A Word on Marxism, the Church, and the Future

[NextElement]

Hello all,

A lot of fuss has been made on these forums and around the world in general regarding Pope Francis’ statements on capitalism, his study of Marxism, and where the Church stands on the issue. I’d like to offer a proposition to you all, just to get things started:

As Christians, we believe as a tenet that humanity is different from other animal species. We have the capacity to love, to know God, and to rise above our primal desires. Early Homo sapiens were hunter-gatherers, and lived in groups that shared all resources among themselves. Their was no concept of “this is mine and this is yours”. Only with the invention of agriculture and the rise of permanent settlements did humanity fall into the war between producer vs. consumer, have vs. have-not. Can humanity return to our original state of grace, where greed does not rule the world. Should this be our Church’s stance?

I believe that Jesus was sent to accomplish just that. I don’t think that God intended for us to use his Church as a place to go simply to reflect on his word and sit. Churches should be points of activism, rallying communities whose members are out to make a difference, not participate in this world of greed and exploitation! How can we call ourselves followers of Jesus when we give more time to our bosses and corporations than we do to God? The same corporations that grossly exploit workers in third world countries, and have destroyed lives of their fellow humans just to make a profit.

Early Christianity understood this. The early Church was not “Marxist” in name, but it certainly was in practice. Come on! Imagine you turn on the news, and hear about a group of hippies in the desert who follow a young leader, who live together and share everything and refuse to participate in Earthly corruption. At first glance, the world and even you would most likely chuckle at this group, and head to work. But isn’t that what early Christianity was?! And wouldn’t it be amazing if it could be that again?!

Capitalism does exploit the poor. It is a system of greed. It has conditioned us to believe that we are in constant competition with our fellow man, and encourages a mentality opposite of what Jesus desired from his Church. Wouldn’t it be great to go back to that early Church?

 

[ClearWater]

Hello all,

A lot of fuss has been made on these forums and around the world in general regarding Pope Francis’ statements on capitalism, his study of Marxism, and where the Church stands on the issue. I’d like to offer a proposition to you all, just to get things started:

As Christians, we believe as a tenet that humanity is different from other animal species. We have the capacity to love, to know God, and to rise above our primal desires. Early Homo sapiens were hunter-gatherers, and lived in groups that shared all resources among themselves. Their was no concept of “this is mine and this is yours”. Only with the invention of agriculture and the rise of permanent settlements did humanity fall into the war between producer vs. consumer, have vs. have-not. Can humanity return to our original state of grace, where greed does not rule the world. Should this be our Church’s stance?

I believe that Jesus was sent to accomplish just that. I don’t think that God intended for us to use his Church as a place to go simply to reflect on his word and sit. Churches should be points of activism, rallying communities whose members are out to make a difference, not participate in this world of greed and exploitation! How can we call ourselves followers of Jesus when we give more time to our bosses and corporations than we do to God? The same corporations that grossly exploit workers in third world countries, and have destroyed lives of their fellow humans just to make a profit.

Early Christianity understood this. The early Church was not “Marxist” in name, but it certainly was in practice. Come on! Imagine you turn on the news, and hear about a group of hippies in the desert who follow a young leader, who live together and share everything and refuse to participate in Earthly corruption. At first glance, the world and even you would most likely chuckle at this group, and head to work. But isn’t that what early Christianity was?! And wouldn’t it be amazing if it could be that again?!

Capitalism does exploit the poor. It is a system of greed. It has conditioned us to believe that we are in constant competition with our fellow man, and encourages a mentality opposite of what Jesus desired from his Church. Wouldn’t it be great to go back to that early Church?

Personally, I don’t think Marxism is the answer, though.

