Catholic Social Doctrine

[gksaoh]

Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor and that we are our less fortunate brother’s keeper.

The Catholic church has very specific applications for these principles. They include the right of workers to belong to labor unions, the right of the unskilled to a living wage, the right to life from conception to the grave and a priority concern for the poor and the weak.

President Bush does not belong to the Catholic social tradition. Rather, he is a Calvinist, an ideology that emphasizes individualism. He proposes to allow those with money and investment skills to divert part of their payroll tax to privite retirement savings accounts. These funds would not be available to support Social Security payments to those without other resources.

This plan has attraction to the greedy, but it is not what Jesus would do.

 

[marty1818]

What exactly are you suggesting here?

matthew

 

[fix]

gksaoh:

Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor and that we are our less fortunate brother’s keeper.

The Catholic church has very specific applications for these principles. They include the right of workers to belong to labor unions, the right of the unskilled to a living wage, the right to life from conception to the grave and a priority concern for the poor and the weak.

President Bush does not belong to the Catholic social tradition. Rather, he is a Calvinist, an ideology that emphasizes individualism. He proposes to allow those with money and investment skills to divert part of their payroll tax to privite retirement savings accounts. These funds would not be available to support Social Security payments to those without other resources.

This plan has attraction to the greedy, but it is not what Jesus would do.

I have two comments. First, did you intend to say a “living” wage or a just wage?

As for individual economic plans that are discussed in the arena of ideas can you say specifically that such a plan contradicts Church teaching by giving us some citations?

 

[iserve]

First of all- ask anyone (except a priest) who has ever worked for the Catholic Church if they offer a living or just wage to workers, or labor unions into their entities. Also, find out what retirees can look forward to- it takes 5 years in some diocese to even begin to be vested in their meagre pensions, and in some diocese where they are having financial trouble, Boston for example, the pensions are in severe jeopardy of being paid. Workers who were laid off during the scandal had their pensions frozen, no interest in perpetuity. The good bishop O’Malley will be using your interest to bail out the Archdiocese, never mind that most people will probably be eating dog food when they have to survive on what’s left. Nice thought for those who put in many years there.
A chance to invest or do whatever with one’s own money is fair and just, and a hell of a better deal than letting unknown people move your money around for their own interests.

 

[adnauseum]

gksaoh:

President Bush does not belong to the Catholic social tradition. Rather, he is a Calvinist, an ideology that emphasizes individualism. He proposes to allow those with money and investment skills to divert part of their payroll tax to privite retirement savings accounts. These funds would not be available to support Social Security payments to those without other resources. This plan has attraction to the greedy, but it is not what Jesus would do.

Your opinion is not popular but I agree with it.

Free-market capitalism is a protestant invention, and in practice it has so many flaws it really has degenerated into something sinful - again,it is not inherently evil, but the gross disparity in wealth is in practice evil.

However, I can’t follow the democrat party because their own depravity is worse. Communism is a pernicious form of materialism and has wrought more evil on the world than capitalism has. The recent Supreme Court decision threatening private property goes directly against Catholic Social teaching, which holds private property as a just good.

All I can do is practice what some in the Church have taught, which is to distribute to others everything above what I need. I can’t bring myself to endorse the democrat solution and argue that I can take other people’s money to give it away, plus, as I said, they don’t seem to think private property is a good worth protecting. Therefore I work to defeat democrats every chance I get.

Catholic social teaching is in my mind a very interesting “3rd way” that transcends the severe errors of the right and left.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think we must all realize on some level that current economic policy is relatively un-Christian and does not reflect the gospel. What it does reflect is a puritanical worldview that sees worldy success as expressive of the favor of God and poverty as an expression of God’s judgment. Add to this worldy self-interest and you have an economic system that couldn’t care less for the poor (or pays them mere lipservice). I cite here the example of the Irish potato famine as a perfect example of the same economic principles at work in the United States today–subsidies to the poor cut off in order to encourage them to be more productive in the great industrial cities of the world backfiring into starvation and degradation as people were reluctant to give up land, family, tradition in favor of the Moloch of industry. I have read that modern economic theory more often than not seems to depend upon the notion of pure free market principles, which, in physics, is like unto positing the existence of a frictionless plane. It doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing. Market forces can never fix or determine human behavior.

