Economic Systems: Capitalism and Communism

[jonathan_hili]

I’m afraid Pope Pius XI is simply wrong when he condemns all forms of socialism, including Christian or religious socialism. The main reason for this is because the irreconcilable problems he correctly raises, such as the removal of private property or seeing material goods as simply the end goal of life, do not apply to all forms of socialism.

For instance, his principal condemnation of socialism comes in par. 118: “Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society [to cultivate human nature so as to glorify God], affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.” However, not all forms of socialism do this.

 

[arvo]

CAF has the same problems as every forum - everyone wants to speek, but nobody is ready to listen. So, I will try to end my posts here, I have lot to do anyway.

I didn’t like to USSR (at least for the reason that I was not allowed to buy ancient Roman coins of medals and orders for my collection) and I don’t like current communists and socialists. I don’t like crowd and works and all those red flags. And also I don’t like current marxian intellectual elite (e.g. publishing in Cambridge Journal of Economics issued by OUP), because thay are dumb at math, they are never trying to compare DSGE with Marxian labout theory of value, they stay at so primitive level.

By my passion for communisms comes from this: I start my day with Artificial Intelligence authors/titles recent submissions - every day there are some tens of preprints in AI. Today was about mechanisation of mathematical reasoning, about generalisation skills of AI and about the coding mechanisms of neural networks. I mentioned only those that are important for me and there were published today. But what happens in other days and other fields? Program synthesis (automatisation of programmin), automation of creativity, affective computing (reading and generating emotions), artificial consciousness, machine translation, machine understanding of natural language, natural language generation, emergence of language in communicating agents, commonsense reasoning and motion skills for universal robots, concept generation, generation of math theorems and automatic proof, semantic computer vision and so on. All that is currently being automatised. Yes, practical systems are not so many, but there are already fields where superhuman performance is already achieved (e.g. in pattern recognition, e.g. that can is used in medical imaging).

So - my passion for the communism - or - let us call it - human (non-dystopian) postcapitalism comes from my everyday experience and efforts from hundreds and thousands of AI scientists to automate as much human work as possible. This is reality, this is my world and I personally don’t know better answer how to cope with this than be ready for postcapitalism and strive for its more human form with less suffering and less turbulence along the way as possible.

If not for AI, I would not feel any interest in postcapitalism.

 

[arvo]

Microsoft Invests In and Partners with OpenAI to Support Us Building Beneficial AGI is press notice about Microsoft investing 1B$ in Artificial General Intelligence in OpenAI (somehow connected with Musk). They are very explicit what they are trying to achieve with this billion:

In contrast, an AGI will be a system capable of mastering a field of study to the world-expert level, and mastering more fields than any one human — like a tool which combines the skills of Curie, Turing, and Bach. An AGI working on a problem would be able to see connections across disciplines that no human could. We want AGI to work with people to solve currently intractable multi-disciplinary problems, including global challenges such as climate change, affordable and high-quality healthcare, and personalized education. We think its impact should be to give everyone economic freedom to pursue what they find most fulfilling, creating new opportunities for all of our lives that are unimaginable today.

And Google DeepMind is another AGI company as Czech GoodAI and there are few others smaller AGI companies. People are investing real money. This is not about snake drugs.

btw, Standord University has computational metaphysics lab Computational Metaphysics and automation of mathematics greatly enhances their work.

 

[arvo]

Well - if world had not need for new encyclicals then there would be none of them. If world will not need new encyclicals then there will be no more. But my guess is - that the world is developing and the new encyclicals will be needed. And at this point the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences will aid the Pontif to write new encyclicals. Here Dignity and the Future of Work in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is glimpse how the dignintaries of the Academy is considering the changing nature of work, of work-capital relations.

So - we can read encyclicals from the past. But at some point in time the Pontif will decide to update the social teaching. Are we sure that He is doing, He will do this in timely manner? Wont there be some time when the updates will be urgently needed but when the Pontif wouldn’t have said a word?

 

[Athanasiy]

In all post-communist countries, Marxism considered religion to be evil, which must be eradicated in the first place.
These are the caricature pictures of early period of communism.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Athanasiy]

By the way, one should not forget that it was thanks to the Evangelists(USA, Canada) and Catholics(John Paul Second) that communism collapsed. Atheism was weakness spot of Marxism, and the Evangelicals destroyed the system with the help of radio receivers.
I remember those times, I was a child, when Christians were secretely listening the radio programs that abolished Marxists lies about God and Bible.

