H
human_being
Guest
Does she answer it in post #77?
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
If her answer is correct, it did. Which leads to my point. In post # 66 you said:
In your mind, unions played no part in working-class jobs leaving this country. It’s all Reagan’s fault. If your garbage disposer broke and you called a plumber, and he said he could fix it, but first he had to get an electrician to disconnect the power, would you be willing to pay for plumber’s time waiting for the electrician, the electrician’s house call charge, plus the electrician’s time waiting for the plumber to finish so he could reconnect it? Of course you wouldn’t. But this is exactly what the auto unions expected of the auto manufacturers.
You said you like to get pay for your work. Well, so do management and the stockholders, but they can’t unless they can pass all their costs on to the consumer, who wants to part with as little of his money as possible.
He “let” them go? Sounds like you want a command economy. If that’s what you want, be prepared to have a politician tell you how much you can earn.
Socialism is a great idea. There is only one itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny problem with it: no one has yet figured a way to pay for it.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
I’m no expert in economics,
So please correct me if I’m wrong but,
Since Christian charity can not be separated from Christian faith…
If all took a pay cut (including government),
Could socialism be paid for?
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
The problem is not necessarily that socialism cannot work for lack of money, but lack of information. All the information necessary to govern a command economy will always be absent. When socialists receive information on how to manage healthcare, agriculture, energy, etc. by the time they receive it is already outdated. The market can adjust quickly to supply and demand due to entrepenuership (sp?) and free access to the market. Socialism will always have too many number crunchers, beauracrats, and middlemen to ever effectively respond to changing situations. They also lack the ability to be creative and responsive to change, for the same reasons. Only after the system is backlogged with inefficiency and waste does there become a lack of money. After all the mistakes performed on a grand scale fail, there simply is not enough money to feed the giant. In the free market when this happens inefficiency and sluggish responses are punished by the failure of the company, which while hard on those involved only effect them. When the government fails, it effects all. This is why socialism and communism can never work, it is a weakness inherent in the system which cannot be fixed, and only harms those involved.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
At last—a voice of sanity regarding unions and what they have become.
And why would ANYONE even want to ‘pay for’ a political system that seeks to supplant God with the State?
S
sedonaman
Guest
Economics has been defined as the study of the allocation of scarce resources. I’m no expert in it either, but from what I’ve read from those who are *, and my own personal observation, this would not help. Take the example of socialized medicine in which everyone takes a pay cut. This wouldn’t help for several reasons. First, when something of value becomes free, demand goes through the roof. There are only so many health care providers, so if it became free, people would be going to the doctor even for things they could take care of themselves; and even if they didn’t, a free system would expand the demand base anyway, causing the existing providers to be spread over a larger number of customers. So the doctor’s pay would be a factor only to the extent that it would induce more or less to enter the profession. Another reason it would not help is that costs are relative.
My personal observation came when I was in the military. Health care for current and retired service members and their dependents in those days was paid for by a third party [the taxpayer]. Sick call was filled every morning by mothers with their kids with colds. There was a medical facility at a military installation in Florida that the retirees used every Thursday morning for a social gathering, whether they were sick or not.
Another example is socialized motels. During hurricane Katrina, demand for motel rooms skyrocketed. Socialists called this “unfair”. But what was unfair about it? There was a scarcity, and the higher prices forced customers to adjust rather than the government dictating choices. If, by some government fiat, prices had been kept the same as before, one person could have taken a large room that could easily accommodate a whole family. As it was, single customers would have to ban together and share, thus a scarce commodity [rooms] would be utilized more efficiently.
EnchantedEve said above that government cannot act quickly enough because of a lack of information. This is absolutely correct. How long would it have taken the government to do a study on the prices of motel rooms during Katrina and then issue its orders, all the while people would be sleeping outside?
But the biggest problem is that politicians will use the necessary rationing to buy votes. If you don’t belong to the ruling party’s constituency, you’re up the creek. If a 70-year-old man needs a heart operation, and a 15-year-old girl wants an abortion, which do you think will get the service?
So, which system is closer to Christian charity?*
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Forgive me if I sounded like I was in favor of supplanting God with the State,
I wasn’t.
But I do think you raise a good point…
From a Catholic perspective…
We do support a kind of “command” economy.
As in
The Ten Commandments,
Summed in the Great Commandments…
Which govern our behavior,
Including transactions of goods and services.
Since true freedom is choosing what we first naturally sought,
Then,
If we fail to follow these commandments,
We suffer a loss of spiritual freedom.
And,
The spiritual and material are closely united (body and soul, sacraments, etc.)
