A
a_priori
Guest
Does Christianity argue for or against collectivism?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Nickkname
Guest
What’s collectivism?
K
KingAlfred
Guest
Communist economics. No private property. State ownership and control of everything. State-assignment of jobs. STATISM. Think Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and Pol Pot.
J
juliasmith
Guest
As I understand things, the early Christians shared things in community and took care of one another. The state was not involved in that process in any way. I rather think Christianity would argue against collectivism.
T
tobias
Guest
Collectivism is only valid in a religious community, That’s the example given in the NT, and followed by the CC to this day.
M
Michael_David
Guest
According to Wikipedia:
Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.[1] The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. [2] Collectivism is widely seen as being opposed to individualism. Notably these views are sometimes combined in systems.
Where does the martyr fit into this? Is not the whole greater then the individual?
I’d say, in collectivism, the individual is looking more outside of themselves to others in need… therefore living charitably. This can happen in an individualistic form as well, but I think it has more to do with the ‘richer’ noticing and acting on the ‘poorer’ state. Individualism can all too easily create a bunch of ‘me’ people, devoid of charity, needing to tax more to help the needy as Society sees fit through the government. Is charity then lost due to the taxes being ‘forced’ on the individual?
I do not know if a true extreme collective society exists; or if a true extreme individual society exists; it would seem that the two types are mixed in different proportions in any Country… even the Church. If one is 60-40, it does not make them 100%.
Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.[1] The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. [2] Collectivism is widely seen as being opposed to individualism. Notably these views are sometimes combined in systems.
Where does the martyr fit into this? Is not the whole greater then the individual?
I’d say, in collectivism, the individual is looking more outside of themselves to others in need… therefore living charitably. This can happen in an individualistic form as well, but I think it has more to do with the ‘richer’ noticing and acting on the ‘poorer’ state. Individualism can all too easily create a bunch of ‘me’ people, devoid of charity, needing to tax more to help the needy as Society sees fit through the government. Is charity then lost due to the taxes being ‘forced’ on the individual?
I do not know if a true extreme collective society exists; or if a true extreme individual society exists; it would seem that the two types are mixed in different proportions in any Country… even the Church. If one is 60-40, it does not make them 100%.
A
a_priori
Guest
Perhaps the pendulum is now moving along the continuum toward the “collectivist” pole? In a democracy/republic it seems that a long term movement toward collectivism is inexorable as people use their votes to bring home the bacon.According to Wikipedia:
Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.[1] The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. [2] Collectivism is widely seen as being opposed to individualism. Notably these views are sometimes combined in systems.
Where does the martyr fit into this? Is not the whole greater then the individual?
I’d say, in collectivism, the individual is looking more outside of themselves to others in need… therefore living charitably. This can happen in an individualistic form as well, but I think it has more to do with the ‘richer’ noticing and acting on the ‘poorer’ state. Individualism can all too easily create a bunch of ‘me’ people, devoid of charity, needing to tax more to help the needy as Society sees fit through the government. Is charity then lost due to the taxes being ‘forced’ on the individual?
I do not know if a true extreme collective society exists; or if a true extreme individual society exists; it would seem that the two types are mixed in different proportions in any Country… even the Church. If one is 60-40, it does not make them 100%.
Is it more “Christian” to create wealth through capitalism or to redistribute wealth? Where is the line?
P
Padilla7921
Guest
Capitalism is good because it allows people to use their free will to fulfill their economic desires. Capitalism is essentially a good system (what we have now in America is far from true capitalism; rather, it’s more like corporatism). On those grounds, there’s nothing wrong with capitalism.Is it more “Christian” to create wealth through capitalism or to redistribute wealth? Where is the line?
However, capitalism fails in helping out the lower class, who are statistically stuck in there. At this point, it is the Christian thing to assist the poor in any way possible so as to help them reach their fullest economic potential. That means providing them with a good education (education = more money), financial assistance when necessary (which is usually always necessary), and job placement.
The Church supports Distributivism, where the wealthy help out the poor. Property isn’t owned, but shared. Wealth is shared willingly between the people. In this form, the State has no control over such things. This is a rather idealistic and potentially unrealistic economic approach (at least on a large scale), but it works on a small scale. However, it proves to be a good theoretical compromise between capitalism and socialism.
T
tobias
Guest
Does not *rerum novarum *support the right to personal property?Capitalism is good because it allows people to use their free will to fulfill their economic desires. Capitalism is essentially a good system (what we have now in America is far from true capitalism; rather, it’s more like corporatism). On those grounds, there’s nothing wrong with capitalism.
