Can we stop arguing and support each other?

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Ok…

Catholic teaching rejects socialism, insofar as socialism involves government ownership of the means of production or hyperregulation of the use of property by its owners. Likewise, the Church rejects Marxism and Communism (CCC 2425).

At the same time, Catholic teaching recognizes limits to the market economy’s ability to provide a just distribution of the earth’s resources when left entirely to itself. Here Catholic teaching rejects extreme economic libertarianism and affirms reasonable regulation of the marketplace as important to the common good (CCC 2425).

What I highlighted in bold is my answer. The Church rejects socialism that calls for “government ownership of the means of production or hyper-regulation of property. I’m sure you know what (CCC 2425) means and why it is authoritative.

At the same time Catholic teaching rejects extreme economic libertarianism. Which I agree with and understand. The evils of the Gilded Age must never be allowed to be repeated. “Reasonable regulation of the market place.” I’m all for it.

implying the right of the state to tax and for the state to exist.

Indeed. Taxes are a surety. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.

allowing for socialization of some means of production

By this I think you mean government ownership of the means of production? If yes then I point back to the top of my post and (CCC 2425)

 

[StudentMI]

By this I think you mean government ownership of the means of production? If yes then I point back to the top of my post and (CCC 2425)

Then let me again quote the Pope who authorized the Catechism.

Furthermore, in the Church’s teaching, ownership has never been understood in a way that could constitute grounds for social conflict in labour. As mentioned above, property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of “capital” in opposition to “labour”-and even to practise exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour, they cannot even be possessed for possession’s sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labour, and thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In the course of the decades since the publication of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, the Church’s teaching has always recalled all these principles, going back to the arguments formulated in a much older tradition, for example, the well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Care to address that?

 

[Annie]

I’ve heard it said that the closest to perfect implementation of communism is a Benedictine monastery, from benevolent dictator down to sharing all goods and means of production.

A small situation which the inhabitants enter into voluntarily and for the glory of God.

 

[Vanny]

Yes I started noticing the anti Christian tide accelerating in the ‘90s. Pro Family and Right to life groups were mocked and demonized. Yes I agree many people get tired of fighting.

 

[StudentMI]

By this I think you mean government ownership of the means of production? If yes then I point back to the top of my post and (CCC 2425)

Look I’ll isolate the relevant part. Please address it.

From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production.

 

[OraLabora]

for the glory of God.

Well that has been the essential missing ingredient in communism hasn’t it? Official atheism as a state “religion” doesn’t have too great a track record (USSR, NK, etc.).

 

[Annie]

The USSR was more totalitarian than socialist.

It was very socialist, in that the government owned and controlled the means of production. It was totalitarian in order the maintain the socialist/communist system.

whole lot of your people being killed by or with the support of the US, UK, etc.

China and Russia did not need outside help in killing hundreds of thousands of their own people.

Marxism has been proven in doctrine and communism only needs to be realised in practice

Right, because the current crop of communists are so much smarter and will do such a better job than the previous groups of communists did.

 

[Annie]

I think the voluntary part is also important. There is a reason Christians did not continue to live as the Christians mentioned in Acts did.

 

[StudentMI]

It was very socialist, in that the government owned and controlled the means of production. It was totalitarian in order the maintain the socialist/communist system.

It was actually more state capitalist.

China and Russia did not need outside help in killing hundreds of thousands of their own people.

No they didn’t (it was more like millions). Doesn’t morally excuse our hand in countless deaths around the world including two genocidal actions by governments we supported (Guatemala and East Timor).

 

[Annie]

We did the wrong thing is supporting immoral actions in several countries, but the system in the US does not inherently violate Catholic teaching the way communism does.

 

[StudentMI]

We did the wrong thing is supporting immoral actions in several countries, but the system in the US does not inherently violate Catholic teaching the way communism does.

Inherently? No. In action? You betcha.

 

[Annie]

It was actually more state capitalist.

No, it was more like communism.

No True Scotsman fallacy…

 

[StudentMI]

No, it was more like communism.

No True Scotsman fallacy…

Yeah what I said wasn’t really a fallacy. If you knew anything about what communism is and how the Soviet economy functioned, you’d see it wasn’t communist or even very socialist.

 

[Annie]

Sorry, this is just ridiculous. Communists tried to implement communism. Now you are saying, well. no one likes what happened, so it wasn’t really communism.

I could say that I have modified my car so it will run on sugar. When the engine goes, I can say that the gasoline companies sabotaged my sugar so it wouldn’t work. I can say someone filled the wrong place with sugar.

But the reality is that a gasoline-powered engine won’t run on sugar, and humanity does not work under communism.

Communism has been a failed reality each time it has been tried; it is an inherently cruel system which must be imposed and maintained by force.

 

[StudentMI]

Communists tried to implement communism. Now you are saying, well. no one likes what happened, so it wasn’t really communism.

More like communism is a specific state of society in Marxist theory that is the end goal. Socialism comes first, as anyone who has read Marx’s writings knows.

The attempt to go straight to communism was attempted in three cases; the case that is relevant to our discussion is the USSR. The period known as war communism was attempted during the Russian civil war, hence the name. After its abject failure the regime instituted market reforms.

 

[Annie]

Because it doesn’t work, it needs to be tweaked to get a minimal functionality.

And it doesn’t work because people are humans, and it is not a system suitable for humans.

 

[StudentMI]

Because it doesn’t work, it needs to be tweaked to get a minimal functionality.

In other words… it was state capitalism.

 

[Annie]

Whatever you say Student.

 

[Balto1]

LMAO this is the exact same excuse Dictator Maduro of Venezuela says is to blame for The dystopian hellscape that is his country.

U.S. sanctions have killed many people in and destroyed the economy of Venezuela. This isn’t exactly a ridiculous thing to say, U.S. officials brag about it.

 

[StudentMI]

And it doesn’t work because people are humans, and it is not a system suitable for humans.

The same case could be made of capitalism. Given that humans are humans, I don’t see why capitalism is held as sacrosanct by some when it entirely relies on a theory (admittedly a beautiful one) of observing the rules of competition. Competition must be fair, in a sense, or else it distorts the free market. To be fair all must obey a set of rules such as observing private property rights, acknowledging ownership, never trying to get advantages through state power. Historically and to this day we see these rules among others have never been followed by all within the marketplace. As a result we see gigantic accumulations of wealth and capital in few hands, along with vast differences in income. Capitalism is just as unstable as socialism.

Here’s an idea (not mine originally, merely sharing): let the free market eat the rich.