L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Indeed? What do you mean by a “real” socialist? I would think a socialist is a person who believes that the government should own and control the means of production.
- Status
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Well, when you redefine words, that’s true.
1
1ke
Guest
A reply that demonstrates that you have no idea what the book is about or where the terms came from.
It is definitely NOT an oxymoron.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
First, I wouldn’t pay anything to read right-wing drivel like that. Second, all it takes is a few redefining of words to make anything say anything you want. That’s how cults survive and flourish. As an example, you ask a Mormon, “Is Jesus God?” and they’ll probably say yes but it’s not the same way we understand that question to mean.
A right-winger will use the redefined version of fascism which ignore the marriage of state and corporate power aspect in order to get it to mean what they want…all the while enacting a truly fascistic regime.
But we’re veering off topic here, so I end my part of this discussion here.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
If you need something to put you to sleep
No liberals tend to be morons in need of oxy(gen)
for they seem to be full of ill wind.
***Liberal Fascism ***is an **excellent **book on the topics of communism, socialism, and fascism and how these ideologies have manifested themselves in the United States.
ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31hln2qFpWL.SL500_AA240.jpg
It was communist that labeled fascism as being right wing and conservative, in in fact it was just sociallism focus on nationalism as opposed to internationalism. Both promoted all asspects of life to be control by the state the only difference in communisim as we saw with Bolshevik Russia and Maoist China in which not only did the state control everything, it owned everything. so facism is rightwing compared to Bolshevik Russia, but still far left then both politcal parties in America, but the Democrats have been gaining alot ground in thier move toward fascism and pulling the Republican party along with it.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
For what it’s worth…I’ve a friend (who’s getting up in years) who’s a WWII veteran (American), was a WPA artist, and remains a deeply commited communist (that form of American communism which grew up out of the Russian-Jewish immigrant experience). He once said that the difference between socialists and communists is that socialists sit around and wait for things to happen, communists go out and make things happen. He has mentioned that amongst the “red-diaper” summer camps, the communist camps would often label the socialist camps as simply fascist. All that having been said, there’s a part of me which thinks this friend of mine’s politics is better described as doggedly “anti-fascist”, though his self-understanding is as a communist.
Personally, the form of communism described as part of the apostolic community in Acts is very inspiring. And did not Tolstoy base his form of anarchy off an understanding of the community of the apostles?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
For what it’s worth…I’ve a friend (who’s getting up in years) who’s a WWII veteran (American), was a WPA artist, and remains a deeply commited communist (that form of American communism which grew up out of the Russian-Jewish immigrant experience). He once said that the difference between socialists and communists is that socialists sit around and wait for things to happen, communists go out and make things happen. He has mentioned that amongst the “red-diaper” summer camps, the communist camps would often label the socialist camps as simply fascist. All that having been said, there’s a part of me which thinks this friend of mine’s politics is better described as doggedly “anti-fascist”, though his self-understanding is as a communist.
Personally, the form of communism described as part of the apostolic community in Acts is very inspiring. And did not Tolstoy base his form of anarchy off an understanding of the community of the apostles?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Z
zjl56
Guest
One important thing to recognize is that many institutions such as public education and social security were very radical and even called “communist” at the time. In light of that, most modern socialists in the U.S simply want to follow that line on similar policies.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Try reading up on Socialism and why the Church has always opposed it. The National Socialist party was indeed socialism. I know nothing of the book referenced. I know is that Fascism is a Socialist philosophy. Moreover, Liberalism itself is the fountainhead of all of these tyrannies. I don’t like any of them and neither does the Church.
CDL
D
DL82
Guest
Actually, the kind of thing outlined in the CCC is exactly the kind of values which were of enormous use to the Polish Solidarity movement in its’ struggle for liberation from Soviet communism.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
My sincere apologies, it was a case of me over-anticipating the inevitable ‘deluge’ of the “American Right” on such threads!