Indeed, insofar as they are believed to be all-powerful, they deny human freedom.

iserve, you write about a chance to invest or do whatever with one’s own money. I don’t think this is a particularly convincing rationale for any economic theory that will claim to be Christian, particularly when the example of the community of the Apostles affords us other models of socio-economic behavior. Consider also that the mere act of claiming money as “mine” pits one’s will against God’s Lordship of all we are and own.

This, I think, is the ideal–our resources are to be put at the disposal of others. To the extent that we claim and horde and invest in view of personal gain, we live in the world, our money is in the world, our will is in the world, and not in the Kingdom.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Jabronie]

gksaoh:

Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor and that we are our less fortunate brother’s keeper.

The Catholic church has very specific applications for these principles. They include the right of workers to belong to labor unions, the right of the unskilled to a living wage, the right to life from conception to the grave and a priority concern for the poor and the weak.

President Bush does not belong to the Catholic social tradition. Rather, he is a Calvinist, an ideology that emphasizes individualism. He proposes to allow those with money and investment skills to divert part of their payroll tax to privite retirement savings accounts. These funds would not be available to support Social Security payments to those without other resources.

This plan has attraction to the greedy, but it is not what Jesus would do.

I’m pretty sure that Jesus’s definition of “Greedy” doesn’t include giving your money to the government, so that the government can toss it out the window. Listen carefully: Charity is not when the government STEALS money from one to give to another, or throw away all together. Were the tax collectors not among the worst characters in the Bible?

And don’t forget, John Paul II spent his entire life fighting Communism.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Jabronie:

Listen carefully: Charity is not when the government STEALS money from one to give to another, or throw away all together. Were the tax collectors not among the worst characters in the Bible?

And don’t forget, John Paul II spent his entire life fighting Communism.

Jabronie, your argument is not very convincing in the light of the Lord’s words, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

Of developed nations, in 2003, the United States ranked 21st (after Japan) in the amount of aid given the poor. For a country that claims to be a Christian nation, we do not use our resources in ways that would demonstrate this to the whole world. We are, in fact, a poor example of Christian charity.

Regarding Communism, the Pope was right to fight against its manifestation in the USSR. Any economic system that, in practice, denies freedom should be fought against. I would say, however, that people have forgotten what Communism really is and conflate it with its abuses. I will not argue here for any of its virtues (should there be any), but I will only state that a more socialist than capitalist ethic seems to be in effect in the Community of the Apostles.

You will note, also, that the Vatican has decried abuses in capitalism as well. Our current economic system is very individual-centered, very self-seeking. It is a problem. If a free market is desireable, it cannot be constructed or maintained on the backs of the poor, and as Christians, we are not called to defend any institution that would do such a thing.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Orionthehunter]

Everyone writing here is on dangerous ground. The Church teaches fundamental Truths that must be adhered to by all faithful. Part of God’s Truth taught by the Church is that we all have free will and are given at conception a soul marked by the hand of God. Together these two gifts require us to discern God’s will. The issues discussed here tread into what C.S. Lewis in “Screwtape Letters” a slippery slope where our faith in God is replaced in our faith in politics.

Private Savings Accounts within Social Security, higher taxes to fund a benevolent government trying to right human wrongs, lower taxes to de-fund an atheistic government aspiring to replace God, lower defense spending because Jesus taught a pacifist message, greater defense spending because Jesus taught that we are to protect our fellow human’s dignity and 99% of other political issues are matters for each of us to discern in our own prayers.

The wrongs conducted by Socialism/Communism or Capitalism all have at their core the imperfectability of mankind. Some see the corruptability of government as the greatest threat to human justice in this world and others see the corruptibility of greed as the the greatest threat.

When we invoke God/Jesus to further our own interests or perceptions we inherently are judging the “faithfulness” of others. While we should reach our political positions in light of our prayerful discernment, until we are granted the wisdom we will recieve in Heaven, we should hold these positions with greater humility and charity.

 

[Jabronie]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Jabronie, your argument is not very convincing in the light of the Lord’s words, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

Of developed nations, in 2003, the United States ranked 21st (after Japan) in the amount of aid given the poor. For a country that claims to be a Christian nation, we do not use our resources in ways that would demonstrate this to the whole world. We are, in fact, a poor example of Christian charity.

Regarding Communism, the Pope was right to fight against its manifestation in the USSR. Any economic system that, in practice, denies freedom should be fought against. I would say, however, that people have forgotten what Communism really is and conflate it with its abuses. I will not argue here for any of its virtues (should there be any), but I will only state that a more socialist than capitalist ethic seems to be in effect in the Community of the Apostles.

