T
thomfra
Guest
ho ho ho…Brilliant !!! That just about sums it up I’d say!
- Status
T
thomfra
Guest
I tell you, it’s not hard to read between the lines with your posts.
“the lower taxed classes”
“tendencies of entiltement”
“leeching”
You would most likely feel a little more at home in a Dickensian setting as the guy handing out the porridge.
Oliver (porridge bowl in hand): “please sir, I want some more”
Mapleoak (indignant): “More…you want MORE?!”
M
mapleoak
Guest
But privately run charities are much more able to be effective at how and to whom they help. Something which is beyond the scope of the governments abilities to do so efficiently or practically.
Yes this is one type of charity. There are many others offering all differing kinds of help as well, including those which emphasize helping others to help themselves and get back on their feet among those which help the immediate need for food, clothing, and shelter. Both types are needed. The government on the other hand delights in large masses of people being dependent on papa.
If they are generous when being unfairly taxed, yes they will continue to be generous and probably moreso if they weren’t being unfairly taxed. And yes, forced socialist programs are a form of theft. But wait, the government can’t sin can it? Just like it can’t go to heaven for being kind and charitable.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Classes are government defined groups of people. They “classify” people in order to breed jealousy and division between members of society.
A very simplistic example: “I don’t have to work for my money, you have to give me some of yours”.
A leech is a parasite that syphons off and is content with what it can get free from its host without any productive return to its host. Another side effect of leeches is the spread of disease. Metaphorically, we can say there is a parallel to our current welfare system. Can disease be symbolic of societal ills?
Actually I am rather content to offer time, talent, and treasure to the needy, the Church, and charity. How about you?
Oh, wait, the government has that covered a la Robin hood so you don’t have to worry.
T
Tigertame4
Guest
Socialism was tried by the pilgrim/puritans when America was first settled by the English. It was a dismal FAILURE!! Read your history. It is human nature to not work and to rely on others. The middle class has shrunk in the past 30 years, as more are going to the UPPER class. My husband and I taught for years and we have seen the evils caused by the welfare state. Too many kids don’t strive to excell because they feel they can fall back on the state.
The kibbutz in Isreal are going more for a capitalist, earn what you work for kind of system (check Newsweek or time recent issue not sure which one). too many people were slacking.
Communism is even more EVIL-Remember the warning from our Lady of Fatima, Russia will spread her ills throughout the world.
Personal Freedom and responsibility is what we are created for!!
God BLess America!
Lee Anne
The kibbutz in Isreal are going more for a capitalist, earn what you work for kind of system (check Newsweek or time recent issue not sure which one). too many people were slacking.
Communism is even more EVIL-Remember the warning from our Lady of Fatima, Russia will spread her ills throughout the world.
Personal Freedom and responsibility is what we are created for!!
God BLess America!
Lee Anne
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
What you’re referring to are voluntary communities- like monastaries, or kibbutzes. These types of communities are perfectly fine, as far as I’m concerned, because they don’t impose their way of life on the rest of the community. This is also similar to the early Christian communities in the 1st century- they were completely voluntary.
Communities like these understand that the only morally acceptable application of socialism has to be 100% voluntary, because the principles depend on a personal committment and sacrifice of one’s labor and property for the common good. That kind of committment has to be a free chocie- a person can’t be forced to believe in a particular way of life.
By contrast, social democracies aren’t voluntary- they are democracies, wherein 51% of the population believes it has the power to control 49% of the population. Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. It is mob rule.
Class warfare is just as much, if not more, pronounced in distributist economic arrangments because there have to be people given the authority to decide how wealth and capital are to be distributed. Individuals become viewed as commodities- to be distributed according to the needs of the nation, regardless of the individual’s will. Look at the history of China in the early 1900’s- it was common practice for the regime, and may still be, to split up entire families, send children hundreds of miles away, in order to distribute labor to particular areas. The individuals had no choice in this- it was a crime to refuse.
Based on your own comment, “most people are often overcome by self-interest,” how much sense does it make to assign to an elite few the authority over the consolidation and redistribution over other people’s labor and capital? If people are naturally tempted by self-interest, do you really think that a system like that would be able to insure that those in power are able to redistribute wealth in an equitable manner?
Government bureaucrats are riddled with corruption now, when they control a smaller portion of the nation’s wealth and capital.
