Does the Church condemn socialism ?

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yes I think we agree in principle as well. I want the end result of a more equitable distribution of wealth and respect for the environment, but in accord with actual Catholic social teaching which affirms time tested means of generating wealth: individual initiative, private ownership of the means of production, market economy, competition, profit, etc.

A few responses.

We haven’t had unbridled capitalism here in the US since shortly after the Industrial Revelation. And no one is pushing for it. There are multiple layers of regulations.

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.

Laborers can own the means of production here and some do. This is America: hard work, education, living within ones means can and overwhelmingly has bettered peoples’ position in life. If a laborer wants to start a business here he can. Many have, and done well. I know them.

Now if you mean employee-owned businesses, I am definitely for that. My brother is in one. After 5 yrs he is fully into the company which is extremely profitable. They have no union; they work very hard; there are policies (discipline, drugs, etc.) which they all agree upon to ensure success and which no union would tolerate. They have more business than they know what to do with. They’re lean, mean, profitable, competitive and produce a quality product. But it seems like since they’re extremely successful, you would find some problem with that. Should they be taxed more? Get unionized? Dispense with merit-based hiring and go to race and gender quotas?

Look we are not all equal. Some are more intelligent; stronger; have more musical, artistic, business, or athletic talent. They will frequently do better in life when it comes to wealth than those who don’t. Do you resent that? Are you envious? Shouldn’t we choose holy envy: choose to learn from people doing better than us at anything and try to grow.

Agreed. But, a system which creates extraordinary levels of inequality promotes evil, in my opinion.

OK but there is absolute poverty and relative poverty. I’m doing well economically. Steve Jobs has more money than I can imagine, and I am poor relative to him. I gotta say I really don’t resent it. One should ask what can I do to rise, not what can I do to bring down a successful business.

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.

Bridled capitalism contains all the components of capitalism that distinguish it from socialism. The capitalism in the US is bridled by any measure and I know of no church authority stating that any document is aimed at condemning US capitalism in principle or in globo. The socialism in Europe is failing.

. . . 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.

True in part, but it’s not that easy. Concern for the environment only emerged when a significant level of wealth was already reached; and unions have destroyed whole businesses with outrageous demands. We are paying right now for many protections rightly implemented by businesses, yet we’re also paying with our national security for the refusal to drill our own oil.

Are you just as concerned about the externalizing of costs to future generations by federal and state governmental overspending?

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.

Democracy is a system of government for a whole country and as such it is better for business. Violently putting down labor unrest as in the day of Andrew Carnegie is a denial of rights and an injustice not an abdication of democracy as the system of government for the whole country. Carnegie and the like made more money unjustly but didn’t overthrow our system of government.

Comments:
There has been violence in England and France recently when is it required that people work a 35 hour week. That’s the entitlement mentality. To me it’s noxious. European states and some of our states are faltering or failing because people have been taught to expect more from the government than the economy can generate in wealth.

So what should we be teaching our children? The government will take care of you why bother working hard? Why study hard and develop your talents? You can get a union to give you 50$/hr and full benefits for screwing a bolt on a widget for the rest of your life? Who cares if it destroys the business? It’s just not fair that Johnny is better than you at school. He has no right to be. Posture yourself as a victim so you can got more entitlements. That whole agenda is failing.

 

[Hastrman]

I have never understood why the Church, given its self-confidence in divine inspiration, finds it necessary to obscure and obfuscate when discussing this sort of thing. Compare its social ‘teaching’ on regulation of private property or trade unions with the clarity of what the church says about abortion. One requires the meaning to be painstakingly gleaned through close reading and comparison with other texts. The other says what it means.

Economics is an imprecise science at best. No social science can ever be as clear as a physical one; particles may be subject to quantum indeterminacy but at least they don’t have free will (and they can’t lie, either).

But I’ve always found Catholic social teaching quite clear. Unfortunately a major part of what they’re clear on is that there is no one right way to order a society, as long as justice and dignity are preserved—is what you’re calling obscurantism just that the church (rightly) refuses to endorse any one system as normative?

 

[Calvin_Hobbs]

If Holy Mother Church so rightly condemns socialism why did the Bishops not come out in the public arena shouting condemnation of Obama and his communist ways? I live in what is left of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee after the tyrannous reign of Rembert Weakland a depraved homosexual who stole $450,000 from the lay faithful. In all the period prior to the elction that put evil in the White House not one word came from our pulpits speaking the truth about Obama and his ilk.
Semper Fidelis
Bruce

 

[Hastrman]

If Holy Mother Church so rightly condemns socialism why did the Bishops not come out in the public arena shouting condemnation of Obama and his communist ways? I live in what is left of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee after the tyrannous reign of Rembert Weakland a depraved homosexual who stole $450,000 from the lay faithful. In all the period prior to the elction that put evil in the White House not one word came from our pulpits speaking the truth about Obama and his ilk.

