Conservativeness as Defense against social justice?

[Black_Rose]

Black Rose, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but you are trying to defend a blatantly materialistic and evil form of economic organization that has precisely zero instances of successful application in the real world.

If your only argument for something so clearly wrong is links to Liu, you should save the key strokes and quit.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Liu is not extraordinary.

I am not defending anything since my “socialism” is not an affirmation of an economic ideology, but a negation of another (that is neoliberalism). Isn’t neoliberalism also materialistically too? And tell me about a successful application of neoliberalism (i.e. the economic regime of free trade, free movement of capital, loss of national economic sovereignty, and privatization ) in the modern age.

I’ll bet you will cite Hong Kong and Chile, but those countries are plagued with high income inequality (and Chile’s copper industry, which provides a majority of its export income, is still state owned.) Ireland and the Baltic states adopted neoliberal economic policies and are currently faltering, of course. (Predictably you will cite Greece as a failed “socialist” state.)

 

[Darkbloom]

I am not defending anything since my “socialism” is not an affirmation of an economic ideology, but a negation of another (that is neoliberalism). Isn’t neoliberalism also materialistically too? And tell me about a successful application of neoliberalism (i.e. the economic regime of free trade, free movement of capital, loss of national economic sovereignty, privatization, ) in the modern age.

I’ll bet you will cite Hong Kong and Chile, but those countries are plagued with high income inequality (and Chile’s copper industry, which provides a majority of its export income, is still state owned.) Ireland and the Baltic states adopted neoliberal economic policies and are currently faltering, of course. (Predictably you will cite Greece as a failed “socialist” state.)

Ah, this is the beauty of not being bound by “reactionary” truth. You can take any tact that fits at any time.

Socialism is an economic system, plain and simple. It hasn’t worked because it can’t work. Try to circumlocute doesn’t make it any less so.

Why are we limiting this discussion to the modern age? Because capitalism as practiced in Anglo-American nations has been so indisputably successful you’d rather forget?

And if I mention Greece it is only because it is true. How is Hong Kong a “failed” example, yet any socialist society pales in comparison, including Greece, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

Even China, which you seem fixated on, only had the economic growth it is now enjoying by introducing reforms to make it’s markets freer.

But never mind the superiority of capitalism to socialism in terms of economic power. What of the basic lack of freedom that is unavoidable in socialism? Are you still going to quote some nonsense about freedom being reactionary?

And even that is besides the point. If you want to do nothing but quote an obvious Maoist to make your points, you’re never going to convince any right thinking person you are correct.

 

[Abu]

Darkbloom
He’s mixing up political philosophy with the economic laws of free enterprise, which distorts free enterprise, but seems to have nothing to offer.

 

[Darkbloom]

Darkbloom
He’s mixing up political philosophy with the economic laws of free enterprise, which distorts free enterprise, but seems to have nothing to offer.

I see your point and would be inclined to agree. I was only stating a sound principle of epistemology; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Any dispassionate perusal of the history of socialism is going to show it to be both ineffective and unjust. To prove that socialism is a good idea, one would have develop a VERY powerful argument.

Basically, if X told my the earth is flat and Y told me the earth was round, I would require a much more convincing argument of X than Y.

 

[Black_Rose]

Darkbloom
He’s mixing up political philosophy with the economic laws of free enterprise, which distorts free enterprise, but seems to have nothing to offer.

I am a female.

 

[Black_Rose]

I was only stating a sound principle of epistemology; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

In this thread, I only made the minor claim (in post 74) that a socialist mindset thinks institutionally and does not possess strong tendencies to judge people for their lack of virtue or material possessions. My next post after that simply addressed Abu’s misinterpretation of Liu’s piece on Hayek and Keynes where Abu misinterpreted Liu’s summary of Hayek’s views as Liu’s own opinion.

Darkbloom
He’s mixing up political philosophy with the economic laws of free enterprise, which distorts free enterprise, but seems to have nothing to offer.

No, I am not a policy wonk as I tend to be more interested in idealistic political philosophy than formulating realistic policy. I also believe that “socialism” will not work in the US, not because of its alleged economic shortcomings, but because socialism requires a strong nation possessing immense social capital. Ethnic “diversity” along with other factors undermine the notion of socialism in the US (which surprisingly is right-wing reason from a person with left-wing economic views).