 

[Athanasiy]

I am sure that, instead of the promised paradise, Marxism will present you with mass slaughter, famines, golodomory, will roll your national identity into the asphalt and will give you a massive gulags and a prisons of nations.
Marxism is already creeping. At the Kremlin TV talk-shows, seam is already the USSR there, because there are no dialogs, no discussions, no serious opponents, there are only uni-voice serenades for strong Russian empire, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, more military power, and of course subconsciously they all dream about revansh,- to invade, and conquer, by the mask of Communism.
In Kremlin talk-shows political scientists in their eloquence and admiration for the future of the Russian Empire resemble the daughters of King Lear
This is a laugh through the tears.
If we fail to live in the democracy, in the market economy, Marxism will come and restore its order. You have no idea how Trotskyism is popular among young people in many countries of the world.
And there is a generation that wants every thing, and want it right now!

 

[MPat]

I’m afraid Pope Pius XI is simply wrong when he condemns all forms of socialism, including Christian or religious socialism. The main reason for this is because the irreconcilable problems he correctly raises, such as the removal of private property or seeing material goods as simply the end goal of life, do not apply to all forms of socialism.

And which forms of socialism are supposed to be those? What makes them count as forms of “Socialism”?

In case you have some sort of “Welfare State” in mind, the Church is not all that happy about it as well. See the Compendium (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...ompendio-dott-soc_en.html#Action of the State): “Solidarity without subsidiarity, in fact, can easily degenerate into a “Welfare State”,”…

So - my passion for the communism - or - let us call it - human (non-dystopian) postcapitalism comes from my everyday experience and efforts from hundreds and thousands of AI scientists to automate as much human work as possible.

If not for AI, I would not feel any interest in postcapitalism.

So, in this case the disordered yearning for Communism is caused by exaggerated enthusiasm for AI?

In that case I think I have a cure.

Don’t just read about AI. Try to implement it. Play with it.

For example, install Python (https://www.python.org/), install Keras (https://keras.io/), try out some examples. Try to make your own.

Soon enough you will be disillusioned. And you will get some useful skills in the process.

And your approach is not all that different from the Soviet approach.

After all, Lenin claimed: “Communism equals the Soviet government plus electrification of the whole country.” (“Коммунизм — это есть советская власть плюс электрификация всей страны.” - in, for example, report to 8th All-Russian Congress of Soviets, 1920-12-22). That’s a rather famous phrase, leading to jokes like “Electrification of the whole country equals Communism minus the Soviet government.”. Then Khrushchev had to modify that, adding “chemisation”. Now you want to add “AI”.

And after “AI-fication” someone else will have to add something else, for it will be clear that Communism still failed to “happen”…

There is nothing new under the Sun…

 

[jonathan_hili]

There are many forms of socialism that do not wish to abolish private property or even aspects of the free market. Some notable ones would include Christian socialism (there are various forms of this but probably the most influential was the movement in England that reached peaks at the end of 19th century as well as in the 1930s-1950s), guild socialism, Fabian socialism, even some forms of Marxist socialism (especially from the German tradition in the late 19th - early 20th centuries). What makes them count as socialism are a number of essential properties to the politico-economic ideology, including:

• Communal or state ownership of major industries and the major means of production.
• Government regulation and/or limitation of the market (including price controls).
• Workers’ control of the workplace and goods and services produced.
• Extensions of (generally free and universal) education, health care, etc.
• Forms of unionism or workers’ collectives.
• Something like a welfare state (e.g. provision of employment).

In all these areas, there is nothing intrinsically socialist that is anti-Catholic.

 

[MPat]

What makes them count as socialism are a number of essential properties to the politico-economic ideology, including:

• Communal or state ownership of major industries and the major means of production.
• Government regulation and/or limitation of the market (including price controls).
• Workers’ control of the workplace and goods and services produced.
• Extensions of (generally free and universal) education, health care, etc.
• Forms of unionism or workers’ collectives.
• Something like a welfare state (e.g. provision of employment).

Hold it.

You list six seemingly unrelated things as “essential properties”. That is already suspicious.

If you had some sort of a definition of Socialism, then you would be able to show that one or another political subideology fits that definition.

Maybe you should find it.

In all these areas, there is nothing intrinsically socialist that is anti-Catholic.

Ah, but the question is not what is “anti-Catholic”, but what is incompatible with Catholicism.

And, for example, as I have pointed out, “Welfare state” is rejected by Magisterium.

 

[StudentMI]

And, for example, as I have pointed out, “Welfare state” is rejected by Magisterium.

It is criticized but not rejected.

 

[MPat]

It is criticized but not rejected.

Are you sure that is a useful distinction in this case?

From “Centesimus Annus” (http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html):

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

And, as Compendium says, “Solidarity without subsidiarity, in fact, can easily degenerate into a “Welfare State”,”. That indicates that “Welfare State” is something obviously highly undesirable.

Now, of course, it being highly undesirable does not mean that it has to be completely abolished this very minute.

After all, private initiative, once extinguished, is not going to spring up quite as quickly. There is going to be some latency.

That is one of problems with Welfare State: it is very hard to undo it.

