A
april32010
Guest
and this dignifies the sin of selling it ?
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Uh, did you not notice the word “balance”? Of course individual rights are important.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
There is no condescension intended. I am seeking common definitions so that we can minimize misunderstandings while working through the argument. A step by step approach will, I hope, minimize confusion.
The Oxford Online Dictionary can provide us with these standard definitions; disagreements with these definition may then be taken up with the Oxford folk, supporting our efforts to maintain a charitable thread. Here is its definition of fascism:
oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism?q=fascism
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices
the dictionary notes that “The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach”
For an alternative standard definition, Websters online definition of fascism offers an example that contrasts socialism and fascism
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism?show=0&t=1357193763
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
Examples of FASCISM
the rise of Fascism in Europe before World War II
From the first hours of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union, the propagandists on both sides of the conflict portrayed the struggle in stark, Manichaean language. The totalitarian nature of both regimes made this inevitable. On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution. —Anne Applebaum, New York Review of Books, 25 Oct. 2007
The last link you provide (it and all previously provided links lead to the same libertarian institute) is interesting.
It offers an overview of a book by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,
I was caught by the contrast/ contradiction in the review as it discussed Kuehnelt-Leddihns’ understandings of Nazis and neo-Nazis. I quote from the overview:
"The Nazis were anti-aristocratic and anti-tradition, and tried to create a revolutionary state. Since left wing movements tend to want to standardize everything and make everything the same, Nazism had a leftist tendency when it emphasized the “Aryan race” as the ideal for all humanity. Hitler was a product of the mass society of the early 1900s. Nazism is similar to the more familiar liberal, internationalist Leftism, which denies racial and gender differences and seeks to make the world a giant unisex, brown conglomerate. "
I do not recall reading about the Nazis denying racial difference; it seems to me that many people were killed by the Nazi regime due to understandings of them as being racially different/inferior.Further down it contends:" Kuehnelt’s book is also greatly helpful because he defines how true rightists in different countries may in fact be very different from each other because of a variety of cultural and national circumstances. He does not want conservative groups solely made up of the “haters of the haters,” like the neo-Nazis who opposed democracy and liberalism today. He decries the harmful rightist tendency, especially prominent in America, towards anti-intellectualism."
According to this author,some Nazis are left wing/and others conservatives?I think sticking with the Oxford dictionary will be most helpful:thumbsup:
T
triumphguy
Guest
Hmmm I think Canada’s economy is fundamentally better off than any other in Europe or North America.
S
Schism_hater
Guest
The US is materially wealthy and most of the rest of the world is materially poor, because US corporations have sucked wealth from the rest of the world. Furthermore, the US may be materially wealthy but it is spiritually one of the poorest countries of the world. That is the heritage of American capitalism.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Mother Teresa pointed to this contradiction at a Washington prayer breakfast with then President Clinton:
youtube.com/watch?v=OXn-wf5ylgo
A
acarlson
Guest
Nicely said. Capitalism is not our God, and some people seem to forget this.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Question: Did Pope Benedict Attack Capitalism in His 2013 World Peace Day Message? Answer: No!
I think Pope Benedict was talking about some economies in maybe Asia, Africa, Russia where there is not enough regulation and corruption
Pope Benedict said in n 28, Encyclical Deus Caritas Est
My emphases
I think Pope Benedict was talking about some economies in maybe Asia, Africa, Russia where there is not enough regulation and corruption
Pope Benedict said in n 28, Encyclical Deus Caritas Est
My emphases
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
E
exnihilo
Guest
I don’t know how much we should make of it, but the term ‘unregulated financial capitalism’ is certainly unfortunate. There is nothing evil about pure capitalism. And regulations typically do not reduce the evil in the world. Quite the contrary they tend to make evil a fact of law.
What is bad about capitalism? It is simply a system whereby economic control is in the hands of individuals. It produces the most wealth of any system which seems to be something everyone advocates for. You can’t feed the poor if you don’t have enough food to first feed those in power whether it be capitalists or socialists.
I agree. Many act as if greed only exists in capitalism or more accurately where economic freedom exists. Greed is a condition of man under any circumstances. The greedy rise to the top in communism and get a similar reward as under capitalism. They just use the political class rather than the economic class to get their reward. Also the poor can be greedy. In fact greediness often leads to poverty. Successful people in a free market are those who are fair.
You seem to be hitting on the difference between socialism and fascism. One aspect sometimes used is who owns the capital (which is just an economic term and exists under all economic systems). One use of socialism is when the government owns the capital, such as under communism, whereas fascism is when the government controls the capital such as under regulation or like in the US when the federal government mandates you buy certain products including health care. But the distinctions between socialism and fascism are not as important as the reality that government controls the economy through significant intervention.
V
Vouthon
Guest
E
exnihilo
Guest
Notice that the ideologies of some systems is rejected. But the church has only refused to accept the practice of some systems. There is intrinsic evil in some systems. The practice of capitalism can be evil but is not intrinsically evil. I agree that the marketplace is not the prime consideration in our decisions. The moral good should be. But that can not be legislated into existence. That is the role of the Church.