From post 74:

Does anyone here read actual socialist rhetoric in order to gain familiarity with the rudimentary tenets of the ideology instead of strawman perceptions of it? For example, read some of Henry CK Liu’s articles and tell me where he is judgmental about other people’s possessions and assails other people’s virtues? To the contrary, his articles are polemics on what he perceives the unjust monetary and trade regime of neoliberal economics and US imperialist militarism to enforce this regime by force. Socialists tend to criticize institutions for facilitating and providing incentives for vice not supposedly greedy individuals acting within those institutions.

I posted this earlier…

But I do not know any socialist who condemns individual people for being wealthy; most socialists blame the institution of capitalism for extolling the vice of greed as virtue often at the expense of the working classes (both nationally and internationally) dignity, welfare, and standard of living. No socialist harbors a grudge against Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson because they are millionaires, assuming they did not already squander all of their money from lucrative multi-year contracts. Their large salaries are not only the result of their talent since baseball players were paid much less (in real terms) decades ago (for instance Babe Ruth’s salary, the ne plus ultra of baseball players, was about a million USD per year in inflation adjusted terms), but due to the increased profitability of baseball and better bargaining position of the players. Naturally, they (and their agents) would seek to maximize their salaries and exploit their bargaining positions; it does not make them greedy or evil.

PS

It hours for me to write something elegantly and that is why I had no other claims in this thread if one carefully read my posts.

 

[Darkbloom]

In this thread, I only made the minor claim (in post 74) that a socialist mindset thinks institutionally and does not possess strong tendencies to judge people for their lack of virtue or material possessions. My next post after that simply addressed Abu’s misinterpretation of Liu’s piece on Hayek and Keynes where Abu misinterpreted Liu’s summary of Hayek’s views as Liu’s own opinion.

You’ve posted Liu all throughout these boards. Any counter to your arguments is met with a link of his. It is not working.

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose
My apologies for misrepresenting you, a “She” as a “He” – I realized as I wrote “He” that it was an open question. Yet you still evade the answer to “what is your system for “social justice”?

Black_Rose
Henry CK Liu’s….articles are polemics on what he perceives the unjust monetary and trade regime of neoliberal economics and US imperialist militarism to enforce this regime by force. Socialists tend to criticize institutions for facilitating and providing incentives for vice not supposedly greedy individuals acting within those institutions.
I also believe that “socialism” will not work in the US, not because of its alleged economic shortcomings, but because socialism requires a strong nation possessing immense social capital. Ethnic “diversity” along with other factors undermine the notion of socialism in the US (which surprisingly is right-wing reason from a person with left-wing economic views).

The use of “neoliberal economics” which I understand as “a largely unregulated financial system” as wedded to “an unjust monetary and trade regime”, and then to describe this as subject to “US militarism to enforce this regime by force” is the sort of rhetoric which mixes several errors into a potpourri of confusion, and displays grave prejudices – in the context of China keeping its exchange rate artificially low so as to make its exports cheaper.

First, the economic LAWS discovered by the Late Scholastics are apolitical, but can be, and often are, distorted by political stupidity and bad economic policies. The bad economics of Socialism are not “alleged” but are real. If your economic “views” are “left-wing” please explain your particular economics, and what makes it worthwhile.

Second, for the objective of “social justice” socialism is condemned by the Catholic Church – you have not shown any acceptance of this as a reality. Ethnic diversity has nothing to do with economic laws; reason and understanding do. It is clear that coercive state systems provide neither material goods nor political liberties, social justice is more directed toward seeking greater equity and compassion within free enterprise market systems.

I repeat:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.” (Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185).

 

[Abu]

At news.com.au/breaking-news/im-a-marxist-says-dalai-lama-but-agrees-capitalism-has-helped-china/story-e6frfku0-1225869459169
(May 21, 2010) you can see the utter failure to understand free enterprise by the Marxist Dali Lama who falsely claims that “Marxism has moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits.”! Yet he sees that the move towards free enterprise in China has seen improvement in the living standards of millions.
Such ignorance is hard to believe.