Obama is not a socialist. If the means of production are in private hands, but the state claims the right to dissolve valid contracts for regulatory purposes (as his administration did with some shareholders of bailed-out companies), and unions have a governmental recognition, that system isn’t socialism.

It’s fascism.

As in Mussolini.

I’m not even being mean. That actually is what Mussolini’s economic idea was. It just goes to show how incredibly neutered that word has become, that right-wingers could 100% accurately call an opponent a fascist, and they don’t.

As for why the Bishops won’t denounce him, a number of his policies (like Obamacare) are not intrinsically immoral—someone ought to provide such things for the people, and it’s not immoral to decide it’s the government, though it may not be a good idea.

Well, that and they’ve been told they can’t say a word about politics except in the very broadest of terms, or else lose tax-exempt status. Which I imagine comes as news to many other churches.

 

[PeterGStanley]

It depends on what you think is socialist. People don’t want to give or help the poor and the needy so they label it socialism so they can live with it - but it clearly states in the bible by Christ own words that it is expected of us. Those well off feel that its your own fault if your poor but at the same time someone has to do those poor people jobs. Not everyone can have the high or decent paying jobs someone has to do the menial jobs to make the world run and they are looked down upon and scorned by the well to do that some how its their fault and they don’t deserve any help with their day to day living - but the truth is we can’t live without them doing their jobs and they require help.Pray that God never puts you to that test.
Labeling some things socialist is just an excuse not to help those in need like it or not,

 

[Hastrman]

It depends on what you think is socialist. People don’t want to give or help the poor and the needy so they label it socialism so they can live with it - but it clearly states in the bible by Christ own words that it is expected of us. Those well off feel that its your own fault if your poor but at the same time someone has to do those poor people jobs. Not everyone can have the high or decent paying jobs someone has to do the menial jobs to make the world run and they are looked down upon and scorned by the well to do that some how its their fault and they don’t deserve any help with their day to day living - but the truth is we can’t live without them doing their jobs and they require help.Pray that God never puts you to that test.
Labeling some things socialist is just an excuse not to help those in need like it or not,

Except the very people calling it socialist are the ones who give more. Not sure if I’m allowed to put a link to Amazon, but the relevant book is Who Really Cares: Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.

Sorry, but the idea that opposition to the welfare state comes from selfishness has been debunked. Well, apart from a few wackjobs like Ayn Rand, but I’m sure there were a few guys who favored entering World War II just because they hated Germans. That doesn’t make defeating Hitler wrong.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Except the very people calling it socialist are the ones who give more. Not sure if I’m allowed to put a link to Amazon, but the relevant book is Who Really Cares: Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.

Sorry, but the idea that opposition to the welfare state comes from selfishness has been debunked. Well, apart from a few wackjobs like Ayn Rand, but I’m sure there were a few guys who favored entering World War II just because they hated Germans. That doesn’t make defeating Hitler wrong.

Your entitled to your opinion.

Matthew 25:31-46

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Can’t dispute the words of Christ,Oh but I guess he didn’t really mean it.

 

[Hastrman]

Your entitled to your opinion.

[Bible verse that certainly doesn’t mention crushing regulation or widely discredited Keynesian economics or Marxist class-warfare rhetoric]

Can’t dispute the words of Christ,Oh but I guess he didn’t really mean it.

It’s not my opinion, it’s statistics. Heard of science?

You’re setting up a false dichotomy between a welfare state, and not helping others.

Those who oppose the welfare state do more—it is demonstrated by the statistics—to help others, than the state does. And without creating a culture of dependency and apathy, as welfare states are wont to do.

Amusingly, Christ, in the verse you quote, says nothing about enacting legislation to create a welfare state. He says “what did you do?”—not what officials did you elect, not what legislation did you enact, not what massive government bureaucracies did you create to shuffle around the image of God like so many pennies in a jar, but what did you, personally, do?

At that point, the only question is “how do we help others”—and that book demonstrates, by statistics, that they help others more than you.

You are not entitled to your opinion, when it is flatly contradictory to the facts—still less when you self-servingly misinterpret the Gospel.

 

[PeterGStanley]

It’s not my opinion, it’s statistics. Heard of science?

You’re setting up a false dichotomy between a welfare state, and not helping others.

Those who oppose the welfare state do more—it is demonstrated by the statistics—to help others, than the state does. And without creating a culture of dependency and apathy, as welfare states are wont to do.

Amusingly, Christ, in the verse you quote, says nothing about enacting legislation to create a welfare state. He says “what did you do?”—not what officials did you elect, not what legislation did you enact, not what massive government bureaucracies did you create to shuffle around the image of God like so many pennies in a jar, but what did you, personally, do?

