutually exclusive, no vote from me too......

Although capitalism need not be intrinsically bad, it is dangerous as capitalism facilitates over-consumption, greed, and the rapid destruction of the environment. Akin to, or vis-a-vis, the conceptual penis, the vulgar manspreading of rampant capitalism rapes mother earth.

To quote from The Conceptual Penis:

Toxic hypermasculinity derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neocapitalist materialism, which is a fundamental driver of climate change, especially in the rampant use of carbon-emitting fossil fuel technologies and careless domination of virgin natural environments...

As for communism, the bushmen of the Kalahari have a primitive form of communism that is both helpful to each-other as they share everything, and does not overly exploit the environment. I'm not opposed to communism in theory, but there are forms that it has taken that I don't like. In various I think people have misrepresented the ideology and adopted and abused the term to describe regimes that don't use true communism or even strive for it. It doesn't seem very practical. Communism at its truest is idealistic, but not so pragmatic when you consider human nature.

As for religion, it can be very dangerous, obviously. I think that one of the biggest problems with religion is how it suppresses, and can be in conflict with, rationality.

There's a quote by the physicist Steven Weinberg that I like:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Now I would extend religion to mean more than just a set of supernatural beliefs, or a particular system of worship to meaning other belief systems held to be of supreme importance. It's especially dangerous when such beliefs are held as infallible. Any ideology held as sacred and immutable is problematic, but I prefer reason to revelation. One could say that neo-capitalism can be called a sort of religion amongst some.

Basically, just about any "ism", be it capitalism, theism, communism, and even pacifism can be dangerous, but it depends on how it's its being employed, and who is in power to abuse it. In some cases an "ism" can really help, but I tend not to like despotism and absolutism.

Communist regimes were responsible for around 94 MILLION human deaths in the 20th century, so....not even close.  (Sorry commies)

^ Not dangerous eh?

Edited by Larkstongue41 - August 22 2017 at 12:40

DoctorD wrote: Communist regimes were responsible for around 94 MILLION human deaths in the 20th century, so....not even close.  (Sorry commies)

I would argue that the Communist regime never achieved a truly communist society.    That said, I'm not a communist partially because I don't think that it's very workable on a state level (even communes have their problems). And I was very put off in university by Marxist-Leninists who tried to bring me into the fold (they were an angry bunch).

Do you think communist counties don't litter and pollute? 

Is pollution bad? Yes.
Is it the fault of capitalism? NO.

"Religion poisons everything" - Christopher Hitchens

Or any other total ideology (which is also quasi-religious for that matter) like Communism, Nazism/Nationalism, etc.


Edited by Tuzvihar - August 22 2017 at 13:22

DoctorD wrote: Do you think communist counties don't litter and pollute?  Is pollution bad? Yes. Is it the fault of capitalism? NO.