Do We Need Social Justice Or Social Engineering?
This question is answered by Fr Torraco of EWTN to a Question:
What is “Social Justice”? When was this concept introduced in Catholic moral doctrine?
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Nov-24-2003:
The term “social justice” was introduced into Catholic teaching in the 19th century. On the one hand, it is intended, at least in part, to avoid the error of reducing what Aristotle calls “general justice” (devotion to the common good of one’s country) to LEGAL justice. On the other hand, consciously or not, the term “social justice” aptly reflects the political philosophy of the modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to whom justice is fundamentally a matter of achieving the proper institutions and external settings that would effectively mold human beings into model citizens. In other words, for Rousseau, justice is not rooted in nature as it is for Aristotle and for the Church’s teaching. It is something that has to be attained by “social engineering.”

Unfortunately, in the minds of many if not most, consciously or not, the term “social justice” is viewed more in a Rousseaunian than an Aristotelian way. From the vantage point of both Aristotle and the Church’s teaching, the phrase “social justice” is redundant because justice is already social: it is the social virtue par excellence.

 

[Black_Rose]

Black_Rose
My apologies for misrepresenting you, a “She” as a “He” – I realized as I wrote “He” that it was an open question. Yet you still evade the answer to “what is your system for “social justice”?

The use of “neoliberal economics” which I understand as “a largely unregulated financial system” as wedded to “an unjust monetary and trade regime”, and then to describe this as subject to “US militarism to enforce this regime by force” is the sort of rhetoric which mixes several errors into a potpourri of confusion, and displays grave prejudices – in the context of China keeping its exchange rate artificially low so as to make its exports cheaper.

Neoliberalism is not a narrow ideology promoting unregulated financial capitalism (which should be distinguished from merchant capitalism), but one with universal scope having global implications. Neoliberalism promotes free trade in the name of market efficiency and comparative advantage without regard to national sovereignty. Neoliberalism promotes monetarism, advocating that the value of money should be protected from being eroded by inflation through hawkish monetary policy. Instead of using monetary policy to mitigate unemployment, an acceptable rate of unemployment (NAIRU) should be tolerated to preserve the value of money, preferring unemployment over inflation in the Phillips Curve trade off.

First, the economic LAWS discovered by the Late Scholastics are apolitical, but can be, and often are, distorted by political stupidity and bad economic policies. The bad economics of Socialism are not “alleged” but are real. If your economic “views” are “left-wing” please explain your particular economics, and what makes it worthwhile.

Maybe later. If I do it now, I maybe express my ideas inelegantly.

Ethnic “diversity” along with other factors undermine the notion of socialism in the US (which surprisingly is right-wing reason from a person with left-wing economic views).

Second, for the objective of “social justice” socialism is condemned by the Catholic Church – you have not shown any acceptance of this as a reality. Ethnic diversity has nothing to do with economic laws; reason and understanding do. It is clear that coercive state systems provide neither material goods nor political liberties, social justice is more directed toward seeking greater equity and compassion within free enterprise market systems.

No, I was referring to ethnic diversity within the context of socialism; socialism is a political ideology and has multiple dimensions aside only possessing an economic one. Socialism has social dimensions and the question of whether there could be social cohesion and solidarity in a ethnically diverse society is an important social question. As one can infer, I am by no means a Marxist or Trotskyist who believes that a global labor revolution is possible due to national and ethnic differences.

 

[Darkbloom]

Neoliberalism promotes free trade in the name of market efficiency and comparative advantage without regard to national sovereignty.

Are you advocating isolationism? Are you really saying a nation can’t be both independent and part of the global economy?

Comparative advantage in trade makes life better for all.

No, I was referring to ethnic diversity within the context of socialism; socialism is a political ideology and has multiple dimensions aside only possessing an economic one. Socialism has social dimensions and the question of whether there could be social cohesion and solidarity in a ethnically diverse society is an important social question. As one can infer, I am by no means a Marxist or Trotskyist who believes that a global labor revolution is possible due to national and ethnic differences.

I find this absolutely monstrous. Capitalism treats everyone as an individual, regardless of ethnicity. This is just another example of how the materialism of socialism is an anathema to human freedom and individuality.