 

[StudentMI]

Agreed. But too often the idea of abolishing the welfare state coincides with calls for completely eliminating mechanisms to render justice to the vulnerable and needy.

Catholic social teaching is not a pick and choose. It is part of the moral teaching of the Church and forms a cohesive whole.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Socialism is a very diverse phenomenon. It’s very difficult to come up with a definition of anything without listing its essential properties (e.g. define a bird without saying that it flies or has wings). In such cases, the way to find out what socialism is really about is by examining different accepted forms of socialism and identifying similar characteristics, which is what I’ve tried to do.

You say that these things are unrelated. Why? It’s because most people are just thinking of Marxist socialism, which is certainly the most well known but not the only type.

Even if the magisterium spoke definitely on the welfare state (which they haven’t), it’s not their province to speak on economic matters dogmatically. I mean, gosh, how many people still uphold capital punishment regardless of what the bishops say? By the way, John Paul II never defines what he means by “Welfare State” in that document. Since he says government assistance can “degenerate” into a Welfare State, I assume he means a situation where citizens are lazy and just receive money from the government. However, this is not how social welfare ordinarily operates.

 

[MPat]

Socialism is a very diverse phenomenon. It’s very difficult to come up with a definition of anything without listing its essential properties (e.g. define a bird without saying that it flies or has wings). In such cases, the way to find out what socialism is really about is by examining different accepted forms of socialism and identifying similar characteristics, which is what I’ve tried to do.

Actually, defining Socialism is not that hard. Nor is finding an “official” definition.

See resolution passed by the Congress of Socialist International in Frankfurt on 1951-07-03 (Frankfurt Declaration - Wikipedia): “Socialism aims to liberate the peoples from dependence on a minority which owns or controls the means of production. It aims to put economic power in the hands of the people as a whole, and to create a community in which free men work together as equals.”.

Well, that’s the one essential property: Socialism is an ideology that finds it desirable to hold the means of production in common in some way.

And what is condemned in Socialism by Pius XI? “Because of the fact that goods are produced more efficiently by a suitable division of labor than by the scattered efforts of individuals, socialists infer that economic activity, only the material ends of which enter into their thinking, ought of necessity to be carried on socially. Because of this necessity, they hold that men are obliged, with respect to the producing of goods, to surrender and subject themselves entirely to society.”.

I’d say that’s both accurate and precise.

Even if the magisterium spoke definitely on the welfare state (which they haven’t), it’s not their province to speak on economic matters dogmatically. I mean, gosh, how many people still uphold capital punishment regardless of what the bishops say?

Is “capital punishment” an “economic matter” now?

Sure, Church does not have much to say about the science of Economics as such - there is no doctrine explaining how change of interest rates changes the inflation.

But the social teaching exists and has to be followed.

Since he says government assistance can “degenerate” into a Welfare State, I assume he means a situation where citizens are lazy and just receive money from the government. However, this is not how social welfare ordinarily operates.

You “assume”?

I have cited that part above. To repeat:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.

It appears that you reject Catholic Social Doctrine without knowing what it says.

 

[OKComputer]

Most people on the left aren’t too open to catholic moral teaching. If you team up with them because you like their views on economics, don’t be surprised when they stab you in the back over gay marriage and abortion. You don’t want to be the “useful idiot” that they talk about.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Okay, if it is easy to find a definition of socialism, please give one that would apply to the various strands of socialism.

As for the “official” quote here from the Socialist International, I’d be wary of just relying on any particular group to represent the whole (especially historically). I mean, would you rely on definitions or precepts drawn from the United Nations to represent the global community? But let’s look at what you cite from the Socialist International:

“Socialism aims to liberate the peoples from dependence on a minority which owns or controls the means of production. It aims to put economic power in the hands of the people as a whole, and to create a community in which free men work together as equals.”

Okay, I don’t see what is inherently unethical about this, and my first point was about the means of production: “Communal or state ownership of major industries and the major means of production.” In fact - and this is what astounds me somewhat - you do realise that for most of human history the means of production was communally owned. Look at feudalism during the Middle Ages, especially in places like Russia.

And what does Pius XI condemn: “Because of this necessity, they hold that men are obliged, with respect to the producing of goods, to surrender and subject themselves entirely to society.” What does this mean, though? And do what extent is it the case? There are a variety of socialist responses. Very few socialist parties or ideologues are calling for the state or community to subsume all the means of production; usually, it applies to the major ones. And if you’re going to condemn that, then you have to condemn Medieval Europe too.

But the social teaching exists and has to be followed.

I would argue that capital punishment is as much a social teaching as socialism is.

Furthermore, just because the pope says something it doesn’t mean it’s always accurate. He quote Pius saying that social welfare “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”. However, where is the proof of this? It may have been true 90 years ago but it doesn’t mean it’s true today. Moreover, some aspects of it might be true but the entire statement might not be.