That corruption would only worsen with more power.
The only truly fair and equitable distributions of wealth occur when it is earned in exchange for goods and services, or freely given from one individual to another out of compassion or concern.
P
Proletarian
Guest
As opposed to the current situation in which 90% of wealth (and therefore power) is controlled by 10% of the population?
Oscarthercat, I think we both agree that when power is unequally distributed corruption will inevitably occur. Therefore we must work towards a system that eliminates this potential. What’s the answer? I’m not certain; however the answer is definitely not to marginalise government intervention in favour of Laissez-faire Capitalism.
If one was to look at a case study of ANY laissez-faire system throughout history they would see that it is a system that always leads to higher levels of social and economic inequality. If we look at a ranking of countries by Gini coefficient we’ll notice there is an extremely strong correlation between high levels of social and economic equality and higher levels of government regulation. (By social and economic equality I’m referring to low levels of homelessness, poverty and crime; as well as high levels of health, education and employment)
As I’m sure you know the primary concern of pure Marxism (not Leninist and Maoist distortions) is the DE-centralisation of all power. A truly distributist economy would emphasise low levels of active government intervention. It’s power would be limited to setting regulations that ensure that no one person or group can monopolise the economic activity of any given state.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Yes, free market capitalism and distributive systems both have their flaws- But here’s the critical difference…
The fundamental principle of free market capitalism is that human beings are allowed to act freely. While this allowance for human freedom may result in the unjust consolidation of resources in the hands of the few, this event is not a core organizational principle of the system. We recognize that human beings have a tremendous potential for good and evil, and that the greatest good is achieved when this potential is cultivated at the level of the individual.
On the other side, the fundamental principle of distributive systems, like socialism and communism, is that the exercise of human freedom is a destructive force which must be suppressed and controlled by an elite group of people who, for one reason or another, are more qualified, virtuous, or just than the rest of us. Essentially, socialism begins with the worst case scenario of free market capitalism- with the consolidation of power into an elite class.
Even worse than that, distributive systems are a zero-sum game. They require that the “haves” must lose in order for the “have nots” to gain.
anway…
As I said before, people should be free to voluntarily organize themselves into whatever kinds of communities they choose.
And like you pointed out before, several religious communities are organized around some of the same principals as socialism.
But when you put those same principals into a broad social context, such as a national government, voluntarism has to be replaced with mandatory participation. Eventually, you’re just chasing rich people down with torches and pitchforks, singing “La Internationale.”
yes, I’ve heard this before…
But what you’re talking about is socio-economic disparity, not socio-economic development. The thing about capitalism is that it allows people to earn wealth disproportionately- and there is nothing wrong with that. The key is what people do with their wealth once they’ve earned it- some people will horde it and use it to hurt others, but others will give it to those in need, create much needed jobs, or seek other good ends.
By contrast, socialism reduces the degree of socio-economic disparity by enforcing an artificial “levelling” of society wherein the most productive members of society are punished with the removal of their earnings, and the least productive members of society are rewarded with the benefit of the work of others. In this case, people are allowed to have enough to live, but not enough to be free and independent of their nanny state, much less give charitably to those in need.
That’s pretty funny- yes, if I remember correctly, Marx did claim that the totalitarian dictatorships he said were necessary at the beginning stages of his ideal society would eventually become superfluous as people came around to some grand awakening, culminating in an ideal form of socialist self-government, wherein people were so committed to the good of the state that they no longer required governance.
In short, he wrote that the dictators of communist and socialist regimes would be benevolent, and that they would so value the good of the state and the people that they would gladly give up their power just as soon as they believed people could handle it…
I wonder if Marx was chuckling a little bit when he wrote that…
N
narrowpath
Guest
I completely agree with you that the American working class were seduced into anti-socialism, just as they were lead to believe by the ruling classes that there were WMDs in Iraq.
Are there any catholic socialists out there? Personally I would call myself a reformed socialist. “Socialism”, has done just as much to oppress the working class as capitalism. I agree that socialism can work when good sincere people are resolute about social justice; for example most of our religious orders operate under some form of socialism. However most people are often overcome by self interest. The answer I believe is a “distributist” economic policy (look it up, its really interesting!) In essence it’s a highly controlled capitalist system, in which the distribution of capital is as even as possible, but is privately owned.
I…I can’t believe it! someone actually agrees with me!