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
No, this is not possible, because as has been pointed out, it cannot work. Even if every man in society was a perfect angel, which their not, the same weaknesses would exist since man has a finite mind and cannot process or respond to infinite scenarios and still serve the needs of all individuals. Only the market does this effectively, if not perfectly.
As for observing the commandments, again, the State has limited ability to do this. We are compelled by God to be virtuous in our commerce and exchanges, but the State cannot force us to be so. St. Thomas pointed out that their are limits to what the State can do to increase virtues. Socialism is condemned by Church in general as well as specifically. As Pope Pius XI said “No man can, at the same time, call himself a true Catholic and a sincere Socialist.”
Any form of socialism is an interfence to the right of property and personal freedom, which both serve a purpose in the attainment of virtue. Socialism is the negation of this, and it cannot be rehabilitated.
S
sedonaman
Guest
It is not. I was expecting an answer.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Amen and thank you.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
I thought you were making the point that capitalism is closer to Christian charity than socialism.
I’m not trying to figure out which is more Christian (though it looks like it capitalism),
I’m trying to clarify the Church’s position on socialism (i.e. monastic communism, early Church communities, governments)
In a world that seems to be increasingly growing in having strong centralized governments.
There seems to be a difference is between a “sincere Socialist” and other socialists,
Monastic communism seems very socialistic (and is unforced),
Finland’s socialism claims to be effective due to its small size and homogeneity (and is forced).
(I’m not sure if this makes a difference, but socialist Finland existed many years before legalizing abortions)
Would there be a positive difference between advocating small socialists groups,
Versus,
A one world socialist government?
(Not versus capitalism!)
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
If by this you mean small, voluntary communities, there is nothing wrong with this, or unCatholic. It is when it is forced and compulsory, for an entire population, that it is wrong.
St. Thomas puts it this way:
“The first way of so living is for each person to sell his possessions, and for all to live in common on the proceeds. This appears to have been the practice under the Apostles in Jerusalem, for it is said: ‘As many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the Apostles. And distribution was made to every one as he had need’ (Acts 4:34-35). But it does not seem that effective provision is made for human life, according to this way" (Summa contra Gentiles, Book 3, Part 2, chap. 132, 2, trans. by Vernon Bourke, Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1956, p. 170).
More on this can be found here:
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j009htPenty_Aquinas_Odou.htm
Hope this helps!
S
sedonaman
Guest
…Unquote.
Read the rest here ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13APOST.HTM .
I’m not sure it addresses the early church communities. Someone here called it “communalism”.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Socialism has nothing, repeat, nothing whatever to do with how the early church arrayed itself.
Socialism will always supplant God with State. As such it is a grave moral evil.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Thank you, I think it does.If by this you mean small, voluntary communities, there is nothing wrong with this, or unCatholic. It is when it is forced and compulsory, for an entire population, that it is wrong.
St. Thomas puts it this way:
“The first way of so living is for each person to sell his possessions, and for all to live in common on the proceeds. This appears to have been the practice under the Apostles in Jerusalem, for it is said: ‘As many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the Apostles. And distribution was made to every one as he had need’ (Acts 4:34-35). But it does not seem that effective provision is made for human life, according to this way" (Summa contra Gentiles, Book 3, Part 2, chap. 132, 2, trans. by Vernon Bourke, Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1956, p. 170).
More on this can be found here:
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j009htPenty_Aquinas_Odou.htm
Hope this helps!
I think you helped define what I meant by “socialism,”
As opposed to Socialism.
I often see, in immigrants to this country, them following the path of early Christian communities, as explained by St. Thomas.
Also,
There is a familiar saying in social service:
“Our job is to work ourselves out of a job”
And,
There is a frequently stated psychological toll,
When their clients’ situation does not improve over time.
(Socialist Finland also has a very high suicide rate)
In sedonaman’s post,
I think it is interesting that Pope Leo XIII,
Grouped Socialists, Communists, and Nihilists as one sect.
It appears that,
Voluntary and transitional “socialism” is acceptable,
But,
The mindset of “socialism,”
Must be to annihilate itself.
For the good of the people it is supposed to serve.
Does Socialism have a mechanism to release its control?
Is the European Union “socialist?”
Does it have a mechanism to protect the poor?
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Thanks
S
sedonaman
Guest
It’s been a while since I read the whole thing, but here goes. They are grouped because they are all collectivist ideas promising an earthly salvation, a utopia of sorts. The appeal is to think it is possible for man to redeem himself [remember, he has to rid himself of his “greed” for the collective to work, if it can work at all]. It runs afoul of God because the state must necessarily replace God [to force people to do what they normally wouldn’t], and here is where the nihilism comes in: man has no hope for eternal salvation.
Since socialism replaces God with the state, its first duty is self-perpetuation, not the good of the people. The first task it faces after winning a revolution is to prevent a counter-revolution. “The good of the people” is just a shill to provide the necessary attractiveness.