However, capitalism fails in helping out the lower class, who are statistically stuck in there. At this point, it is the Christian thing to assist the poor in any way possible so as to help them reach their fullest economic potential. That means providing them with a good education (education = more money), financial assistance when necessary (which is usually always necessary), and job placement.
The Church supports Distributivism, where the wealthy help out the poor. Property isn’t owned, but shared. Wealth is shared willingly between the people. In this form, the State has no control over such things. This is a rather idealistic and potentially unrealistic economic approach (at least on a large scale), but it works on a small scale. However, it proves to be a good theoretical compromise between capitalism and socialism.
P
Padilla7921
Guest
There is nothing wrong with owning personal property. What I’m saying though, is that Distributivism is a communal economic system, something rather utopian in nature.Does not *rerum novarum *support the right to personal property?
Everyone has a right to own something that they rightfully obtained (purchase, inheritance, etc). However, the idea of Distributivism is to share those rightfully owned things with other, less fortunate people, if necessary.
Think of it like this: in Distributivism, if a person has 5 acres of land but only uses 4, and a needy person asks to use that extra acre, the landowner would let that needy person use that extra acre pro bono.
There is nothing in Distributivism that forbids the ownership of property or goods. However, the system encourages that people with a surplus of property or goods share those with needy people who could benefit from the usage of such things. This, in turn, ends up benefiting the entire community.
M
Michael_David
Guest
Perhaps the pendulum is now moving along the continuum toward the “collectivist” pole? In a democracy/republic it seems that a long term movement toward collectivism is inexorable as people use their votes to bring home the bacon.
a prioi, perhaps! I like your relating this to the movement of the pendulum. It may touch an extreme but swings back… only to the other extreme. Missing the moderation through motion.
Is it more “Christian” to create wealth through capitalism or to redistribute wealth? Where is the line?
To me, it is more “Christian” to use one’s ‘created’ wealth ‘Charitably’… no matter how it got into one’s pocket.
Redistribution of wealth, usually done by a governing agency, is too prone to corruption, and listening to the one’s that yell the loudest… not to the ‘real poor’. There is lack of financial control in all brackets. Examples: the present financial mess in not only America, but the World. How much is enough? And for who? Another: the need for Food Stamps or WIC or Section 8… direct money goes to the wrong things by the people receiving it.
This lack of financial ‘properness’ goes through all classes of people… and so the pendulum swings.
a prioi, perhaps! I like your relating this to the movement of the pendulum. It may touch an extreme but swings back… only to the other extreme. Missing the moderation through motion.
Is it more “Christian” to create wealth through capitalism or to redistribute wealth? Where is the line?
To me, it is more “Christian” to use one’s ‘created’ wealth ‘Charitably’… no matter how it got into one’s pocket.
Redistribution of wealth, usually done by a governing agency, is too prone to corruption, and listening to the one’s that yell the loudest… not to the ‘real poor’. There is lack of financial control in all brackets. Examples: the present financial mess in not only America, but the World. How much is enough? And for who? Another: the need for Food Stamps or WIC or Section 8… direct money goes to the wrong things by the people receiving it.
This lack of financial ‘properness’ goes through all classes of people… and so the pendulum swings.
T
tobias
Guest
Fair enough :tiphat:There is nothing wrong with owning personal property. What I’m saying though, is that Distributivism is a communal economic system, something rather utopian in nature.
Everyone has a right to own something that they rightfully obtained (purchase, inheritance, etc). However, the idea of Distributivism is to share those rightfully owned things with other, less fortunate people, if necessary.
Think of it like this: in Distributivism, if a person has 5 acres of land but only uses 4, and a needy person asks to use that extra acre, the landowner would let that needy person use that extra acre pro bono.
There is nothing in Distributivism that forbids the ownership of property or goods. However, the system encourages that people with a surplus of property or goods share those with needy people who could benefit from the usage of such things. This, in turn, ends up benefiting the entire community.
S
Snowy
Guest
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
That’s a quote from Karl Marx inspired by the book Acts of the Apostles. If you take God out of the equation and substitute God with the State, you are left with a Communist.
Jesus instructed the Apostles on how to build his Church, so it’s fair to assume that the Apostles lived collectively following Jesus’ instructions, and folks in monasteries still practice that teaching. What the Apostles didn’t do (presumably because it wasn’t part of their instructions) was go to Caesar and ask him to force everyone to live like they lived, or to use Jesus’ beloved tax collectors to fleece the unfaithful in order to foot the bill for their expenses. That’s what Communism is about.
I don’t think that Jesus would have used land owners and laborers
in his parables if he had thought that land owners were evil and laborers should kill them to grab their land, which is a basic Communist belief.
That’s a quote from Karl Marx inspired by the book Acts of the Apostles. If you take God out of the equation and substitute God with the State, you are left with a Communist.