I agree with reasonable regulation of the marketplace including making fraud and other practices illegal. But reasonable regulation need not be anything more than the basic moral laws that have long existed in most every country.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Capitalism is not a uniform ideology like Marxism. It has various meanings and degrees, even from person-to-person which is why the church speaks of the “practice of capitalism” rather than any particular species of it, since there are so many.
For example, “social market economies” such as the one in Germany have an element of capitalism but it is clearly very different from the US model and in my humble opinion more in tune with the ideals of Catholic social teaching.
In itself a free market is obviously a more desirable alternative to one that is wholly subordinate to the state, however a totally free market without any restraints or little restraints and unfettered competition for profit is hardly the most moral system man can produce. In fact its the reason we have socialism, as an unnatural reaction to an unnatural evil, except that the proposed cure (socialism) turned out to be a worse cancer than the original ailment (liberal/laissez-faire capitalism) because it was a purely materialistic alternative to a materialistic evil.
By itself a free market cannot procure social justice, if left to the mere natural outcomes of profit-driven competition between individuals. It is amoral with a strong capacity to be completely immoral.
Rather morality should be infused at the heart of our economics.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Then why use the term if it is unclear? It seems a term addressing the actual problem would be better if the word capitalism doesn’t have an agreed upon meaning.
All economic systems have elements of capitalism. Where government regulation ends capitalism begins. The black market is capitalism and exists everywhere.
Free markets simply supply the most material goods to the most people. If you have other objectives then it is not the ideal system. I’m not sure what is meant by restraints. What most troubles me is the lack of specificity. What exactly about lack of regulation is bad? What are the bad outcomes and how have they been solved by other systems? As far as I know no system is perfect so no system solves any problem. At best it mitigates it but always with some cost.
E
exnihilo
Guest
It certainly can’t procure social justice if that term is not defined. What is social justice in this sense? How can we measure capitalism’s ability to procure social justice if the terms is not well defined?
It seems to me wrong to take away someone’s property in order to give it to another person, which is what most government interference in the market does. So how can you build a system of justice on a foundation of personal injustice? Me giving something to someone in need does no harm to me and allows me to be charitable. That seems like a great system and very Christian.
V
Vouthon
Guest
In many species of capitalism owners and managers of capital dominate the economy in the place of socialistic state domination of the means of production. Big Business, multi-national corporations etc.
The problem is the assumption in pure capitalism (without any moderating elements) that profit is the sole purpose of economic transactions and the limitless potencial for selfishly driven individualistic competition to the detriment of the common good and the welfare of others, that many capitalistic economies foster simply ipso facto as a result of the very nature of most forms of capitalism themselves, which share a common propensity of viewing economic issues solely in a materialistic, value-free manner without any government or higher intervention whatsoever and without any moral guidelines or foundations. Its like atheistic opinions of evolution: viewed as purely natural, cause-and-effect, balances and checks without a shred of a moral compass or guiding force from a higher authority. This is a form of idolatry, idolizing the marketplace and unfettered competition.
Benedict says that we must not think the economic sphere is ethically neutral: “It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner". Second, we must focus on those businesses and economic initiatives “which, without rejecting profit, aim at a higher goal than the mere logic of the exchange of the equivalents, of profit as an end in itself".
Now, rigid state domination of the economy stifles initiative and enterprise. Communism thus is a miserable “cure” for the evils of capitalism (and I use it in the sense described by myself above) and is in fact a worser beast than the illness. However free-market capitalism is also inherently flawed. The pure pursuit of profit, without regard for consequences creates an unstable economic system. Capitalism, in most of its “purist” forms, exists by pure, selfish individualism.
Catholic ethics have as their nerve-centre not the pursuit of individual profit but rather the pursuit of the common good, and that quest is fundamentally incompatible with pure free-market capitalism.
According Blessed Pope John Paul II, the common good is:
Yes, we can moderate capitalism. But it isn’t anymore the pure capitalism that you spoke of earlier but a mixed economic system of which capitalism forms a small or corporate element.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Blessed Pope John Paul II made clear in a 1993 address in Latvia his criticism of both communism and capitalism:
Read:
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
In short, there is no true freedom in an economic system. We might like to think there is–but that’s because we like to think that our economic system is a means of self-actualization or a real marker of a real personal identity; i.e., I’m a capitalist because I believe in freedom, or I’m a socialist because I believe in providing for everyone. Nonsense. The “freedom” of capitalism and the “benevolent justice” of socialism are both illusory. They are idols and false gods. Economics will not and cannot save us or make us the human beings we are meant to be.