You will note, also, that the Vatican has decried abuses in capitalism as well. Our current economic system is very individual-centered, very self-seeking. It is a problem. If a free market is desireable, it cannot be constructed or maintained on the backs of the poor, and as Christians, we are not called to defend any institution that would do such a thing.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

You’ll note, though, that Japan and the U.S. both have relatively low taxes compared to the rest of the western world. The individuals in the U.S. give much more, seeing that they can control where the money goes. I remember reading all of the hate during those hurricanes last year saying how the U.S. government wasn’t “giving enough” to the victims. Most of those news reports failed to mention how much the individual citizen gave.

That said, we all have our own agendas, myself included. My post was just to vent my frustration with the original poster’s claim that Jesus would support the federal government forcing us to continue contributing to the social(ist) security farce, when there are much better ways to spend our money, or help others.

Afterall, a great Christian (unfortunately not Catholic) by the name of Dave Ramsey puts it best: “Social Security Reform: It’s not about polictics, it’s about MATH” - daveramsey.com/etc/social_security/

Liked your response by the way

 

[Jabronie]

Orionthehunter:

The wrongs conducted by Socialism/Communism or Capitalism all have at their core the imperfectability of mankind. Some see the corruptability of government as the greatest threat to human justice in this world and others see the corruptibility of greed as the the greatest threat.

Very well said!

:clapping:

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Orionthehunter:

When we invoke God/Jesus to further our own interests or perceptions we inherently are judging the “faithfulness” of others. While we should reach our political positions in light of our prayerful discernment, until we are granted the wisdom we will recieve in Heaven, we should hold these positions with greater humility and charity.

Orionthehunter, I’ve a feeling these words were directed towards me, but even if they aren’t, it is the Spirit that convicts me of it–I’m sorry for it, but am thankful you pointed this out.

In light of this I do not wish to be argumentative–but it seems to me that there is a slight double standard when it comes to moral responsibility and economic stewardship. In other threads, the dictates and the doctrine come swift and frequent and little room is given for the sort of discernment of which you speak. I have been accused (subtly) of being a fuzzy moralist when I presented my belief that Christ is the ideal (and is, in fact, the Reality) of our being and that we should strive to live into that Reality/ideal. To paraphrase and Christianize Isaiah Berlin, we do what we can by grace, but that we must do. And our doing conforms more and more to Christ as we grow in grace.

This, it seems to me, describes a process of sanctification. I do not see that Christ is less the ideal in the economic sphere than in the moral–I do not see that they are different spheres, in fact. But I do think we are more apt to give ourselves, and others who think like us (and I include myself here), excuses and justifications for our economic theories and political beliefs even when people suffer for the them, than we are apt to excuse or forgive the moral failings of others. I think both exhibit a lack of charity. And I admit that I am guilty of both.

All of which is to say, orionthehunter, thank you for your post.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[iserve]

Deo- You also missed the point that those of us who dedicated ourselves to serving others in the name of our Church, most of whom serve at wages FAR below the private and public sector, Catholic school teachers, social workers, and support staff are now faced with the hardship of poverty in their last years. I raised my family on wages that were just above poverty level, (my children never even had a school picture for the lack of funds) and now, after years of service, I was laid off and my pension frozen as a result of the scandal. I have lots of company here and around the country, and I am pointing out that the Church, Democrats, Reublicans and whomever else does not, in my mind, have the right to control the pittance I have put away for retirement. If you believe that that is selfishness, then I have only ro say “how dare you?” I never shirked from paying my taxes towards, and personally serving, others, but I don’t think anything worthwhile comes from putting myself out on the street for it. Christ makes no such demand on anyone.

 

[Orionthehunter]

“In light of this I do not wish to be argumentative–but it seems to me that there is a slight double standard when it comes to moral responsibility and economic stewardship.”

There is a double standard by both people who think that social justice requires a more activist government (more social programs or more defense spending) or a less activist government when they justify that their position is God’s position. My point is that we humans do not have that much omniscence to make such broad assertions and that we need to be more humble regarding asserting that “God is on our side.” This is hubris or arrogance that is essentially Intolerance (one of the seven deadly sins).

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that all of us should reach our political positions after prayerful discernment consistent with our Faith. I feel strongly about my politics and it has been shaped by my faith. I just don’t think it proper to assert that others msut be less-Christian because I believe it is God’s will.