 

[mikeeh]

I think you’re confusing marxism with collectivism. Marxism sets rules for how a government should enact socialism and discourage capitalism. The Catholic Church is not marxism, but she does have a collective feel to it. But for that collectivism to be successful you would need a homogeneous society. One faith, one language, one culture, etc. The problem with collectivism is that it’s not compatible with large societies. In small communities it sometimes can work, but I would recommend reading about the Pilgrims and how they attempted to create a collective society based on the Bible and it still failed. By the way, capitalism does not exploit the poor. People exploit the poor through industrialism and corporatism.

rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/11/24/the_true_story_of_thanksgiving3

 

[sunburst2014]

Hello all,

A lot of fuss has been made on these forums and around the world in general regarding Pope Francis’ statements on capitalism, his study of Marxism, and where the Church stands on the issue. I’d like to offer a proposition to you all, just to get things started:

As Christians, we believe as a tenet that humanity is different from other animal species. We have the capacity to love, to know God, and to rise above our primal desires. Early Homo sapiens were hunter-gatherers, and lived in groups that shared all resources among themselves. Their was no concept of “this is mine and this is yours”. Only with the invention of agriculture and the rise of permanent settlements did humanity fall into the war between producer vs. consumer, have vs. have-not. Can humanity return to our original state of grace, where greed does not rule the world. Should this be our Church’s stance?

I believe that Jesus was sent to accomplish just that. I don’t think that God intended for us to use his Church as a place to go simply to reflect on his word and sit. Churches should be points of activism, rallying communities whose members are out to make a difference, not participate in this world of greed and exploitation! How can we call ourselves followers of Jesus when we give more time to our bosses and corporations than we do to God? The same corporations that grossly exploit workers in third world countries, and have destroyed lives of their fellow humans just to make a profit.

Early Christianity understood this. The early Church was not “Marxist” in name, but it certainly was in practice. Come on! Imagine you turn on the news, and hear about a group of hippies in the desert who follow a young leader, who live together and share everything and refuse to participate in Earthly corruption. At first glance, the world and even you would most likely chuckle at this group, and head to work. But isn’t that what early Christianity was?! And wouldn’t it be amazing if it could be that again?!

Capitalism does exploit the poor. It is a system of greed. It has conditioned us to believe that we are in constant competition with our fellow man, and encourages a mentality opposite of what Jesus desired from his Church. Wouldn’t it be great to go back to that early Church?

There is a difference between Marxism and communitarianism. There is a strain of economic theory that grew out of Rerum Novarum and subsequent encyclicals called distributism. It basically posits that the economy should be structured around the family, thus localizing production and consumption, and encouraging widespread ownership of the means of production. In cases where it is not feasible for someone to own his own business, the business should be collectively owned (cf. credit unions, REI, etc).

 

[JimG]

There is a difference between Marxism and communitarianism. There is a strain of economic theory that grew out of Rerum Novarum and subsequent encyclicals called distributism. It basically posits that the economy should be structured around the family, thus localizing production and consumption, and encouraging widespread ownership of the means of production. In cases where it is not feasible for someone to own his own business, the business should be collectively owned (cf. credit unions, REI, etc).

It’s been awhile since I’ve read Rerum Novarum, but I think you are right. The Church has always considered the family as the basis of any social structure. It has encouraged subsidiarity in government and business, encouraging control at the most local level possible.

Rerum Novarum called for a ‘living wage’ at a time when the husband was customarily the sole breadwinner of the family.

Unfortunately, almost since the encyclical was issued, secular forces have tended toward the disintegration of the family, rather than family formation. Just look at the sad state of marriage today. Contraception brought separation of marriage from procreation, detachment of children from parents, extramarital sex and easy divorce.

If economic systems put families first, it would be great, but current non-discrimination laws actually prevent that in many cases.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

I think you’re confusing marxism with collectivism. Marxism sets rules for how a government should enact socialism and discourage capitalism. The Catholic Church is not marxism, but she does have a collective feel to it. But for that collectivism to be successful you would need a homogeneous society. One faith, one language, one culture, etc. The problem with collectivism is that it’s not compatible with large societies. In small communities it sometimes can work, but I would recommend reading about the Pilgrims and how they attempted to create a collective society based on the Bible and it still failed. By the way, capitalism does not exploit the poor. People exploit the poor through industrialism and corporatism.

rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/11/24/the_true_story_of_thanksgiving3

Marxism is force. The early Church, or God in general, couldn’t have been remotely Marxist or it would be a religion of the sword, which would be unnecessary since God would have created man without free will to begin with and Adam and Eve would have passed the test originally.