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose
Neoliberalism promotes monetarism, advocating that the value of money should be protected from being eroded by inflation through hawkish monetary policy. Instead of using monetary policy to mitigate unemployment, an acceptable rate of unemployment (NAIRU) should be tolerated to preserve the value of money, preferring unemployment over inflation in the Phillips Curve trade off.

If these theories are assumed to reflect free enterprise economics as developed by the Late Scholastics nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that free enterprise has been riven by mathematical constructs away from reality, and plagued by intervention in the market, rather than the market economy itself. This was the driving factor behind the meltdown from 2008. Central Banking and a federal reserve bank are not creations of free enterprise and their destructive behaviour is not the market’s fault! Every previous boom and bust can be shown to be the result of intervention using theories that distort free enterprise.

With regard to a previous post on Dorothy Day & G.K.C. re “neither socialism nor capitalism” (buffalo #75), on Centesimus Annus, George Weigel remarks “Moreover, Centesimus Annus jettisoned the idea of a ‘Catholic third way’ that was somehow ‘between’ or ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ capitalism and socialism — a favourite dream of Catholics ranging from G. K. Chesterton to John A. Ryan and Ivan Illich.”

On Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate, Fr. Robert Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute (U.S.A.), explains…“his encyclical contains no talk of seeking a third way between markets and socialism. [Italics added]. Words like greed and capitalism make no appearance here. But if they look to this document as a means for the moral reconstruction of the world’s cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find much to reflect upon…. The pope is pointing to a path neglected in all the talk of economic stimulus, namely a global embrace of truth-filled charity. Benedict rightly attributes the crisis itself to ‘badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing.’ But he resists the current fashion of blaming all existing world problems on the market economy. Further: ‘Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.’ More, not less, trade is needed: ‘the principal form of assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual penetration of their products into international markets.’…
Benedict does see a role for the state here [in wealth redistribution], but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.” [My emphasis].
“….the market economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of ‘distribution’ whatsoever.” (Ludwig Von Mises – Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 201).

Private property and its moral and productive use are important components of any just social order. When socialism and Marxism were the flavour, there was a deadening of the understanding of the right to private property among many proponents of social justice. Now that it is clear that coercive state systems provide neither material goods nor political liberties, social justice is more directed toward seeking greater equity and compassion within free enterprise market systems.

 

[Black_Rose]

Are you advocating isolationism? Are you really saying a nation can’t be both independent and part of the global economy?

I do believe there is a fundamental geopolitical trade off among the principles of the nation-state, global economic integration, and democracy as described here. This should be similar to the impossible trinity (the Mundell-Fleming thesis) in macroeconomics where a country cannot simultaneously have a fixed exchange rate, independent monetary policy, and free movement of capital. In both cases, one must choose two out of the three, where one principle must be excluded. Of course, I would expect you to reject democracy, since classical liberals generally have contempt for the collective notion of the common good while instead preferring the individualist bourgeois values of the Enlightenment. I do respect the interest of the demos, although imperfectly expressed through the institution of democracy, and the nation-state.

Comparative advantage in trade makes life better for all.

Actually no, and I do not need to quote Liu or left-wing think tank to support myself. The principle of comparative advantage is certainly a valuable economic concept, but neoliberals incorrectly cite it because the benefits accrued from it require the satisfaction of certain condition including full employment and the immobility of factors between trading economics. To provide a concrete example for the latter consideration, free trade in bananas is an appropriate application of comparative advantage since the main factor of production of bananas, tropical climate, is not mobile.

Moreover, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates that a relative increase in price of a given good would result in the factor used most intensely in the production of that good to rise relative to the other factors involved; conversely an decrease in the price of that good would cause the price of the predominant factor to drop. In the case of free trade, if free trade policies lowers the price of labor-intensive goods within a country, then the price for the predominant factor (wages) will drop.

I find this absolutely monstrous. Capitalism treats everyone as an individual, regardless of ethnicity. This is just another example of how the materialism of socialism is an anathema to human freedom and individuality.

