Catholicism and Communism (Socialism?)

[Psychotheosophy]

The Church does not condemn communism per se. If it did, it would have to abolish all the monasteries. But monastic communism is not only godly, it is voluntary.

Other kinds of communism and socialism vary in the coercive power of the government to rob Peter to pay Paul. Tax collection in the ancient Roman empire was socialistic. Whether the taxes ever went where they were supposed to go is arguable. Socialism only works if there is a demand for it, and there is never a demand for it unless there is plenty of poverty. Obviously socialists don’t want to solve the problem of poverty … or they would become irrelevant … and so poverty is never solved.

Capitalism likewise can be exploitative in the sense of charging excessive prices for necessary goods, refusing to pay a fair wage, forcing slave labor, and using the power of the government to create “company” unions. Capitalist greed knows no bounds, and if the capitalists had their way, there would only be the rich and the poor, no middle class. But if the middle class is gouged enough to pay to the poor and the rich, there will be a reckoning for the rich, as the French, American, and Russian Revolutions proved.

A plague on both their houses.

The only antidote to both extremes is Christianity. “Love one another.”

As Christianity fails, so will the economy. Today Christianity is failing, and so is the economy. Thieves everywhere!

I’m not saying we should all become communists, but…

We are never truly free,
If we keep ourselves from that which we naturally seek.

But,
A coerced freedom,
Is not freedom at all.

And,
A coerced sacrifice of private property for the poor,
Is not love at all.

Yet,
We all are naturally drawn to love freely.

So,
How could communism exist without totalitarianism?
How do we define Non-Marxist communism?

 

[KyivAndrew]

Communism is a political religion (Stalin called it a religion). It is a deterministic theory which believes that only it can explain the SCIENTIFIC laws of Human History and history advances through class struggle until one reaches the final classless society. Any deterministic theory is incompatible with Catholicism and its belief in freewill. Stalin could not comprehend in his ideological system why the Soviet Union wasn’t advancing quicker by following Marxist politics. Hence, all those bizarre bloody show trials to rationalize any failures or explain away failures incompatible with Communism’s ideological blueprint. Communism was going to make Man God ultimately (Lunacharsky described it as God-building).
On property, well, in taking it away Stalin managed to kill 7million Ukrainians in a genocide during Crash Collectivization. A collectivist system has no special preference for the individual who is just a materialistic automaton in the great cog of the socialist machine.
Communism had, has absolutely no independent moral lodestar apart from the Party.
Hence if the Party deemed you an enemy, on what moral grounds could you object as whatever the Party decided was true was moral so to speak. Hence, Nikolai Bukharin, in writing textbooks on the ABCs of communism in the 1920s and the inerrancy of the Party had nothing to fall back upon when Stalin and the Party accused him of being a fascist spy in the 1930s. He was tortured and killed by his own “logical” beliefs. And there really is no point arguing here about a hypothetical ideal Marxism coming into being (ala Stephen Cohen) since all there ever was was “really-existing socialism”.
Finally, as Eric Voegelin once put it, these political religions (communism, nazism) go against human nature as they attempt to “immanentize the eschaton”, that is build paradise on earth.
As for any good similarities with Communism. Well I believe it was C.S. Lewis who once said there is no such thing as an Absolute Self-Sufficient Evil. Any evil ideology cannot simply be born out of evil but must have some small virtue (patriotism in Nazi Germany, equality in communism) which Satan twists and turns here and there into a gigantic aberration which ultimately is unrecognizable and evil.

 

[sedonaman]

Catholicism and Communism are clearly different (e.g. belief in God)
But,
Are there any similar principles?

Where are your sox?

If you have not read George Orwell’s Animal Farm, I highly recommend it. It is an easy read of only 125 pages or so. It is a parody on the Russian Revolution and full of allegory, most notably the pigs who gain control of the wealth of the farm. And that is the defining element of collectivism, or Leftism as I prefer. Examples abound: High taxes, taxation for its own sake, income redistribution, affirmative action – the list goes on. However, it is not the only element. In order to get control of their wealth, you must get control of the people. This is done primarily by revolution: creating disorder and chaos by dividing people into “conflicting” groups, and also by encouraging people to become slaves to their passions, then the presenting of the Left as the salvation of all mankind.

Once in power, the first task of the revolution is to prevent a counter-revolution. Hence speech codes, political correctness (invented to hide truth), persecution of tradition (especially the Christian tradition, truth par excellence), and even the redefinition of truth and goodness because Leftist ideology cannot withstand the scrutiny of these ideas. To paraphrase Selwyn Duke, Leftist ideology is one which is not rejected when it conflicts with truth, but where truth is rejected when it conflicts with the ideology.

