Does the Church oppose democratic socialism?

[hasikelee]

Okay, so some forms of life are socialized, such as healthcare and schools, while other aspects are steeped in capitalism, such as businesses and farms.

But, where is the line? At what point does a country become a socialist country?

And as to the question of if the Catholic church condemns socialism, doesn’t it in a broad sense? Such as recognizing the individual’s rights and dignity?

 

[markomalley]

And as to the question of if the Catholic church condemns socialism, doesn’t it in a broad sense? Such as recognizing the individual’s rights and dignity?

Read the documents quoted in post #4 and you tell me the answer.

 

[cynic]

I’d like to know who you consider the “entitled class” to be aside from the minority of working age individuals currently receiving welfare.

 

[Kaninchen]

Okay, so some forms of life are socialized, such as healthcare and schools, while other aspects are steeped in capitalism, such as businesses and farms.

But, where is the line? At what point does a country become a socialist country?

State ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

And as to the question of if the Catholic church condemns socialism, doesn’t it in a broad sense? Such as recognizing the individual’s rights and dignity?

What does ‘recognizing the individual’s rights and dignity’ mean? I spent my youth as a politically active anti-socialist (in a world where there were still the remnants of communist groups around) but I’m a bit wary of that expression as a supposed condemnation of socialism without there being a little more context - it’s a bit hard to argue things like ‘lack of choice’ in socialism if somebody can argue back about the lack of choice of the poor in capitalist societies and the exportation of wage-slavery from richer to poorer capitalist countries!

 

[mlchance]

I have a problem with that conclusion, that we should maintain personal charities in order to retain the “good works” element of it. So we should let the poor suffer in order to get a few brownie points with God?

Please quote anyone decrying socialism who also said the poor should be let to suffer in order to get brownie points with God. Otherwise, you could perhaps admit that such a ridiculous strawman hardly advances the discussion.

If the people giving are interested in helping the people receiving, then they might care about what actually works. Charity does not pay the rent of someone who is ill, charity won’t help you out with insurance premiums, and charity certainly won’t provide affordable education for children.

That’s an interesting set of false assumptions. If someone needs money for rent, and I have that money, I can’t give it to them? I’m pretty sure I can since I’ve done so before. I’ve also helped people with medical bills and once helped keep a student in Catholic school when the family couldn’t afford to pay tuition. Looks like in every case charity did exactly what you say it can’t.

Now consider that I’m far from rich, and imagine how much more I could do if the government didn’t confiscate a large percentage of my income.

State ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That isn’t necessarily true. Fascism is also a form of socialism, but it often doesn’t completely nationalize means of production. For example, fascism, however, does tend to set strigent government mandates on production, thus controlling production while at the same time maintaining at least a facade of private ownership.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Kaninchen]

That isn’t necessarily true. Fascism is also a form of socialism, but it often doesn’t completely nationalize means of production. For example, fascism, however, does tend to set strigent government mandates on production, thus controlling production while at the same time maintaining at least a facade of private ownership.

– Mark L. Chance.

I’m sorry but I can’t carry on a conversation with somebody who considers Fascism a form of socialism.

 

[hasikelee]

That isn’t necessarily true. Fascism is also a form of socialism, but it often doesn’t completely nationalize means of production. For example, fascism, however, does tend to set strigent government mandates on production, thus controlling production while at the same time maintaining at least a facade of private ownership.

– Mark L. Chance.

Do you think America is starting to blur the line between socialism and capitalism?

I thought Fascism didn’t even have a facade at all!

 

[EphelDuath]

That isn’t necessarily true. Fascism is also a form of socialism, but it often doesn’t completely nationalize means of production. For example, fascism, however, does tend to set strigent government mandates on production, thus controlling production while at the same time maintaining at least a facade of private ownership.

That’s incorrect. Mussolini used the government’s budget to subsidize corporations.

 

[cynic]

That’s an interesting set of false assumptions. If someone needs money for rent, and I have that money, I can’t give it to them? I’m pretty sure I can since I’ve done so before. I’ve also helped people with medical bills and once helped keep a student in Catholic school when the family couldn’t afford to pay tuition. Looks like in every case charity did exactly what you say it can’t.

Now consider that I’m far from rich, and imagine how much more I could do if the government didn’t confiscate a large percentage of my income.

.

and would everybody do as much? No. So there are no guarantees of education for children, or subsidies for health insurance under a charity based system.

 

[rlg94086]

Do you think America is starting to blur the line between socialism and capitalism?

Sure. I don’t believe there is a purely capitalistic state in the world…thanks be to God. All of them blend some socialism into the system, and I believe that is okay. A complete laissez faire system is not a good thing. In the same way, a completely socialistic system is not a good thing. The Church is clear about this.

The questions are “how much, where, and how should it be applied.” Due to the principle of subsidiarity, I happen to believe that we need to cut back on most social programs handled by our federal government and move them to the states or local levels where they belong - both constitutionally and according to subsidiarity.

Even at the state/local level, I personally feel that we have to scrutinize whether a program is replacing private programs and/or personal initiative when it shouldn’t.