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
No need to apologize. Your explanation was perfect.
I’m anything but a right-winger. I adhere to the Church’s teachings on life and believe in a wider distribution of wealth in our country. This puts me in an ackward position because I cannot, in good faith, vote for either of the major political parties (I believe one of the two flogs abortion but has absolutely no intention of ending it).
K
Kaninchen
Guest
All that seemed terribly exciting at the time but, you know, looking back, it was really already over by early 80’s but we didn’t realize just how broken the whole Soviet Bloc machine was.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
It’s far too good a way of marshaling a significant voting bloc (and, very importantly, I would guess, committed election workers) to ever do anything serious about it!No need to apologize. Your explanation was perfect.
I’m anything but a right-winger. I adhere to the Church’s teachings on life and believe in a wider distribution of wealth in our country. This puts me in an ackward position because I cannot, in good faith, vote for either of the major political parties (I believe one of the two flogs abortion but has absolutely no intention of ending it).
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
That is why we need a Catholic Monarchy. That is why I’m much more interested in what the last remaining Catholic monarch on earth has to say than I am in any other politician on earth.
CDL
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I expect you’ll have a long wait.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Sounds a lot like modern China to me.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It has been far too long since I was at college to remember all of the theories and philosophical underpinnings of communism and socialism. But all the theoretical stuff aside, and “on the ground”, as the surveyors say, I am not sure I see a lot of difference between them except in degree.
Both hold that the state is an essential intervenor in the economic affairs of men, if anything like economic parity, even relatively speaking, is to be achieved. Both tend to see economic disparity as evil (in a secular sense of “evil”) in itself.
In practice, however, it does not appear to me that either has ever gotten it done. No matter what, there is always a class that has all the power and the lion’s share of the resources. In the old Soviet Union, they called it the “nomenklatura”. In “true” communist states, the privileged class gains economic privilege by ruling. In “pure” capitalist states, the privileged class gains economic privilege by owning. Modern Socialism, in practice, tends to have some of both both. So does modern Capitalism. But there is always a “nomenklatura”, or privileged class.
It has seemed to me that the real issue, and perhaps the only (hazy) dividing line between Capitalism as it really is and Socialism as it really is, is the situation of the middle class. Those societies that think of themselves as “Capitalist” tend to tax the middle class less and expect it to provide for itself in most things. In those societies that think of themselves as “Socialist”, the middle class is more heavily taxed and expects the government to provide more. It does seem that in Socialist societies, a relatively greater portion of the middle class is part of the government, whereas in Capitalist societies, a relatively greater portion of the middle class is in the production end of things.
Believing as I do that neither true, theoretical Capitalism nor true theoretical Socialism really exists, it seems to me that the question is simply the degree to which the state is “hands on” or “hands off” the economic lives of people who produce.
“Rerum Novarum” was written a long time ago, but its themes recur in later encyclicals. Pope Leo XIII expressed not so much his belief that either Socialism or Capitalism is bad per se, as his belief that peoples’ lives should be as independent as possible. Thus, he opposed dependence on either the state or corporate entities. He firmly believed that the truly needy; those who could not help themselves, should be assured a decent life by a combination of state help and charity. He also felt that those who could work should have their efforts enhanced by the widest practical individual/family ownership of productive assets. In his day, that meant land or shop ownership. In our own, productive assets could be land or shop ownership, but are more often other things.
Viscerally, I am attracted to the notions of Leo XIII, Pius XII and JPII, all of whom said essentially the same thing. People such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis and Hillaire Belloc expressed it in the politics and economics of their own times. But it must be recognized that it’s much more complicated in the economies of today. Still, it seems clear to me that the principles are still sound. I do not find high taxation resulting in extreme difficulty in acquiring widespread individual wealth an attractive situation. Nor do I find total wage dependency and consumerism attractive.