On a side note, I believe that God likes having Christian Liberals and Christian Conservatives. As the opposing pressures prevent issues from getting radicalized or pushed to unhealthy extremes (ie Socialism or unchecked Capitalism) despite the fact that on most issues I do come down on what many would characterize as the extreme of one of these economic systems.

We also have to keep in mind not to confuse Doctrine-Matters of Faith- (i.e. regardless of whether you want more or less government, it must be grounded in respect for human life and dignity as opposed to our own self-interest) for which political positions must conform and Guidance (i.e. the Pope’s teaching on the Death Penalty, Capitalism, political and economic freedom) where we are called to prayerfully consider these issues in light of the Pope’s teaching (which isn’t granted the infallibility status) but to which the Church allows individuals to reach in some cases polar opposite positions so long as their discernment is based on Prudence from a well-formed conscience.

Regarding your comment that you “have been accused (subtly) of being a fuzzy moralist when I presented my belief that Christ is the ideal (and is, in fact, the Reality) of our being and that we should strive to live into that Reality/ideal.” Maybe it might be a lack of intellectual rigor.

While not endorsing Capitalism over Socialism, it is my experience that most Christian “Socialists” articulate their position using simplistic bromides about the lack of economic equality being a prima facie case that Capitalism is unjust and thus contrary to God’s law, requiring a new paradigm.

While Christian Capitalists usually concede Capitalism’s weaknesses in some of the results it produces they also point out that there has yet to have been a Socialistic experiment that led to either greater economic justice or, more importantly, led to greater holiness of the people (in fact, with the exception of Israel, any country that has moved on the economic system spectrum towards Socialism has concurrently experienced increased secularism.

From their point of view, the clearest indication of Revelation by God is from actual experience and not that which we “dream up” in our minds just as the greatest confirmation we have that God is with us is glory we see daily in His creation as opposed to what we feel in our hearts (God is Truth and never lies to us. Thus as “creatures”, what we see in creation is part of God’s Truth and we are warned to be wary of the false teachings that conflict with that Truth. Read C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters for edification on how the Devil works in our minds and hearts to mislead us).

While I couldn’t agree more with your comment “I do not see that Christ is less the ideal in the economic sphere than in the moral–I do not see that they are different spheres” as that is my point exactly regarding our individual discernment is necessary for us to love God and do his will in all we do, say, and believe. But just because we are all applying Christ in our political positions doesn’t mean that all of us will reach the same position on all issues.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

iserve:

Deo- You also missed the point that those of us who dedicated ourselves to serving others in the name of our Church, most of whom serve at wages FAR below the private and public sector, Catholic school teachers, social workers, and support staff are now faced with the hardship of poverty in their last years. I raised my family on wages that were just above poverty level, (my children never even had a school picture for the lack of funds) and now, after years of service, I was laid off and my pension frozen as a result of the scandal. I have lots of company here and around the country, and I am pointing out that the Church, Democrats, Reublicans and whomever else does not, in my mind, have the right to control the pittance I have put away for retirement. If you believe that that is selfishness, then I have only ro say “how dare you?” I never shirked from paying my taxes towards, and personally serving, others, but I don’t think anything worthwhile comes from putting myself out on the street for it. Christ makes no such demand on anyone.

iserve, in the midst of my self-righteousness, I failed to make myself clear (though I clearly failed on many accounts in this thread, chiefly in a demonstration of compassion), so it’s no wonder that you would take offense–I certainly don’t blame you–and I’m sorry for it.

Hopefully this will clarify slightly. I have a knee-jerk reaction to possessiveness in a culture (the U.S.) that is obsessed with possession. I’m no better, mind you–I consider things I “own” to be “mine”. And I suppose my ire is directed more towards this mindset in myself than in others–it is very human to accuse another of one’s own sin. But I think it is this attitude of possession that I see in myself and that I see in my culture that concerns me.

I have nothing against private property, I have nothing against savings, hard-earned or otherwise, but I think what concerns me most is my own and my culture’s attachment to these things. I think the ideal would be to live amidst one’s possessions without possessing them–without clinging to them–with an attitude of holy detachment. Such a thing is difficult to cultivate in this world, I think, but I don’t think it’s a useless mindset at all.