 

[mlchance]

I’m sorry but I can’t carry on a conversation with somebody who considers Fascism a form of socialism.

I’m sorry that facts scare you away from conversation. Fascism is indeed of a form of socialism. The enmity between fascism and communism came not from the two ideologies being on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but rather because fascism (and its step-sister Nazism [what does the Z stand for?]) were explicitly nationalistic. Communism, by contrast, is explicitly internationalistic.

That’s incorrect. Mussolini used the government’s budget to subsidize corporations.

And his fascist government set quotas for production, et cetera. IOW, the means of production were controlled by the government. Subsidies do not demonstrate a lack of socialistic government; they are indeed a hallmark of such governments.

So there are no guarantees of education for children, or subsidies for health insurance under a charity based system.

Precisely. There are no guarantees of education for children, health care, et cetera. Period. No government or charity (or combination thereof) can genuinely make such services truly universal. Governments that claim they can are deceptive, either intentionally or unintentionally. If you think government of any sort can create a utopia, you need to reflect the fact that the word “utopia” comes from the Greek ou (“not, no”) and "topos" (place).

Compulsory charity is a contradiction in terms. I am better able to use my money than the government. I’m willing to give others the benefit of the doubt and assume their at least as virtuous as I am, which isn’t assuming much considering what a jerk I tend to be a lot of the time.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[EphelDuath]

And his fascist government set quotas for production, et cetera. IOW, the means of production were controlled by the government. Subsidies do not demonstrate a lack of socialistic government; they are indeed a hallmark of such governments.

The Fascist Party nationalized a few industries, but for the most part, corporations were encouraged by Mussolini to make profits so Italy would become a financially powerful nation. A primary example of this is how he would weaken trade unions so that businesses could exploit the labor forces.

Mussolini privatized phone companies, repealed laws that forced businesses to provide health insurance, cut taxes on the upper classes, etc. He is a capitalist by anyone’s definition.

If you’re going to define “socialism” as “any intervention in the economy at all,” then by the same definition, the Church is advocating socialism by encouraging worker dignity through government regulations. It’s like saying Napoleon was a socialist because he controlled prices.

 

[cynic]

Precisely. There are no guarantees of education for children, health care, et cetera. Period. No government or charity (or combination thereof) can genuinely make such services truly universal. .

Regardless poor families children can attend school because of government funding. You want to take away that serivice along with others for the sake of making some religiouse point.

 

[markomalley]

The Fascist Party nationalized a few industries, but for the most part, corporations were encouraged by Mussolini to make profits so Italy would become a financially powerful nation. A primary example of this is how he would weaken trade unions so that businesses could exploit the labor forces.

Mussolini privatized phone companies, repealed laws that forced businesses to provide health insurance, cut taxes on the upper classes, etc. He is a capitalist by anyone’s definition.

Allow me to provide you a quote on the subject:
**The programme of the Fascists, as drafted in 1919, was vehemently anti-capitalistic.***75 The most radical New Dealers and even communists could agree with it. When the Fascists came to power, they had forgotten those points of their programme which referred to the liberty of thought and the press and the right of assembly. In this respect they were conscientious disciples of Bukharin and Lenin. Moreover they did not suppress, as they had promised, the industrial and financial corporations. Italy badly needed foreign credits for the development of its industries. The main problem for Fascism, in the first years of its rule, was to win the confidence of the foreign bankers. It would have been suicidal to destroy the Italian corporations.

(snip)

From the dust-heap of discarded socialist utopias, **the Fascist scholars salvaged the scheme of guild socialism. **Guild socialism was very popular with British socialists in the last years of the first World War and in the first years following the Armistice. It was so impracticable that it disappeared very soon from socialist literature. No serious statesman ever paid any attention to contradictory and confused plans of guild socialism. It was almost forgotten when the Fascists attached it to a new label, and flamboyantly proclaimed corporativism as the new social panacea. The public inside and outside of Italy was captivated. Innumerable books, pamphlets and articles were written in praise of the stato corporativo. The governments of Austria and Portugal very soon declared that they were committed to the noble principles of corporativism. The papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) contained some paragraphs which could be interpreted—but need not be—as an approval of corporativism. In France its ideas found many eloquent supporters.

It was mere idle talk. Never did the Fascists make any attempt to realize the corporativist programme, industrial self-government. They changed the name of the chambers of commerce into corporative councils. They called corporazione the compulsory organizations of the various branches of industry which were the administrative units for the execution of the German pattern of socialism they had adopted. But there was no question of the corporazione’s self-government. The Fascist cabinet did not tolerate anybody’s interference with its absolute authoritarian control of production. All the plans for the establishment of the corporative system remained a dead letter.

Source: Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, (Epilogue). Available here
​

I put a quote here, as apparently the word of a mere poster is inadequate.

 

[Kaninchen]

I put a quote here, as apparently the word of a mere poster is inadequate.

So, one posts a comment from any particular commentator and that’s the end of discussion. How terribly adequate.