If I reject Catholic social doctrine - which I don’t - without knowing what it says, I suspect you reject socialism without really knowing a lot about it either. I’d suggest reading some very interesting socialist writers such as R.H. Tawney, William Temple (who was Archbishop of Canterbury), Henri de Saint Simon, Frederick Denison Maurice (a theologian), and G.D.H. Cole.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Unfortunately, many people on the left or right have little respect for Catholic moral teaching. You don’t have to team up with someone because you agree in some respects on economic matters.

 

[MPat]

Okay, if it is easy to find a definition of socialism, please give one that would apply to the various strands of socialism.

As for the “official” quote here from the Socialist International, I’d be wary of just relying on any particular group to represent the whole (especially historically). I mean, would you rely on definitions or precepts drawn from the United Nations to represent the global community?

Okay, I don’t see what is inherently unethical about this,

So, you demand a definition, and, right after that, talk about the one I already gave.

You talk that a definition has to apply to all the branches - and give no example of a branch that does not fit.

And then you try to dismiss that definition by complaining that Socialist International is not good enough to represent Socialists, after which you argue that nothing bad is in that definition…

Given those contradictory approaches, I fail to see any tries to deal with my position honestly and seriously, just “evasive action”.

I would argue that capital punishment is as much a social teaching as socialism is.

Anything to avoid the subject at hand…?

He quote Pius saying that

It may have been true 90 years ago

Um, that was from encyclical of St. John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus”.

It may have been true 90 years ago but it doesn’t mean it’s true today. Moreover, some aspects of it might be true but the entire statement might not be.

So, you have no real answer, just “But maybe that is wrong in some way!”. Well, maybe you are wrong? Maybe all Socialists are wrong?

At the very least obedience to the Pope demands presuming that he is right, unless you can actually make an argument that he is wrong.

However, where is the proof of this?

The proof that Welfare State costs a lot?

Why don’t you investigate several budgets on your own, to show that you are serious?

If I reject Catholic social doctrine - which I don’t - without knowing what it says, I suspect you reject socialism without really knowing a lot about it either.

I see why you want to make such a claim, but, um, I actually pointed out where you were very wrong about what Catholic Social Doctrine teaches (you have failed to guess what the objections to Welfare State are going to be). And it looks like so far you have failed to find a tiniest point where I would be wrong about what Socialists teach.

Also, let’s not forget that you (as it looks) are a Catholic. You have a special duty to know what the Church teaches and to adapt your views to the teachings of the Church.

 

[jonathan_hili]

So, you demand a definition, and, right after that, talk about the one I already gave.

Hi MPat, yes, a definition would be nice. What you gave me wasn’t a definition, it was an aim. It even began with: “Socialism aims…” Plus, as an economic and socio-political system, I’d assume its definition would be more complex than simply a line or two.

And then you try to dismiss that definition by complaining that Socialist International is not good enough to represent Socialists, after which you argue that nothing bad is in that definition…

I didn’t dismiss the “definition” because the Socialist International is not representative of socialism historically, I dismissed it because it’s not a definition. Imagine I defined capitalism as: “Capitalism aims to increased access to individuals on the free market so they are able to possess as much private property as they are able to.” While that might have an aspect or two that applies to capitalism, it’s hardly a sufficient definition of the system.

Um, that was from encyclical of St. John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus”.

Sorry for that, my mistake.

So, you have no real answer, just “But maybe that is wrong in some way!”. Well, maybe you are wrong? Maybe all Socialists are wrong?

I gave you my answer. If the key problem with socialism - the one you cited from JP II - is its inefficiency and effect on the labour force, then I’d like to see evidence for it. I live in Australia where we’ve had social welfare for half a century and what was asserted just isn’t the case. We have a very low unemployment rate, are reasonably productive as a country, and I wouldn’t describe our situation as a “loss of human energies”. I agree that welfare has increased bureaucracy but that’s almost inevitable when the government sets up something. Hospitals and schools increase bureaucracy too.

The proof that Welfare State costs a lot?

Obviously, it cost a lot. So what? The army cost even more - and their job is primarily to kill people! The cost doesn’t mean its unreasonable cost since much of the money is going to support people who are unemployed, sick, etc.

Also, let’s not forget that you (as it looks) are a Catholic. You have a special duty to know what the Church teaches and to adapt your views to the teachings of the Church.

I accept the Church’s teachings on socialism inasmuch as I accept what is rightly negative about aspects of socialism, e.g. abolition of private property, government encompassing all aspects of life, any anti-religious bias, etc. However, since the Church has not spoken clearly on other kinds of socialism, I think there is room for discussion.

But I’d ask you if you likewise follow the Church’s teaching on capital punishment and find it acceptable in the society in which we live?