I can get along with other people of differing ethnicity in my personal life, but on a more broad level, the presence of differing ethnic groups within a country erodes social capital. I harbor no prejudice nor enmity towards anyone because of their race.
Kevin MacDonald:

White flight is part of the fragmented future that lies in store for the U.S.
and other Western countries with high levels of non-European immigration.
It is a well-established fi nding that the more ethnically mixed a population
becomes, the greater is its resistance to redistributive policies.31 For example,
a study of donations to the United Way of America charity found that white
Americans give less when their communities are more than 10 per cent
nonwhite. Sociologist Robert D. Putnam recently showed that the greater the
racial diversity of a community, the greater the loss of trust.32 People living in
homogeneous areas like New Hampshire or Montana are more involved with
friends, the community, and politics than people in more diverse areas.33

kevinmacdonald.net/WhiteEthnocentrism.pdf

 

[Darkbloom]

Neoliberalism is not a narrow ideology promoting unregulated financial capitalism (which should be distinguished from merchant capitalism), but one with universal scope having global implications. Neoliberalism promotes free trade in the name of market efficiency and comparative advantage without regard to national sovereignty. Neoliberalism promotes monetarism, advocating that the value of money should be protected from being eroded by inflation through hawkish monetary policy. Instead of using monetary policy to mitigate unemployment, an acceptable rate of unemployment (NAIRU) should be tolerated to preserve the value of money, preferring unemployment over inflation in the Phillips Curve trade off.

Maybe later. If I do it now, I maybe express my ideas inelegantly.

No, I was referring to ethnic diversity within the context of socialism; socialism is a political ideology and has multiple dimensions aside only possessing an economic one. Socialism has social dimensions and the question of whether there could be social cohesion and solidarity in a ethnically diverse society is an important social question. As one can infer, I am by no means a Marxist or Trotskyist who believes that a global labor revolution is possible due to national and ethnic differences.

This is the fundamental flaw with socialism. It is materialistic at its base, and the result is people are seen as more or less interchangeable. Simply carbon based robots who can’t be trusted to interact with others or make their own economic decisions.

Never mind the scads of practical difficulties with socialism, or the very poor record of socialism vs. capitalism. When you stop seeing people as individual creations with a soul and moral agency, you are ineluctably going to make grave errors in everything else.

 

[Black_Rose]

This is the fundamental flaw with socialism. It is materialistic at its base, and the result is people are seen as more or less interchangeable. Simply carbon based robots who can’t be trusted to interact with others or make their own economic decisions.

When you stop seeing people as individual creations with a soul and moral agency, you are ineluctably going to make grave errors in everything else.

What “grave errors” did I make in the scope of THIS thread?

As an “institutionalist”, I have tendency to examine human affairs systemically and focus on the influence of institutions. Because of this, I am restrained in judging people acting under the constraints of institutions. For instance, I do not condemn “greedy” speculators such as George Soros for their allegedly immorality and malfeasance in the pursuit of financial profit by aggressively taking positions in financial securities; instead, I believe it is more productive for to focus on the flaws (moral and economic) of financial capitalism and neoliberalism and rectify them by apprising and informing a receptive public so their would be initiative to rectify the system.

I do not deny the influence of original sin and I see the prevalence of human selfishness which must be controlled by repressive (not oppressive) social (but not political) institutions, not extolled by the ideologies of liberty and freedom. In this sense, I am more of a conservative than a liberal who has a pessimistic view of human nature, understanding and accepting the inevitably of human folly. Despite this, I have nothing but contempt for American Conservatism (although I do enjoy reading *The American Conservative *sometimes ) and the American left. If I were living in Europe (let’s say Sweden, Denmark, France, or Germany), I image I would occasionally support right-wing nationalist anti-immigration parties over internationalist social democrats to preserve my nation’s sovereign, solidarity, and institutions. This would not be an expression of disagreement for the domestic policies of the social democrats, but rather a desire to preserve their past success against the invasive metastasis of neoliberalism and to prevent the apoptosis of our national sovereignty and democratic institutions.

Many other ideologies are also materialistic and I prefer to embrace the bourgeois epistemology of empiricism to explain the world and human characteristics. One implication is that is undeniable that humanity is profoundly influenced by its evolutionary heritage. This does not deny the existence of an immortal soul or occasional intervention from a creator, but it does assert that natural history has an immense impact that should not be ignored.

Ethnicity does matter on a psychological basis, read this for instance.