It does strike me as odd that Catholics, on here and otherwise, tend to argue on the far ends of both Capitalism and Socialism, seeming not to realize that neither really exists, while the social encyclicals go largely ignored. Possibly someone has written wisely on how the approaches of the Popes might be applied in a modern economy. Perhaps I’m too provincial, but I have not seen such a work if one exists.
I will say that the change from “defined benefit” to “defined contribution” retirement plans seems to me a step in the right direction. That’s a shift from dependence on the corporation to independent ownership of productive wealth. Risking the wrath of the left, I will say that the partial privatization of Social Security would have been another. That would have been a shift from dependence on the state, again to independent ownership of productive wealth.
Perhaps someday someone will write the truly Catholic book on economics, and perhaps someday there will be a truly Catholic approach to it.
Both hold that the state is an essential intervenor in the economic affairs of men, if anything like economic parity, even relatively speaking, is to be achieved. Both tend to see economic disparity as evil (in a secular sense of “evil”) in itself.
In practice, however, it does not appear to me that either has ever gotten it done. No matter what, there is always a class that has all the power and the lion’s share of the resources. In the old Soviet Union, they called it the “nomenklatura”. In “true” communist states, the privileged class gains economic privilege by ruling. In “pure” capitalist states, the privileged class gains economic privilege by owning. Modern Socialism, in practice, tends to have some of both both. So does modern Capitalism. But there is always a “nomenklatura”, or privileged class.
It has seemed to me that the real issue, and perhaps the only (hazy) dividing line between Capitalism as it really is and Socialism as it really is, is the situation of the middle class. Those societies that think of themselves as “Capitalist” tend to tax the middle class less and expect it to provide for itself in most things. In those societies that think of themselves as “Socialist”, the middle class is more heavily taxed and expects the government to provide more. It does seem that in Socialist societies, a relatively greater portion of the middle class is part of the government, whereas in Capitalist societies, a relatively greater portion of the middle class is in the production end of things.
Believing as I do that neither true, theoretical Capitalism nor true theoretical Socialism really exists, it seems to me that the question is simply the degree to which the state is “hands on” or “hands off” the economic lives of people who produce.
“Rerum Novarum” was written a long time ago, but its themes recur in later encyclicals. Pope Leo XIII expressed not so much his belief that either Socialism or Capitalism is bad per se, as his belief that peoples’ lives should be as independent as possible. Thus, he opposed dependence on either the state or corporate entities. He firmly believed that the truly needy; those who could not help themselves, should be assured a decent life by a combination of state help and charity. He also felt that those who could work should have their efforts enhanced by the widest practical individual/family ownership of productive assets. In his day, that meant land or shop ownership. In our own, productive assets could be land or shop ownership, but are more often other things.
Viscerally, I am attracted to the notions of Leo XIII, Pius XII and JPII, all of whom said essentially the same thing. People such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis and Hillaire Belloc expressed it in the politics and economics of their own times. But it must be recognized that it’s much more complicated in the economies of today. Still, it seems clear to me that the principles are still sound. I do not find high taxation resulting in extreme difficulty in acquiring widespread individual wealth an attractive situation. Nor do I find total wage dependency and consumerism attractive.
It does strike me as odd that Catholics, on here and otherwise, tend to argue on the far ends of both Capitalism and Socialism, seeming not to realize that neither really exists, while the social encyclicals go largely ignored. Possibly someone has written wisely on how the approaches of the Popes might be applied in a modern economy. Perhaps I’m too provincial, but I have not seen such a work if one exists.
I will say that the change from “defined benefit” to “defined contribution” retirement plans seems to me a step in the right direction. That’s a shift from dependence on the corporation to independent ownership of productive wealth. Risking the wrath of the left, I will say that the partial privatization of Social Security would have been another. That would have been a shift from dependence on the state, again to independent ownership of productive wealth.
Perhaps someday someone will write the truly Catholic book on economics, and perhaps someday there will be a truly Catholic approach to it.
- Status