God doesn’t force, the Church is voluntary. Hell and heaven are real, it is our choice.

 

[sunburst2014]

If economic systems put families first, it would be great, but current non-discrimination laws actually prevent that in many cases.

I don’t think it is a matter of non-discrimination laws, but just that society values the individual over the family these days.

 

[Abu]

NextElement #1
The early Church was not “Marxist” in name, but it certainly was in practice.
Wouldn’t it be great to go back to that early Church?

False.

The early Christians were NOT “Marxist” in practice, Jesus did NOT advocate socialism; Communism and Socialism are condemned, “capitalism” has NOT been condemned while (Quadragesimo Anno does not even have the word) but has been emphatically affirmed. The very term “capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx, and that’s perhaps why St John Paul II dislikes it, as he makes clear as he emphatically affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus. The Saint’s disregard for the derogatory Marxist term “capitalism” is noteworthy.

Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

We see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
(This) shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”

“In Acts 2:44-47, so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (*De Haeresibus *40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.” Christians For Freedom, Dr Alejandro Chafuen, Ignatius 1986, p 46].

Capitalism does exploit the poor. It is a system of greed.

This discredits papal teaching and tries to substitute a fantasy.
The fact that Catholics – the Catholic monks, followed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, developed the free enterprise system based on Catholic theology and philosophy, the system which has transformed the world and enabled countless millions to escape from poverty, encouraged by St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI – cannot be evaded or truthfully denied any longer in the face of the overwhelming evidence of these facts.

It shows an alarming ignorance or denial of papal teaching:
The very term “capitalism” is not necessarily definitive as none other than St John Paul II has taken the trouble to point out in *Centesimus Annus *#42, 199I:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply "free economy".’

The very term “capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx, and that’s perhaps why St John Paul II dislikes it, as he makes clear as he emphatically affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus.

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by St John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (*Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI emphasizes:
“Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

 

[JimG]

I don’t think it is a matter of non-discrimination laws, but just that society values the individual over the family these days.

That’s true. There is one example that comes to mind. Back in the dark ages when I began my first real job as a trainee at a brokerage house, the firm paid newly hired married men about 12% more than single men as a starting wage. I was single at the time so I got the smaller starting wage. It was explained to me that this was because the married men had a family to support. (Actually that was pretty much in line with Rerum Novarum.)

I didn’t mind. I got married myself shortly thereafter, and the starting wage was just that, only a starting wage. But no employer could do that now without violating the law.

It’s true that society values individuals over the family now. But it’s families that are needed if our society is to survive.

 

[manualman]

What the OP fails to recognize is the fallenness of man. His Utopian dream might work just great in heaven after judgment and the completion of sanctification among all believers. But here on Earth where the facts of life are that humans are broken, sinful and fallen, it simply can’t work (which is likely what the early Christians learned very quickly).

The problems cut from both ends. Communism requires a supremely powerful government, which will ALWAYS corrupt those in charge of it. The holders of the reins of power will use them to benefit themselves first, the community second. Communism also removes the direct incentive to do your best at work since your personal return changes little whether you do your best or slack off. Sloth, being one of the 7 deadly sins, inevitably destroys productivity.

The church exists as a foretelling of heaven, but is not able to force heaven on all mankind. Not even God is willing to do that. He wants us to choose to accept that as a gift. Thus, the church encourages us to act personally in a manner that rejects greed, sloth, anger, lust, etc and instead embraces virtue via Grace. But in so exhorting mankind to that goal, she never loses sight of the fact of human sinfulness and failure. This is why Rerum Novarum affirms private ownership of the means of production (note that I didn’t say “capitalism”) and calls for government policies that favor widely distributed ownership of productive assets.

Privately owned free enterprise may not be how it will work in heaven, but it’s the best system of checks and balances for a fallen and sinful mankind here on earth.