I'll preface this by saying that I read and enjoy many of your comments, and I know you're a deep and nuanced thinker. But in this case I think you seem to be l

I'll preface this by saying that I read and enjoy many of your comments, and I know you're a deep and nuanced thinker. But in this case I think you seem to be lacking the nuanced approach this topic needs more than most. > Well, self-interest is not unavoidable We agree, don't we, that below a certain level, a lack of self-interest will lead to our rapid death, or inability to do anything useful (and indeed even make us a burden on others). I.e, if we don't take care of our own safety, warmth, sustenance and health, we'll soon die, or become unable to function and cease to be able to do anything beneficial for anyone, ourselves included. On this basis, it's normal and healthy for us to take care of our own basic needs first, then those of our family members and near neighbours, then any with any surplus energy and resources we have to share, we can contribute to the wellbeing of others less close to us. This reality applies regardless of the economic system under which we live, however the incentives of that economic system will be a significant influence on the extent to individuals focus more heavily on their own interest vs those of others. But it's not as if self-interest and benevolence are polar opposites. The better resourced and energised one is, the more good they are able to do for others - whether it be via running non-profit organisation, a public organisation, or a private company where one is employing people and producing goods/services for the benefit of customers. So in this sense, taking care of one's self-interest can easily lead to better outcomes for others. None of this is consistent with the assertion that "capitalism" or the economic philosophy described by Adam Smith (who never used the word "capitalism") is a philosophy that celebrates greed or selfishness, and only alternative economic philosophies celebrate benevolence. Selflessness and generosity is broadly celebrated and admired by most people in countries that are largely "capitalist". Gordon Gecko was an anti-sympathetic caricature. People who idealise and engage in excessive selfishness are largely shunned and isolated by polite society. On the flipside, writers and activists who have idealised "seizing the means of production" could hardly be presumed blind to the power self-interest. Please understand, I'm not making any black vs white argument. I'm not any kind of "capitalism" activist. I'm personally deeply interested in working towards economic systems that are most effective at providing for the wellbeing of all. I live in a country with a mixed economy (Australia) with a socialised health system and a large welfare system (much like Scandinavian countries), and I think our system works well but I'd love for it to work better for those less well off. So it's a topic I think/read about and care about a lot. Which is why I think it's important for us to have more sophisticated positions than "capitalism celebrates greed", when the reality, like human nature itself, is far more nuanced than that.