Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it very much.
Might I ask for a quick favour? Could you define for me what “Socialism” and “Communism” are insofar as they are addressed in those writings? I looked around, and though they condemn and critique those political philosophies, I can’t quite seem to find a direct, succinct definition of what Socialism and Communism are. They just discuss various aspects of it, causes and effects, problems that arise, flaws in those systems, etc.
I mean, I know what Socialism and Communism mean in today’s context. Communism, of course, is where the state owns everything, and people just work for the sake of the state, at least in theory. Socialism is where people work, but a large chunk of their income gets taken by the government in exchange for public services, making it something of a bridge between Communism and Capitalism. At least that’s how it is today. Did they mean the same thing in the context of Leo XIII and Pius IX?
Socialism
A social-economic system based on the common ownership of the means of production and exchange of wealth. The name is supposed to have originated in England in 1835 during the agitation of Robert Owen. The idea of common ownership as a remedy for the inequalities of life appears in Plato’s Republic, Campanella’s City of the Sun, and other writmgs of ancient and modern times. The philosophic basis for common ownership as a serious policy of social management was provided by Karl Marx (1818-1883) in his economic determmism or, as it is often called, the materialistic interpretation of history. Marx’s socialism is therefore called scientific. It is the inspiration of all socialism that is taken seriously in modern times, although in the stress of controversy socialists have abandoned most of the Marxian principles. The contributions made by Marx to socialism are: The Communist Manifesto (in collaboration with Engels), published in 1848 and contammg the germs of his theory; Das Kapital, the first part of which appeared in 1867; and the foundmg of the
International Workingmen’s Association**International provided the means for the spread of his ideas, while Das Kapital provided the philosophy of the movement. The strength of socialism has lain rather in the criticism of existing capitalism than in the appeal of its own program of social amelioration. In its original program, socialism was revolutionary rather than parliamentarian; but in practise socialists have yielded to opportunism, forming political parties, seeking seats in parliaments, and seeking to effect their policies by parliamentary means. Hence it is rather as a political than a revolutionary movement that socialism exerts its present-day influence.
Communism
In general, communism rests on two fundamental principles: community of goods and the abolition of private ownership. Anarchism includes not only the destruction of all private property but all forms of political government. Socialism holds the doctrine of collective ownership and management of all property and the agencies of production. Communism differs from socialism in holding to the ownership of industry and its products, not by a centralized state but by small federated communities. According to W Bliss, “Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution, communism on life in common.” Every age and country has experimented with communistic organizations founded on discontent with the established industrial system. J. H. Noyes cites 47 failures of these communities in America. On the theoretical side the most famous contributions are Plato’s “Republic” and More’s “Utopia”; while on the practical side the names of Robert Owens and John H. Noyes stand out. The seeming success of some of these communities may be ascribed to the following: the members were a selected group, enthusiastic and willing to undergo sacrifices for principles and ideals; the organizers were able, inspiring, and efficient leaders; with very few exceptions, religious principles constituted the bond which held them together for any period. When religion was not the end, community of wives as well as of property was substituted; free love and moral deterioration were the result. The success of religious communities founded on the abolition of private property is cited by communists as the true Christian ideal. Thus the early Christian community in
Jerusalem, in which all things were held in common, and the various religious organizations, both male and female, are brought forward to substantiate their contention. It is to be noted, however, that these communities were voluntary and not compulsory, that they never condemned private ownership, that they were for the few, selected by reason of vocation and not for the world at large, and finally that they were intended for individual spiritual perfection rather than for social reform and equal distribution. The Church’s doctrine in relation to the principles of communism may be briefly summed up as follows: The Church upholds the doctrine of private property and hence condemns any compulsory or universal communism. It is a false interpretation of the moral truths dealing with man’s equality, origin, needs, nature, and destiny which would lead to a doctrine of universal communism. For the few who have vocation to the religious life, the Church sanctions the principle of a voluntary communism for perfection. In the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII specific condemnation of both communism and socialism is proclaimed. The doctrines of both are contradictory to the principles of morality and religion as taught by Christ and safeguarded by His Church.
Source:
The New Catholic Dictionary (c) 1910.
+John Paul II dubbed another variety of structure, known as the “Social Assistance State” (
Centesimus Annus, 48), which was also roundly condemned:
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
That, to me, sounds like what you were describing as “socialism.” To me, it sounds like the “social democrat” - type states within Western Europe that are so lauded by the leftist intelligentsia in this country. But, as you can see, the Holy Father did not have too much nice to say about them, either.
Hope the above helps!