This is something I’ve often pondered–if the Lord says don’t worry, I’ll take care of you (as he does numerous times), if the saints bear witness to this, if indeed all we have, all we own comes from God, then if I truly were to believe all these things, I would have a very different, a radically different attitude towards my possessions, my financial security, my cares and my stresses. The Psalmist says–put no trust in the horse or its rider, encouraging us to rely only on God. To the extent that I find myself clinging to things, therefore, I wonder the extent to which I truly believe. My prayer must then be, O Lord I believe, help me with my unbelief.

This is my point–I didn’t mean to accuse you of anything, and I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Orionthehunter]

I have a knee-jerk reaction to possessiveness in a culture (the U.S.) that is obsessed with possession.

Do you have the same reaction to the secularization of morals? Despite America’s faults, I still believe that it is the best nation on earth.

I think the ideal would be to live amidst one’s possessions without possessing them–without clinging to them–with an attitude of holy detachment. Such a thing is difficult to cultivate in this world, I think, but I don’t think it’s a useless mindset at all.

I couldn’t agree with this more. Just as it is hard to live a moral life in this world, not being “consumed” by our possessions is equally hard.

This is something I’ve often pondered–if the Lord says don’t worry, I’ll take care of you (as he does numerous times), if the saints bear witness to this, if indeed all we have, all we own comes from God, then if I truly were to believe all these things, I would have a very different, a radically different attitude towards my possessions, my financial security, my cares and my stresses. The Psalmist says–put no trust in the horse or its rider, encouraging us to rely only on God. To the extent that I find myself clinging to things, therefore, I wonder the extent to which I truly believe. My prayer must then be, O Lord I believe, help me with my unbelief.

Again, I couldn’t agree that this is the call of all us. But in no way is this a justification of either Socialism or Capitalism.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Orionthehunter, thanks for another lovely post.

Orionthehunter:

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that all of us should reach our political positions after prayerful discernment consistent with our Faith. I feel strongly about my politics and it has been shaped by my faith. I just don’t think it proper to assert that others msut be less-Christian because I believe it is God’s will.

I agree. Thank you.

Orionthehunter:

On a side note, I believe that God likes having Christian Liberals and Christian Conservatives. As the opposing pressures prevent issues from getting radicalized or pushed to unhealthy extremes (ie Socialism or unchecked Capitalism) despite the fact that on most issues I do come down on what many would characterize as the extreme of one of these economic systems.

Agreed here, as well. I often fear the unilateralist political impulse that seeks to silence the loyal opposition, whatever it may be. Our friend William Blake writes, “Opposition is true friendship.” However, I too, more often than not, fall on one of the extreme ends–I’m sure one can guess which–and the challenge of course, is to remind oneself (as I think is necessary for the operation of a Democracy) that the voices of one’s brothers and sisters on the other end of the spectrum are incredibly valuable.

Orionthehunter:

Maybe it might be a lack of intellectual rigor.

While not endorsing Capitalism over Socialism, it is my experience that most Christian “Socialists” articulate their position using simplistic bromides…

While Christian Capitalists usually concede Capitalism’s weaknesses in some of the results it produces they also point out that there has yet to have been a Socialistic experiment that led to either greater economic justice or, more importantly, led to greater holiness of the people…

God knows I need, generally, to be more intellectually rigorous.

I think we can admit that both Socialism and Capitalism have their flaws. What I find disconcerting is that neither system has appeared in the world in its purity, but that no one argues for a return to principle in either realm. If we look at Adam Smith’s vision of Capitalism, it agrees much more with Tolstoy’s Socialism than it does with Communist Russia or Capitalist America. Something has been lost. But the defenders of Capitalism, more often than not, defend the current system and don’t seem particularly interested in Smith at all–his denunciations of over-accumulation and government entitlement coupled with his pessimism regarding the virtue of wealth pursued for its own ends might come as a shock to many a mogul.

The Socialists are slightly better off in this regard–I think it was Baudrillard who spoke of the end of Communism as the victory of Communism because in the defeat of the USSR, Communism became a pure idea (whether for good or for ill) whereas Capitalism, the more it spreads itself thin across the globe, reveals its own corruption much more readily. The ghost of Soviet Communism is just that, the ghost of corruption. Global Capitalism, then, is in a better position to actually embody corruption. In the meantime, Tolstoyan socialism remains an untried ideal.

You could look to various utopian communities that were organized around socialist principles as demonstrating the viability of the model–but ultimately, socialism, like true democracy, works best on the local level–and it is little wonder that small utopian communities can thrive, if only for a time.