Jesus instructed the Apostles on how to build his Church, so it’s fair to assume that the Apostles lived collectively following Jesus’ instructions, and folks in monasteries still practice that teaching. What the Apostles didn’t do (presumably because it wasn’t part of their instructions) was go to Caesar and ask him to force everyone to live like they lived, or to use Jesus’ beloved tax collectors to fleece the unfaithful in order to foot the bill for their expenses. That’s what Communism is about.
I don’t think that Jesus would have used land owners and laborers
in his parables if he had thought that land owners were evil and laborers should kill them to grab their land, which is a basic Communist belief.
P
Padilla7921
Guest
The problem with Communism is that it completely negates free will, undermines work ethic, and forces one person to sustain another. That’s why it never worked, and that’s why it will never work. China realized this and now they essentially have a regulated capitalist economy, known as Chinese Communism.“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
That’s a quote from Karl Marx inspired by the book Acts of the Apostles. If you take God out of the equation and substitute God with the State, you are left with a Communist.
Oh, and I was just expounding on your thought, not challenging it.
Exactly. However, he did use the man who had storehouses full of his surplus of grain in a parable. It’s necessary to remember that this man was hording all of this grain for himself and had no intention of sharing it with others. Also, this man was too connected to his possessions, he was extremely materialistic. So, that said, I think Jesus’ teachings actually support Distributivism: there’s nothing wrong with collecting goods and having a surplus, but if one does, he should share it with those who are less fortunate.I don’t think that Jesus would have used land owners and laborers in his parables if he had thought that land owners were evil and laborers should kill them to grab their land, which is a basic Communist belief.
B
Byron_Bramwell
Guest
The capitalist economic system is the superior if we are to argue whether it or collectivism is in greater conformity to Roman Catholic teaching.
Collectivism, while its focus in on the whole of humanity (which undoubtedly Catholic teaching shows great concern for), fails to recognize the true individual. They may at times present a notion of an individual whom they propose will benefit from their economic policies, but ultimately loses its humanity through generalization. It does not function in the real world, but only in theory.
The Soviet Union is perhaps the best model of collectivist inadequacy. First the government taxes the wealthy, highest producing members of society. From this they distribute portions of this wealth to the lower classes of society so as to create “The Middle Class Society”. However, this requires an expected amount of tax revenue that is never met by the newly taxed upper class. Why does this occur?
The wealthy are no longer given an incentive for growth and thus if one is to be, for example, taxed 94% on all profits above $250,000 they will purposefully reduce their business so as to make under that amount rather than progressing further for immediate benefit to themselves and the ultimate benefit of society as a whole.
The highly taxed will also begin attempts to hide money from the government by placing it in assets. The Soviet Union dealt with this by the removal of all private property. All land, homes, and profit were the ultimate possession, not of the collective masses, but of the government.
Through this process of higher taxation of those most productive and redistribution to those least productive, all the while never reaching the expected tax revenue, causes not the “middle” but the “lower” class society. Eventually the citizens of the Soviet Union were reduced to bread lines too poor to bake bread.
Thus collectivism is analogical of the uroboros; it is the dragon consuming itself.
Collectivism, while its focus in on the whole of humanity (which undoubtedly Catholic teaching shows great concern for), fails to recognize the true individual. They may at times present a notion of an individual whom they propose will benefit from their economic policies, but ultimately loses its humanity through generalization. It does not function in the real world, but only in theory.
The Soviet Union is perhaps the best model of collectivist inadequacy. First the government taxes the wealthy, highest producing members of society. From this they distribute portions of this wealth to the lower classes of society so as to create “The Middle Class Society”. However, this requires an expected amount of tax revenue that is never met by the newly taxed upper class. Why does this occur?
The wealthy are no longer given an incentive for growth and thus if one is to be, for example, taxed 94% on all profits above $250,000 they will purposefully reduce their business so as to make under that amount rather than progressing further for immediate benefit to themselves and the ultimate benefit of society as a whole.
The highly taxed will also begin attempts to hide money from the government by placing it in assets. The Soviet Union dealt with this by the removal of all private property. All land, homes, and profit were the ultimate possession, not of the collective masses, but of the government.
Through this process of higher taxation of those most productive and redistribution to those least productive, all the while never reaching the expected tax revenue, causes not the “middle” but the “lower” class society. Eventually the citizens of the Soviet Union were reduced to bread lines too poor to bake bread.
Thus collectivism is analogical of the uroboros; it is the dragon consuming itself.
Code:
Sincerely in Christ,
Byron
K
KingAlfred
Guest
*Voluntary *collectivism, not state-mandated.Does Christianity argue for or against collectivism?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.