I believe Marx’s social theory regarding “class struggle” is the best way of viewing society, however hes economic theory has some serious flaws.
N
narrowpath
Guest
what about the plymouth pilgrims? some have said that they practiced a form of communism.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Maybe because it was do or die then? They did not have the abundance for everyone to take what they wanted when they wanted.
Capitalism may look like a big greedy fat white guy smoking a cigar counting his Benjamin’s, but if you kick Government regulations out of it, the blue collar workers that support it are better off.
The Big 3 auto manufacturers are a perfect example of what happens when Government regulations and unions take over and control a private business.
Socialism sounds good, but for some people its motivation comes from jealousy from those who have not towards those who have. Others truly believe it the middle class and below are better off, and it’s hard to see it, but they are not.
P
Proletarian
Guest
I think perhaps the problem is that we have different concepts of the distributist economic model. I take my understanding of distributism from the writings of Chesterton, Belloc and Schumaker (the founding fathers of distributist economic theory): it seems your understanding comes from Mao and Lenin.
True distributist theory as developed by Catholic academics in a response to Rerum Novarum suggests that people be allowed as much economic freedom as possible, and the ability to decide their own destiny by ensuring they own their own productive property. This may be as simple as encouraging home grown produce, and self sufficient households. In a broader sense it means the implementation of economic regulations to ensure that true capitalism can flourish by producing an environment of fair competition.
A very simple example comes from here in Australia. The supermarket industry has been reduced to three main competitors. Every supermarket is either a Coles, Woolworths or IGA. Recent senate inquiries have concluded that these three companies conspire to fix prices, and that the price of produce is two or three times what it should be. Does this seem fair to you? Would it not be better for the people to mandate that no one company can control more than a certain percentage of the market? Thus creating more competitors and stimulating competition? Isn’t capitalism about competition and FAIR trade?
R
Ronald_E
Guest
I just saw this thread this morning since I haven’t had my computer for several days.
I have wondered since the '70’s why we need to compete with one another in a system that promotes the value of human freedom. Competition in the animal world begins with competition for resources. This is the instinctual survival response. When establishing a social system that values human freedom it must also value human life. So, does competition create an environment that enhances the value of human life or does it keep us in the instinctive mode of survival of the fittest? Competition seems to promote individualism that results in self centeredness first in order to prepare oneself to gain the skills necessary to acquire the resources or status that the system values as a measure of worth. I saw a program that stated capitalism evolved from Calvinism and that the gains or losses within that framework exhibited whether one was one of the elect or not.
It appears to me that the philosophy of solidarity holds the answer to how a system ideally can operate. Solidarity basically states that the purpose of each of us is to lift up the other in an environment of mutual respect and cooperation. The gain is for all humanity.
I have wondered since the '70’s why we need to compete with one another in a system that promotes the value of human freedom. Competition in the animal world begins with competition for resources. This is the instinctual survival response. When establishing a social system that values human freedom it must also value human life. So, does competition create an environment that enhances the value of human life or does it keep us in the instinctive mode of survival of the fittest? Competition seems to promote individualism that results in self centeredness first in order to prepare oneself to gain the skills necessary to acquire the resources or status that the system values as a measure of worth. I saw a program that stated capitalism evolved from Calvinism and that the gains or losses within that framework exhibited whether one was one of the elect or not.
It appears to me that the philosophy of solidarity holds the answer to how a system ideally can operate. Solidarity basically states that the purpose of each of us is to lift up the other in an environment of mutual respect and cooperation. The gain is for all humanity.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Based on your comments that you were a reformed socialist, the tone of the overall thread, and your comment that distributism was a “highly controlled capitalist system,” I had assumed that your particular brand of distributism was just “socialism lite”- that is, extremely limited free trade under tight control of a strong command and control socialist democracy.
However, if your comments are stemming from Chesterton, Belloc, and Schumaker as they are taught by the Church, then I agree with you in principle.
I think that we might disagree on my contentions that that such systems must be absolutely voluntary, that any oversight must be done at the lowest social level possible, and that ostracism should be the primary means of social control-that is, refusal to do business with the offending party.
On the other hand, we would probably agree on the problem of government policies that protect and support the development and growth of large corporations/conglomorates because this kind of command/control intervention inevitably devalues the labor and capital of the individual in the marketplace. That is not to say that large corporations are always bad, but just when their growth or continued operations are the direct result of government intervention.