Do you know Spengler’s “Decline of the West”? I can’t say I agree with him on many points–and it frightens me to think that the likes of Kissinger recommended it to Nixon as filled with great ideas on how to run a country on the eve of the Apocalypse–but I cannot help, when I think of Capitalism, of Spengler’s inclusion of Capitalism amongst the various symptoms of a culture’s end–industry, obsession with capital, culture of nostalgia, new imperialism. Spengler’s attitude towards this (and maybe this is what appealed to Kissinger) is that the end should be heartily embraced without idealism–there’s no use complaining or trying to stop it, so ride the tiger, he suggests, into the gaping jaws of cultural oblivion. I disagree with him, not the least reason being my faith. And my love of the Christian neoplatonic fathers has given me a greater and greater love and understanding of the ideals on which Spengler would spit as being empty utopianism and fluff.

Orionthehunter:

But just because we are all applying Christ in our political positions doesn’t mean that all of us will reach the same position on all issues.

Ultimately, you’re quite right!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Orionthehunter:

Do you have the same reaction to the secularization of morals? Despite America’s faults, I still believe that it is the best nation on earth.

Yes, but in my own way, I suppose. I believe in the old notion that founding fathers held dear–that government is best which governs least. I do not think it the government’s job to interfere with individual morality. Law these days is more or less a tool of social engineering–where before there were morals in which people believed, now law attempts to enforce or administrate morality in an attempt to create better citizens. I do not think this should be the purpose of law–we must regain our morals, but not through the administration of law. Civil law should be the last resort of civil dispute, not the first word in individual or collective morality.

And I, too, believe that America is the best nation on earth. It’s my love of it and its ideals that makes it hard when it fails to live up to its brilliant potential.

Orionthehunter:

Again, I couldn’t agree that this is the call of all us. But in no way is this a justification of either Socialism or Capitalism.

I wonder if we aren’t all called to this. Hence my dilemma… But, I agree, it is not justification for either Socialism or Capitalism.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Orionthehunter]

This is probably becoming a thread of decreasing interest to anyone by you and I but continue nevertheless (stubbornness?).

“What I find disconcerting is that neither system has appeared in the world in its purity, but that no one argues for a return to principle in either realm.”

Sorry but purity is only possible for us in Heaven.

“If we look at Adam Smith’s vision of Capitalism, it agrees much more with Tolstoy’s Socialism than it does with Communist Russia or Capitalist America.”

I’m not sure that we got the same thing out of Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” I need to add it to my reading list as I recall Smith as the ultimate pragmatist (humans will pursue their self interest) but articulated that such behavior if exercised freely (with minimal government distortion) will actually most effeciently serve the public interest. Tolstoy was the ultimate utopian as he articulated that if people would look out for others, others would look out for them and the public interest would be served.

“But the defenders of Capitalism, more often than not, defend the current system and don’t seem particularly interested in Smith at all”

I’m not sure where you are going here unless it goes back to your statement that neither has appeared in is “pure form.” I don’t believe that Capitalism “in its pure form” is practical or attainable. The nature of a democracy is such that limits will be placed on unfettered Capitalism in an effort to satisfy a particular priority (i.e. compulsory road taxes rather than relying on toll roads which would be the Smithian model).

"–his denunciations of over-accumulation and government entitlement

While it has been years since I read the book, I don’t think this is a fair characterization of Smith’s thoughts. His “denunciations” are statements that “over-accumulation” ultimately becomes inefficient and the invisible hand of capitalism will correct the inefficiency most efficiently (no need for government intervention) and that government entitlement are also an inefficiency that defeats the public interest.

“pessimism regarding the virtue of wealth pursued for its own ends might come as a shock to many a mogul.”

But Adam Smith’s willingness to pass judgment on this does not lead him to then advocate a government solution. See my comment above on “over-accumulation.”

“The Socialists are slightly better off in this regard–I think it was Baudrillard who spoke of the end of Communism as the victory of Communism because in the defeat of the USSR, Communism became a pure idea (whether for good or for ill) whereas Capitalism, the more it spreads itself thin across the globe, reveals its own corruption much more readily. The ghost of Soviet Communism is just that, the ghost of corruption. Global Capitalism, then, is in a better position to actually embody corruption.”

I don’t want to be insulting but this is clap trap and severely in need of more intellectual rigor.

“In the meantime, Tolstoyan socialism remains an untried ideal.”