And this, I think, is at the heart of the Pope’s message–that we have taken to looking at our economic systems as if they truly actualize or embody the transcendent values to which we aspire. They do not. They cannot. And the more we can be honest with ourselves regarding the impotence of any system to save us or actualize us or free us, the more we will be able to realistically and competently manage those systems to create those goods of which they are truly capable and/or promote those goods to which they are most amenable, however modest those goods may prove to be.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Someone may have already done so, but I just want to quickly address this point. The Church affirms that true freedom can only be found in Christ. Freedom without Christ is impossible. A freedom that is predicated on capitalist consumption is just another form of bondage. Freedom to consume is just another way of talking about enslavement to consumption. A “consumer-sovereign’s” sovereignty is entirely conditioned by the principle of consumption and therefore represents a notion of sovereignty that is either purely ironic or completely absurd.
In short, there is no true freedom in an economic system. We might like to think there is–but that’s because we like to think that our economic system is a means of self-actualization or a real marker of a real personal identity; i.e., I’m a capitalist because I believe in freedom, or I’m a socialist because I believe in providing for everyone. Nonsense. The “freedom” of capitalism and the “benevolent justice” of socialism are both illusory. They are idols and false gods. Economics will not and cannot save us or make us the human beings we are meant to be.
And this, I think, is at the heart of the Pope’s message–that we have taken to looking at our economic systems as if they truly actualize or embody the transcendent values to which we aspire. They do not. They cannot. And the more we can be honest with ourselves regarding the impotence of any system to save us or actualize us or free us, the more we will be able to realistically and competently manage those systems to create those goods of which they are truly capable and/or promote those goods to which they are most amenable, however modest those goods may prove to be.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
V
Vouthon
Guest
Capitalism seems to assume that human beings are fundamentally self-interested and that this is beneficial to society. Catholic social teaching, alternatively, holds that human beings are inherently social animals, relational beings or a ‘gift-exchanging’ species and so we are naturally disposed to work together for mutual benefit and in the pursuit of the common good rather than individual welfare at the expense of other people.
The anthropology of capitalism is therefore in error and is in dire need of correction in my humble opinion.
How can an economic system which gets its understanding of human nature and desires so fundamentally wrong be “ideal” in any way or in that wise the last word in economics?
We can do better than that. It is also crucial to distinguish market economies from capitalism. I support a market economy, perhaps along the lines of a proposed “civil economy” or with elements in common with “social market economies” although I am averse to the finance capitalism and free market fundamentalism which currently is all-pervasive in our societies.
A market economy is natural; unfettered finance capitalism isn’t. They are not synonymous.
I think that a social market economy, forms of distributism and/or a “civil economy” are all economic theories which are based heavily on Catholic social teaching and are far more preferrable to pure finance capitalism.
A composite or synthesis of elements of all three would be effective in my opinion (distributism on its own would be to sweeping I feel but it certainly should form a crucial element of economics).
The anthropology of capitalism is therefore in error and is in dire need of correction in my humble opinion.
How can an economic system which gets its understanding of human nature and desires so fundamentally wrong be “ideal” in any way or in that wise the last word in economics?
We can do better than that. It is also crucial to distinguish market economies from capitalism. I support a market economy, perhaps along the lines of a proposed “civil economy” or with elements in common with “social market economies” although I am averse to the finance capitalism and free market fundamentalism which currently is all-pervasive in our societies.
A market economy is natural; unfettered finance capitalism isn’t. They are not synonymous.
I think that a social market economy, forms of distributism and/or a “civil economy” are all economic theories which are based heavily on Catholic social teaching and are far more preferrable to pure finance capitalism.
A composite or synthesis of elements of all three would be effective in my opinion (distributism on its own would be to sweeping I feel but it certainly should form a crucial element of economics).
T
triumphguy
Guest
[SIGN]Excellent point.[/SIGN]
Also: the world managed to feed itself before capitalism (or communism) was invented.
Shocking, I know!In fact many peoples lived perfectly happy and fulfilled lives before Capitalist or Communist Imperialism.
And Capitalism WAS invented! It’s no more natural to the human race than feudalism.
Charity has been brought up in previous posts - that we don’t need the state to intervene, that what we need is charity.
However, Charity without justice is just a tax write off.
I venture to say that before Capitalism there were less street people needing Charity in London or New York than there are now.
True Charity is integral to justice.
I teach at a Catholic High School. Before Christmas I was involved in delivering hampers to families of students who had less than their classmates. Most were immigrant families. Nearly all were “minorities.” All were grateful, and many seemed ashamed and embarrassed.
But as I went from one family to another I had the overwhelming sense that what I was doing was Just, not Charitable. There should be no shame in receiving the hampers at Christmas: the shame was ours as a community.
OF COURSE I know that the relatively well off families had not directly contributed to the poverty of some of their classmates… but in some ways our community, our city, our Province and our Country has.
In Northern Alberta right now there are $150,000,000,000 of oil projects under development, never mind the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of capital already invested.
And in Calgary there are 5,000 or more homeless kids.
And believe me in minus 20 (and lower) being homeless is not pleasant, so it’s not by choice!
- Status