 

[Darkbloom]

What “grave errors” did I make in the scope of THIS thread?

As an “institutionalist”, I have tendency to examine human affairs systemically and focus on the influence of institutions. Because of this, I am restrained in judging people acting under the constraints of institutions. For instance, I do not condemn “greedy” speculators such as George Soros for their allegedly immorality and malfeasance in the pursuit of financial profit by aggressively taking positions in financial securities; instead, I believe it is more productive for to focus on the flaws (moral and economic) of financial capitalism and neoliberalism and rectify them by apprising and informing a receptive public so their would be initiative to rectify the system.

I do not deny the influence of original sin and I see the prevalence of human selfishness which must be controlled by repressive (not oppressive) social (but not political) institutions, not extolled by the ideologies of liberty and freedom. In this sense, I am more of a conservative than a liberal who has a pessimistic view of human nature, understanding and accepting the inevitably of human folly. Despite this, I have nothing but contempt for American Conservatism (although I do enjoy reading *The American Conservative *sometimes ) and the American left. If I were living in Europe (let’s say Sweden, Denmark, France, or Germany), I image I would occasionally support right-wing nationalist anti-immigration parties over internationalist social democrats to preserve my nation’s sovereign, solidarity, and institutions. This would not be an expression of disagreement for the domestic policies of the social democrats, but rather a desire to preserve their past success against the invasive metastasis of neoliberalism and to prevent the apoptosis of our national sovereignty and democratic institutions.

Many other ideologies are also materialistic and I prefer to embrace the bourgeois epistemology of empiricism to explain the world and human characteristics. One implication is that is undeniable that humanity is profoundly influenced by its evolutionary heritage. This does not deny the existence of an immortal soul or occasional intervention from a creator, but it does assert that natural history has an immense impact that should not be ignored.

Ethnicity does matter on a psychological basis, read this for instance.

Your grave error is supporting a system that is roundly rejected by the Church. Your grave error is conceiving of humans without their inherent individuality and dignity.

 

[Black_Rose]

Your grave error is supporting a system that is roundly rejected by the Church. Your grave error is conceiving of humans without their inherent individuality and dignity.

Ok, instead of socialism, let’s just say I am supporting European social democracy or even the visionary Sun Yat-sen’s (the first leader of the KMT) Three Principles (his motto for the modernization of China after the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911): nationalism, democracy, and the people’s livelihood. Of course, if we accept Dani Rodrik’s trilemma discussed above, then Sun Yat-sen’s political philosophy would be unfeasible in a globalized world.

I’d find it interesting that social democracy or The Three Principles is rejected by the Church. Why is a nationalistic, democratic welfare state opposed to Church doctrine?

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose #97
Why is a nationalistic, democratic welfare state opposed to Church doctrine?

The socialism that is condemned by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931 has the following false theories:

1. The Welfare State as the supreme objective.
2. Everything belongs to the State, thus excluding the real rights to private property.
3. The elimination of free enterprise in favour of state-controlled production and distribution.
4. Denounced the principle of subsidiarity.

Socialism is opposed to the body of economic thought based on the freedom of the individual and the right to own private property. It embodies various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public (state) control of productive capital and natural resources and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, as advocated by socialists. Karl Marx claimed that this would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution and become the transitional stage from what he called “capitalism”, to communism. He predicted the demise of “capitalism” in his “law” of the diminishing returns on capital! Socialists criticise what they consider as the excessive poverty and inequality of the Industrial Revolution, and advocate reform via the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society to small communities without private property. It is a system of ideas and tendencies at odds with human nature.

 

[Black_Rose]

The socialism that is condemned by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931 has the following false theories:

1. The Welfare State as the supreme objective.
2. Everything belongs to the State, thus excluding the real rights to private property.
3. The elimination of free enterprise in favour of state-controlled production and distribution.
4. Denounced the principle of subsidiarity.

