True, the CC teaches Catholicism. But if you read the citations I gave you, the CC expressly accepts bridled capitalism and explicitly rejects socialism and has since
Rerum Novarum.
I agree. And bridled capitalism is not what we have in the global economy, and it is not what neoliberals (i.e., almost all US politicians) are seeking in the US. Instead, they want unbridled capitalism.
Fr of Jazz;8295179:
Private ownership of the means of production means the opposite of collective ownership (socialism).
Agreed. It’s also the opposite of the actual outcome of unbridled capitalism, which is what we have today. Laborers even in the developed world do not own the means of production. All they own is their labor.
People who are rich and powerful are not evil by that fact.
Agreed. But, a system which creates extraordinary levels of inequality promotes evil, in my opinion.
In many cases they have earned it quite nobly
Perhaps.
–and almost always give back generously.
I’m skeptical. You may be right, but is there real data on this? You say “almost always.” Certainly, sometimes they do, but how often, really?
What the church rightly condemns is unbridled capitalism, not capitalism. Profit includes profit for entrepreneurs. Open markets are capitalistic: markets are closed or nonexistent in socialism.
Capitalism and socialism never exist in ideal forms. Bridled capitalism is no closer to capitalism than soviet-ism is to socialism. The Socialism that can be seen in much of Europe is not the socialism that is being condemned by the Church. The Capitalism that is seen in the US and in the Global Market is being condemned.
Wealth is generated not taken;
Sometimes. Often, this is not the case. For example, when wealth is created by reducing protection of labor and the environment, then it’s actually being taken. A key concept here is externalization. Who pays for the pollution caused by the coal-fired power plant? The future will pay for it, because neither the plant, nor the plant’s owner, nor the consumers of the power are paying for it. This is weal that is taken, and not generated. What we call wealth today is often the externalization of costs. That’s a major problem with large-scale economic processes and with capitalism.
and if it is concentrated it is usually so because it is more effectively generated in those places.
More effectively after structural factors come into play. Nevertheless, there is no justification for extreme inequality. The only justification would be if producing wealth were an end in itself, but, from a Catholic point of view, it is not.
Others ought to learn from them not punish their initiative and creativity in the name of equality. The rule of law is always better for business and, as history shows, so is democracy.
I disagree. History shows that Capital prospers most in non-democratic situations. The government in the US often put down labor unrest–that’s anti-democratic. I think you’re drawing a relationship between so-called democratic governments and capitalism on the one hand and so-called socialist governments and socialism on the other. That’s incorrect, I think.
What I will grant you is this: when Caritas in Veritate
speaks of wealth redistribution it is speaking of the inevitable and desirable end result of the application of the actual social teaching of the Church which includes everything I mentioned above and in my initial response. The goal of a more equitable distribution of wealth will come NOT by forcing an equality of outcome by governmental seizure and reallocation of wealth (condemned by the CC) but by pursing an equality of opportunity in accord with the church’s actual social teaching which rejects collectivism and socialism explicitly and supports bridled capitalism.
Based on this paragraph, I think we actually agree in principal.
…let’s climb out of this rabbit hole before we go to far, eh?