The most brilliant talk I ever heard on Marxist/Leftist nonsense was given by Bishop Fulton Sheen on his TV program. Explaining the concept of truth and the difference between how Communism and Western thought arrive at it, he posed the question, “Where are your sox?” Western thought turns to REALITY [and tradition] – you look for them in your dresser drawer. Communism answers by stating, “Wherever the Party says they are!”

 

[Oreoracle]

It’s nice to know that we can talk politics without defining an ideology by its history, using sweeping generalizations, or strawman arguments, huh Sedonaman?

 

[Esdras]

Socialism is not the same as Communism. I am as Social Democrat and I am a Catholic. I am left of centre, but I can be conservative when it comes to certain things.

 

[sedonaman]

It’s nice to know that we can talk politics without defining an ideology by its history, using sweeping generalizations, or strawman arguments, huh Sedonaman?

What do you mean? I’ve never made a sweeping generalization nor strawman argument in my entire life.

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

Communism and Capitalism in their materialist ideologies are condemned by the Church. See rerum novarum, and all of the social documents up through centessimus annus.

Communalism, however, is actually practiced in most Religious Orders in which the ora and labora of the community does not allow any person to own property-- everything is shared in common-- like in the early church.

However, this cannot be forced on any community; the ownership of property is in fact one of the main principles of Catholic Social Teaching “The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many people as possible to become owners” (Rerum Novarum, no. 35).

This does not permit Capitalism to take over with a vengeance, however, because “unbridled capitalism” as Leo XIII calls it is also condemned as being unfair to the working person. The person and his work must be held as more important than capital in order for the economy to be just.

Now JPII argued that while Capitalism, that is restricted such that more people are able to own their own property and get a living wage, is acceptable and indeed is able to create solvent goods better than any other economic system to date, it also tends toward a throw away society, in which our goods are not TRUE goods-- they do not, as he puts it, produce “authentic development” of the human person. Thus, the Catholic capitalist must infuse in his business transactions (including consumer choices and investments) christian virtue and charity. This might mean taking a financial hit if it is a bad cause-- In other words, for example, it may be evil to financially support a corporation that funds abortions even if that just means buying a pair of jeans at The Gap, or apples at Whole Foods-- it means being aware of what you are purchasing and what you are supporting when you invest in a company or consume goods. In a capitalist industrialized society we are obliged to be informed consumers-- forgive the digression…

Distributivism is another economic policy that is generally well liked by Catholics, Chesterton and others are very prolific on the topic. It is opposed to capitalism, and is based on a model in which true wealth (i.e. not money but means of production… land, businesses, etc) are distributed to as many persons and families as possible, so that more people own and there is more equality and less greed. In such a model there would be small businesses and farms and no Wal-marts. Whether this is possible in our country is left, not to the theologian but to the economist.

To answer the question briefly…
Communism goes directly against Catholic Social Principles because it is inherently materialistic, and does not allow for the ownership of private property.

Socialism is not necessarily against Catholic Social Principles because it does allow for the ownership of private property BUT the means of production are publically owned. This is also usually materialistic, and as far as that goes is less efficient and does not allow for charity in the same way capitalism does.

Both are a bad idea theologically and economically.

Peace.

 

[human_being]

Not really. Jesus called for people to voluntarily give to the poor. To voluntarily redistribute wealth.

Socialism uses the coercive power of government to redistribute wealth, which seems a lot like theft to me.

God Bless

But what happened when Anannais withheld from Peter? He did not hold from the people,but from God.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Agreed, but we live in a Fallen World. It is not a question of The ideal constitution of the economy - I suppose one can put it - but the least evil, as Churchill said about democracy with respect to political alternatives.

Friedrich Hayek and the Chicago School of Economics always defended free markets and economic freedom, because leaving the economy in private hands meant that the State would have less ability to impose totalitarianism, as the economic sphere remained separate from the political sphere. We know of course that the Soviet Union controlled both the economic and political spheres of society. Had private property remained and the economic sphere remained out of Lenin’s and Stalin’s hands, well millions of lives would have been saved.

Without free markets we really haven’t developed the tools on this earth to gauge the worth of any product or good competently. To give this power to some institution would involve in giving that institution the FATAL CONCEIT as Hayek called it of knowing exactly when and where to adjust value and prices. Communism took this Fatal Conceit believing the Politburo could act like God.

Switching to another track, C.S. Lewis also, like Chesterton, believed in Christian Socialism.

The present economic crisis underlines, despite Hayek’s arguments, that unregulated markets can cause havoc when Wall Street got a whiff of all the intricacies of the derivatives market and greed started taking advantage of the sub-prime government program which was initially meant to help the poor buy houses. The present crisis was caused by a perfect storm of greedy investors, a false belief in ever-rising real estate prices, and the unintended consequences of a government program incompetently run to help the poor.

