>>825289
Thing is, "capitalism" (if by that we refer to free markets and the spontaneous order born of voluntary exchange between individuals) is NOT a system created by men. It's just the natural order, what comes up when we don't interfere with each other.
Is the Christian way of acting telling everyone the exact price they should sell their crops for, and what varieties should they plant, and then get 30% of their harvest because you are entitled to it? I'd say it isn't. If a person is not harming others (nor himself), I don't think it is Christian to attack his liberty. And if you let people pursue their goals freely and trade voluntarily, the economic "system" you have is called capitalism.
Again, as I said in >>825221 , we should first define the word. When this conversation comes up, the problem is always we all mean slightly different things.
The good economic order is that which is natural, not designed and forced by some men onto others. Call it capitalism or call it whatever you want.
> it sounds the same as when some fidel castro or chavez says to his flock how the earliest christians all lived in ploretarian societies where everything was held in common
This would be a really long conversation if developed properly, so I'll just say that capitalism (as defined above) revolves around creating information about the needs of society, and that way, large societies are coordinated naturally. In a small community you don't need prices and market signals to know the needs of society at large: you know them all by name, you can know their needs and work to satisfy them. Essentially, every home is a socialist community.