At that point, the only question is “how do we help others”—and that book demonstrates, by statistics, that they help others more than you.

You are not entitled to your opinion, when it is flatly contradictory to the facts—still less when you self-servingly misinterpret the Gospel.

As I said your entitled to your opinion.
Yep I’m an evil person for thinking that way.

 

[Hastrman]

As I said your entitled to your opinion.

Interesting. A response that allows you to devote precisely as little effort to actually understanding or replying to me as if you’d just stuck your fingers in your ears and run away shouting “la la la I’m not listening” but also lets you pretend to be mature.

Truly, you are an evil mastermind.

But when you say that, all I see is this: “I have no knowledge of the relative merits of the two political camps; trying to justify your views based on statistics, rather than verse-slinging and personal attacks, seems really hard. Frankly I expected everyone would praise my insightful—and breathtakingly original—remark, that economic conservatism just arises from selfishness, and I’m a little offended nobody did.”

Again, you’re not entitled to your opinion, because I just refuted it. Understand?

I leave you with a quote from the great cartoonist Michael “Gabe” Krahulik:

…plenty of Opinions are wrong. Hey, it’s my OPINION that dogs have eight legs and make a sound like a car horn every time they take a [leak]. If I told you that, would you say, “Okay Gabe I respect your opinion, maybe they do have eight legs.” or would you call me an idiot? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Wow you have such insight into my intellect.

The Evil Master mind.

 

[Hastrman]

Wow you have such insight into my intellect.

You’re the one claiming to read conservatives’ hearts and secret motives.

Did you actually have some constructive remarks to offer?

No?

Anyway, then. Before PeterGStanley interrupted with his prophetic vision of the state of the Tea Party’s soul, I was pointing out that Obama—and the western Left generally—is not socialist, because the means of production remain in private hands. That fact, coupled with the fact that the Obama administration both dissolves valid contracts for regulatory purposes, and extends political recognition to labor unions, allow us to correctly identify his positions.

Specifically, he’s a fascist. Again: not a term of abuse, a statement of fact. If someone copies the policies of Benito Mussolini, he’s a fascist—and pretty much Obama’s only deviation from fascism is his anti-nationalism.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Robert Paxton, the world’s pre-eminent scholar on the subject of how countries turn fascist. In ‘The Journal of Modern History’ he argues that the best way to recognize emerging fascist movements isn’t by their rhetoric, their politics, or their aesthetics. Rather, mature democracies turn fascist by a recognizable process.

First, a movement emerges to effect some kind of nationalist renewal rooted in the promise of restoring lost national pride by resurrecting the culture’s traditional myths and values, and purging society of the toxic influence of outsiders and intellectuals who are blamed for their current misery.

Secondly, fascist movements take root, turn into real political parties, and seize their seat at the table of power. Interestingly, in every case Paxton cites, the political base came from the rural, less-educated parts of the country.

According to Paxton, the forging of the third-stage alliance is the make-or-break moment – the worst part of it is that by the time you’ve arrived at that point, it’s probably too late to stop it. From here, it turns from alliances (e.g. the Teabag movement wedded to the GOP), and escalates, as minor thuggery turns into beatings, killings, and systematic tagging of certain groups for elimination, all directed by people at the very top of the power structure.

Stage four, as the duo assumes full control of the country, power struggles emerge between the brownshirt party faithful and the conservative elites – church, military, professions, and business. The character of the regime is determined by who gets the upper hand. If party members (who gained power through street thuggery) win, an authoritarian police state may follow. If the conservatives get them back under control, a more traditional theocracy, corporatocracy, or military regime will emerge.

Stage five is “radicalization or entropy.” Radicalization is likely if the new regime scores a big military victory, which consolidates its power & whets its appetite for expansion and large-scale social engineering. Otherwise it will be entropy.

Sounds like the Tea party to me at stage 3 - they’ve chosen the enemy to the county - the poor and the paperless immigrants ( much like the Jews were chosen ) and the thugs are out there doing their job.

Alright I’m ready for your next barrage of insults anger and name calling.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Rock_Happy]

I found this in the Catechism

1. The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

Does that mean the Church condemns socialism or just some of the atheistic ideologies associated with socialism?

The church practices socialism in monasteries and convents.

There is nothing inherently atheistic or immoral in the practice of socialism. For example, many villages in Asia practice what could be called socialism of communism. The rice paddies are commonly held, and worked. All members of the village share in the harvest according to need. They contribute to the village welfare according to ability, and age.

The issue the Church refers to is the totalitarian forms of governmental or economic systems, which are not life affirming, and which also are often atheistic.

 

[FightingFat]

I found this in the Catechism

1. The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

Does that mean the Church condemns socialism or just some of the atheistic ideologies associated with socialism?

Mater et Magistra n. 34:

“Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.”