There is no easy answer and I am just touching the surface. Canada’s banks never defaulted like the U.S.'s because we had stricter government regulation. Regulation helps sometimes. It’s not just go laissez-faire.

The only semi-ideal setup would be that a society which becomes semi-capitalist really needs a strong backbone of religious belief (i.e. Christianity) to curb greed and deal with the constructive destruction (Schumpteter’s term) of capitalism. But first let’s see how we get out of this mess. I’m not an economist or theologian. I’m just a guy.

God Bless!

 

[sedonaman]

…

Communism and Capitalism in their materialist ideologies are condemned by the Church. See rerum novarum, and all of the social documents up through centessimus annus.

My take on Rerum Novarum is slightly different. While Leo was highly critical of capitalism, he condemned socialism. Big difference.

“The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many people as possible to become owners” … Communism goes directly against Catholic Social Principles because it is inherently materialistic, and does not allow for the ownership of private property.

How can one condemn capitalism while encouraging ownership?

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

only insofar as capitalism and socialism are materialistic are they condemned. Rerum novarum is very insistent that capitalism has to be bridled, and that the person must be held to be more important than capital. Capitalism is based on materialistic principles, so is socialism-- but they can be tempered so that the the person is not a means for the creation of wealth and capital. Insofar as they are tempered, they are not condemned-- but Adam Smith they must be tempered by virtue.

Both socialism and capitalism are allowable if the authentic development of the person is the end of the society and not the creation of wealth alone.
For this read laborem exercens and populorum progressio.

Capitalism is not the only economic system that allows for the ownership of private property-- both socialism and distributism allow for private ownership-- not communism, you seem to conflate socialism and communism.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Catholicism and Communism are clearly different (e.g. belief in God)
But,
Are there any similar principles?

No.

Socialism seeks to supplant God with the State. There can never be any compromise on that; any attempts to find common ground only clouds the issue and gives power to those who would destroy the Church.

 

[estesbob]

Communism has never worked-Catholicism has worked for 2,000 years.

 

[bilop]

Capitalism is not the only economic system that allows for the ownership of private property-- both socialism and distributism allow for private ownership-- not communism, you seem to conflate socialism and communism.

That’s not socialism you’re describing if it allows private property. The basis of socialism is government ownership of industry. Having a large welfare state is not the same as socialism.

Thus, nationalized helath care is a socialist policy, b/c gov’t takes over the industry, Social Security is not socialist b/c it is strictly a social insurance program, and doesn’t involve government control of industry.

God Bless

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

I am afraid that we may be talking past each other. As I was taught in what little economic classes I had as an undergrad-- socialism allows private individuals to hold property-- but the means of production (and yes, industry) are owned by the state. Communism does not allow for private property.
for the record I think that socialism, and communism are REALLY bad economic policies, and a far from the best policy from the social moral theology standpoint-- but socialism not explicitly condemned by the Popes, while communism (forced communalism) is.

You could argue that from the principle of subsidiary function, that socialism is condemned implicitly. I think it would even be a licit argument, but that is another issue.

Peace.

 

[Oreoracle]

Catholicism has worked for 2,000 years.

Really? I wouldn’t say a system responsible for things such as the Inquisition and the Index of Prohibited Books “worked” unless I was a victim of tunnel vision.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Although the socialist lie has controlled a brutally efficient propaganda machine for decades, I am heartened to realize that many, many people see it for what it is.

 

[sedonaman]

Really? I wouldn’t say a system responsible for things such as the Inquisition and the Index of Prohibited Books “worked” unless I was a victim of tunnel vision.

Right. Catholicism hasn’t worked because people still sin. Must be something wrong with the system.

 

[estesbob]

Really? I wouldn’t say a system responsible for things such as the Inquisition and the Index of Prohibited Books “worked” unless I was a victim of tunnel vision.

Over the 2,000 years of Catholic History thats all you can come up with? Didnt you forget to mention the crusades and Gallelio???

The Catholic Church has been the greatest force for good in the History of mankind. Disregarding the fact i suspect you have little knowldge of what the inquistion and peohibited books actually entailed i would say that one should not condemn the Church becuase of the occasional errors of men who belonged to it.

 

[Oreoracle]

Over the 2,000 years of Catholic History thats all you can come up with? Didnt you forget to mention the crusades and Gallelio???

I didn’t forget, I just thought what was provided was sufficient.

Disregarding the fact i suspect you have little knowldge of what the inquistion and peohibited books actually entailed…

How did you know I was such a fan of wanton judgments? I don’t know what was better: the insult or its brevity.

i would say that one should not condemn the Church becuase of the occasional errors of men who belonged to it.

But you won’t grant the same liberty to communism, am I right?