You should look up the “Mondragon Cooperative” to get an idea of what I’m talking about-
This is an interesting issue, and might be worth its own thread.
You’re not even a little suspicious when government bureaucrat decide what the price for something “should be?” Not too long ago, the US government decided that our oil companies should be punitively taxed because they were making “outrageous profits.” Funny thing was that, at that time, food industry profits were around 10/11%, banking profits were about 18% profits, and pharmaceutical companies were around 20% on average- but for some reason, the oil industry’s profit margin of 8.5% was deemed “outrageous.”
Bottom line is that the only way to know if the price of goods and services is greater than the market can bear is if people won’t buy what they’re selling.
Unless these 3 supermarkets were breaking the kneecaps of any entrepreneur who tried to undersell them, then the government should have stayed out of the way.
Eventually, people would speak out on their own by finding new opportunities to obtain what they wanted in the marketplace. Eventually, consumers would have to cut back on buying the overpriced items, and the three companies would start losing money. From there, one or more of those companies would start cutting their prices to boost profits again, and their “truce” would fail.
P
Proletarian
Guest
Well I think this is as close to an understanding were going to get.
Just a parting thought…from what I’ve seen there’s a healthy level of mistrust for all levels of government in your country. I think given the nature of your system this fear is well founded (no offence intended). However there are many countries in the world in which healthy democracies exist. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we should strive towards true democracy, rather than simply “throwing the baby out with the dish water” on account of certain corruptions. I have a suspicion that if your country was to develop an accountable democracy Americans might not be so suspicious of economic reform.
Great talking with you mate!
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
I don’t agree that we should strive toward a better democracy, or any democracy for that matter. In a world where people equate “morality” and “legality,” a democracy that consistently “legalizes” immoral behaviors is a genuine threat to the basic capacity of individuals to develop a well-formed conscience. Democracy carries the belief that morality and the greatest good are simply determined by the popular vote. It says that voting in favor of an atrocity somehow makes that atrocity OK. It says that those committing that atrocity are morally justified, and teaches us to assume that those hurt by that atrocity have gotten what they deserve.Well I think this is as close to an understanding were going to get.
Just a parting thought…from what I’ve seen there’s a healthy level of mistrust for all levels of government in your country. I think given the nature of your system this fear is well founded (no offence intended). However there are many countries in the world in which healthy democracies exist. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we should strive towards true democracy, rather than simply “throwing the baby out with the dish water” on account of certain corruptions. I have a suspicion that if your country was to develop an accountable democracy Americans might not be so suspicious of economic reform.
Great talking with you mate!
Christ never told us to force others to do good works, and certainly never taught us to use the force of law to make anyone do anything. He never taught us to take from one person against their will and give it to another. Even the early apostolic communities described in the Acts of the Apostles, which did employ a type of distributive system, and did invoke harsh punishments on those who withheld personal property from the community, were completely voluntary- people came to them and joined of their own free will. These communities made no attempt to garner political power or the force of law to achieve their ends.
People need to learn to think and act like individuals again-if they want something to happen in their community, they need to either figure out a way to do it themselves, or find someone who wants to help them, instead of trying to force those around them to do their bidding. People need to let go of this notion that they have the right to force their neighbors to participate in, or pay for, their vision of a better society.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
Homeless people with cell phones maybe was clue.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
You probably hear that a lot because it is true! Can you refute it? I check the efficiency of all charities I donate to. I’d like to plug my current favorite: modestneeds.org in case anyone is interested.
Here are a few others:
- It’s bureaucratic - the personal/human aspect of charity is removed, thus truly not helping other people as much a possible. Fraud is rampant.
- We are forced to support “charities” that are truly immoral or amoral.
- Charity is a personal requirement, not a societal one per se.
- With fewer that 50% paying taxes, nearly half of society doesn’t contribute.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Speaking for myself, I am more likely to be generous. Speaking for people such as Al Gore, etc. - no. They’d rather pay taxes than donate.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Joe Biden proved that.
It’s not that a lot of people do not want to pay taxes. Of course the Fed’s need money for Military and the other things it was set up to provide. It’s that a lot of people do not want to pay taxes for 3 million dollar televisions in Chicago.
Plus a flat tax that everyone pays would be much better as well.
- Status