Just as I said above that unfettered capitalism is neither practical or attainable in this imperfect world, the pursuit of this utopia is the work of the Devil as it leads one to think that ultimately a political/economic system can achieve what can only be achieved in heaven.

“You could look to various utopian communities that were organized around socialist principles as demonstrating the viability of the model–but ultimately, socialism, like true democracy, works best on the local level–and it is little wonder that small utopian communities can thrive, if only for a time.”

Family life in its pure form is socialism at its best and is workable because being altruistic to loved ones is reasonably attainable and practical. Applying it on a slightly larger scale is remotely attainable “if only for a time” as you said above.

And your mention of Spengler, to which I will say:

1. He was follower Bismarck who conducted the forced exile of Catholics (my ancestors were one who fled to Luxemborg before coming to America)
2. His thoughts ultimately were used by Hitler and his followers to justify their “World Order.”
3. As evil as this thoughts were, I give nothing that ever comes out of his mouth any credence at all.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Orionthehunter:

This is probably becoming a thread of decreasing interest to anyone by you and I but continue nevertheless (stubbornness?).

Perhaps you’re right–but I think stubborness has a (sometimes hidden) virute all its own.

Orionthehunter:

…purity is only possible for us in Heaven.

Perhaps, but to strive for it through and with grace is our task here on earth.

Orionthehunter:

…Tolstoy was the ultimate utopian as he articulated that if people would look out for others, others would look out for them and the public interest would be served.

Which, really, is why I like him so much.

“But the defenders of Capitalism, more often than not, defend the current system and don’t seem particularly interested in Smith at all”

Orionthehunter:

The nature of a democracy is such that limits will be placed on unfettered Capitalism in an effort to satisfy a particular priority (i.e. compulsory road taxes rather than relying on toll roads which would be the Smithian model).

Well, I agree with you here, but I think we’re both being idealistic–presently, I see democracy as the tool of the free market, not the free market as an instrument of democracy. I think the latter is the ideal on which we can both agree, but the former is our present situation.

Orionthehunter:

But Adam Smith’s willingness to pass judgment on this does not lead him to then advocate a government solution.

True, but I think it’s telling, nonetheless.

"The Socialists are slightly better off in this regard–I think it was Baudrillard who spoke of the end of Communism as the victory of Communism… "

I don’t want to be insulting but this is clap trap and severely in need of more intellectual rigor.

You’re not being insulting at all, although I disagree that Baudrillard is lacking in rigor. Of course, he is a post-modernist post-structuralist with tendencies to couch his arguments in the pataphysical metaphor championed by the likes of Jarry (leading to such statements as “We have reached the escape velocity of history”), but I think his statement in this regard is relatively unimpeachable–Communism, disassociated from its abuses and restored to the realm of pure idea is in a better position to look more attractive than Capitalism which is still tied to its actual present abuses. In the war for hearts and minds, as it were, Communism can make a relatively good case. Those who say, “but what about the past?” can easily be countered with, “That’s the past–capitalist corruption is our present.”

For what it’s worth, Baudrillard is a more keen media/social critic than he is a strictly political critic–I class him with the Situationists in this regard with folks like Guy DeBord. His work on simulation and simulacra is seminal in this area.

Orionthehunter:

the pursuit of this utopia is the work of the Devil as it leads one to think that ultimately a political/economic system can achieve what can only be achieved in heaven.

Agreed, to a point. A trust in secular authority to accomplish, uninformed by grace, the work of heaven on earth is diabolical indeed and leads to tyranny. Which is why I don’t think that matters of morality should be left in the hands of secular authority. A bureacracy is not a vessel of grace, though the people who work in it are.

As such, I do think that a struggle for justice on behalf of the people is important to the maintainance of a healthy government–a government must be held accountable–recognizing what is Caesar and what the Kingdom should be encouraged, and the Kingdom should be sought, though the Kingdom should not be expected of secular authority, whose job it is to leave the people themselves free to seek it that Kingdom. As Noam Chomsky is fond of saying, political authority must constantly justify itself and its actions, and when it cannot do so, it must be dismantled. A similar idea is contained in the Declaration of Independence, though the founders used the word “abolish” rather than “dismantle”.

Orionthehunter:

Family life in its pure form is socialism at its best and is workable because being altruistic to loved ones is reasonably attainable and practical. Applying it on a slightly larger scale is remotely attainable “if only for a time” as you said above.

I can definitely agree with this.

(CONTINUED)