Socialism is opposed to the body of economic thought based on the freedom of the individual and the right to own private property. It embodies various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public (state) control of productive capital and natural resources and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, as advocated by socialists. Karl Marx claimed that this would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution and become the transitional stage from what he called “capitalism”, to communism. He predicted the demise of “capitalism” in his “law” of the diminishing returns on capital! Socialists criticise what they consider as the excessive poverty and inequality of the Industrial Revolution, and advocate reform via the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society to small communities without private property. It is a system of ideas and tendencies at odds with human nature.

sigh

I am no longer defending socialism (didn’t I state that in my last post??!! ) in the sense of the abolition of all private property:

This is what I am defending now:

1. Westphalian sovereignty (the nation state)

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on two principles: territoriality and the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures.

Adherents to the concept of a Westphalian system trace it back to the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, in which, according to the conventional account, the major European powers came together and agreed to abide by the principle of territorial integrity. In the Westphalian system, the interests and goals of states (and later nation-states) were widely assumed to transcend those of any individual citizen or even any ruler. States, in effect, became the primary institutionalized actors in an interstate system of relations.

International relations theorists have identified the Peace of Westphalia as having several key principles, which explain the Peace’s significance and its impact on the world today:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2. The principle of (legal) equality between states
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

These principles are common to the way the “realist” international relations paradigm views the international system today, which explains why the system of states is referred to as “The Westphalian System”.

Both the idea of Westphalian sovereignty and its applicability in practice have been questioned from the mid-20th century onwards from a variety of viewpoints. Much of the debate has turned on the ideas of internationalism and globalization which, in various interpretations, appear to conflict with Westphalian sovereignty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty

1. Democracy
2. The Welfare state (self-explanatory)

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose
#97, let’s just say I am supporting nationalism, democracy, and the people’s livelihood.
#99, I’m defending now

1. Westphalian sovereignty (the nation state)
2. Democracy
3. The Welfare state (self-explanatory)

After enormous confusion, that is much clearer and therefore welcome.

1. Nationalism is suspect:
   Populorum Progresio (On the Development of Peoples), Paul VI, 1967
   “62. Among still other obstacles which are opposed to the formation of a world which is more just and which is better organized toward a universal solidarity, We wish to speak of nationalism and racism…… Nationalism isolates people from their true good. It would be especially harmful where the weakness of national economies demands rather the pooling of efforts, of knowledge and of funds, in order to implement programs of development and to increase commercial and cultural exchange.”

Nationalism needs to be replaced with patriotism which embodies love of the nation without the exaggerated antipathy to other peoples which nationalism embodies. Nationalism isolates people from their true good. It would be especially harmful where the weakness of national economies demands rather the pooling of efforts, of knowledge and of funds, in order to implement programs of development and to increase commercial and cultural exchange.

Catholics should feel a special responsibility to deepen their knowledge of the Church’s social teaching. In this way they will be better prepared to strive to improve their country, to make it more in accord with true justice and goodness. This sort of civic education fosters genuine patriotism, a heartfelt but moderate attachment and gratitude to one’s country, as opposed to a vicious and blinding form of nationalism. Adaptation as an expression of nationalism or as the adoption of symbols and customs generally known to belong essentially to the non- or anti-Christian sphere is to be rejected because it is a road leading back to paganism. [See *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine (CD), OSV].

1. The Welfare State is just as, or more suspect, in fact rejected. Michael Novak in Capitalism Rightly Understood: The View Of Christian Humanism writes of John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus, 1991:
   In a word, traditionalist Third World systems are nearly as repressive as formerly communist systems in suffocating economic creativity. Similarly, within advanced societies, neglect of important human factors in the design of “the welfare state” has dehumanizing effects upon welfare “clients.” In any society, some important fraction of the citizenry is bound to be without income, because of age (too old or too young), disability, illness, or ill fortune. Some will be permanently, some only temporarily, so. A good society will provide care for such persons.
   Preferably, as the Pope notes, this should be done according to the principle of subsidiarity, with an emphasis on local and “neighborly” assistance, through family, neighbors, churches, unions, fraternal societies, or other associations.37

Notes:
37 See for instance Centesimus Annus, #49 and especially 13: “Apart from the family, other intermediate communities exercise primary functions and give life to specific networks of solidarity. These develop as real communities of persons and strengthen the social fabric, preventing society from becoming an anonymous and impersonal mass, as unfortunately often happens today. It is in interrelationships on many levels that a person lives, and that society becomes more ‘personalized’.” (#49)

Pope Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate stipulates that true world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (CiV 67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (57).