An excellent book on all this is Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. It might be out of print, in which case you will have to look for it in a used-book dealer, such as abebooks.com.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Keeping in the vein of what I wrote before, no, since Socialism has no way of achieving it’s goals, it’s work will never be done. It will always need a few years more, a few billion dollars more (sound familiar), more commitment, less counter-revolution, etc. etc. There is always a good reason in Socialists’ minds why socialism is not working. Read the Communist Party USA website and you will come to the conclusion that is the USSR had not been distracted by the US and counter-revolutionaries, or been more “true to Communist ideals,” paradise would be theirs!
Again, theoretically Karl Marx said in his seminal work Das Kapital, that the goal of Communism and Socialism is for the State to reach such a point that it “whithers away,” being no longer necessary. Again, if you look at the goals of Socialism, you will see that they are unobtainable and that the means of getting there are not possible.
The European Union is very Socialist and, I would argue, tyrannical. The EU gives lip services to the poor, but I doubt any of their beauracrats would recognize a poor person if they tripped over them in the street, since all their policies seem to do is encourage more poor. Again, it is not rhetoric and “intention” that makes policies laudable, but whether they coincide with the natural order of things.
Also, Dr. Plinio’s book is an excellent resource and I also highly recommend it.
You can get it new here: tfp.org/bookstore/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=24&category_id=1&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1
Great that you are looking into this, BTW!
N
Nino
Guest
to equate Communism and Christianity is the worst insult ever on this site…'both being concerned about the well being of humanity" how horrible a statement…sure the murder of 100 million innocent souls last century by the communist conspiracy is no big deal…and in china alone…the lefts trading partner…they have murdered some 64 million by themselves…how utterly charming! The Cardinal Kung foundation and others are in constant contact with the courageous under-ground church in China and what these fellow followers of Christ are experiencing is awful…'smiliar in their concerns for humanity"…Tell that to Elians mom,she it was,who gave her life to escape from your paradise of Cuba ,to bring her son.>Elian…to America,the land of the free and brave…she drowned…her relatives rescued the boy…but later the cowardly father and communist party member,ordered the boy Elian to be returned to him…he was divorced from the boys mom and had married the party instead…and our born again pres…Clinton.ordered police to kidnap Elian from his relatives and at gunpoint, sent the little innocent boy back to the lovely communist paradise of Cuba and the embrace of Castro…your hero…so many enter this wonderful site with an agenda…not seeking truth but intent on destroying the last best hope of mankind. the United States of America.
H
human_being
Guest
This is where I got my info that unions are to be supported by catholics and are not socialism. It is proof that the market is not perfect. I don’t know all of the facts of history,but I believe what was happening in the time of the encyclical was the beginings of some communist or socialist gov’ts. The unions(guilds were disbanded a few years prior. The market left to it’s own devices results in mass unfair treatment of laboreres. The rules were removed. The work rights gone. All wages left to the dog-eat-dog freemarket. The encyclical needed to be written to teach people(the workers and the business owners) how to treat each other because left to human nature and almighty dollar we fail on our own.(and I can see this happening today) The Church’s guidance is necaessary for the dignity of the worker. I don’t know all of the facts nor do I have time to seek them but I believe if the unions aren’t supported instead of being demonized we could be staring socialists revolts and communist revolts (meaning physical revolts) in the U.S. real soon.And no…I do not favor or desire this. I am an american, not a socialist,nor a communist.It seems that if you favor unions you are automatically considered unamerican or socialist but it is just the propagnda fed us for years and years now. Many union families fought wars for America. The Pope favored unions in that letter from the chair of Peter. Our capitalist system often times ovelooks things like that and automatically condems. It also states that the unions should have been watchful as to not be corrupted, but this has failed miserably at times.But it does not mean turn our backs on the working people. The unions insure a better chance for working people to have a better life for their families than the unchecked freemarket system. I don’t doubt that uneducated working families still make up the majority of the U.S. population. Supporting unions does not support socialim. It supports Americans and by so doing prevents the unchecked freemarket system from abusing workers,therefore preventing bloody revolutions in the streets. If the UAW ,which is one of the stronger remaing unions, weakens or falls, I feel we are even closer to socialist revolutions than by paying higher taxes for them to continue to exist. What I am trying to say is that if you fight and degrade the unions you put yourself even closer to violent social revolutions than if you support them.Even if it costs alot of tax money,it’s probably better for america and the world. The unions need alot of work but better they be fixed than disbanded or we will land right back to where we were when the encyclical was written. If you weaken the UAW, you weaken all unions, and you take all the workers of the world one step closer to feeling hopeless which may in turn lead to revolts.God Bless.
- Status