Economic Systems: Capitalism and Communism

[AlsoRan]

To me, an economic system supported by the beliefs of the Catholic Church is an economic system that cannot exit in realty.

The reason it cannot exist is in every respect the Church holds to an ideal. That ideal is a benchmark, but it can never exist in reality. It can never exist in reality any economic system is dependent on humans, and humans will never establish and economic system the Catholic Church could support entirely - communist or capitalist.

There are ways in which Communism conflicts with what God asks of us. There are ways in which Capitalism conflicts with what God asks of us.

It it not the business of the Catholic Church to endorse or refute political or economic ideologies. It the business of the Catholic Church to keep God visible in the world.

Communism produces injustice. So does capitalism. Lets not fool ourselves the Catholic Church should favor either.

 

[MPat]

Plus, as an economic and socio-political system, I’d assume its definition would be more complex than simply a line or two.

No, its full description would be more complex. And it is.

But if the definition is long and complex, it is not describing how we know something belongs to the group.

For example, the definition of “fascism” by listing policies is notoriously long and unclear. Which is how we know that “fascism” is to be defined differently, by an examplar: “Fascism is a group of ideologies similar to the ideology of Mussolini.”.

What you gave me wasn’t a definition, it was an aim.

Well, there is not much to choose from. Means cannot go to the definition, for different branches of Socialism like very different means. Minor policy positions are ruled out, for you would need too many of them. While “Marxism-Leninism” might count as an examplar, you yourself claim it is too dissimilar from some exotic branches. Nor can we use historical origins, for “Utopian Socialism” existed before Marx.

So, we define Socialism by aim.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Socialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2019 Edition)) defines Socialism in the similar way:

In contrast to capitalism, socialism can be defined as a type of society in which, at a minimum, (i) is turned into (i*):
(i*) The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.

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.

It is not the problem he is talking about.

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”.

What he meant by “loss of human energies” has nothing to do with unemployment rate.

He meant that when government takes more care of the poor, private individuals do less.

He means that you, as a private individual, are likely to make less effort to help your unemployed neighbour, if you know that government already pays him.

And that is bad for you, for him, for the whole neighbourhood. Among other disadvantages, gratitude and friendships are lost. Just imagine how the story in Book of Ruth would have changed, if Ruth and Naomi would have received government assistance!

I agree that welfare has increased bureaucracy but that’s almost inevitable when the government sets up something.

Obviously, it cost a lot.

So, now we see that all problems that were identified in that sentence (once you understand what it says) are actually obvious, even trivially true.

 

[jonathan_hili]

For example, the definition of “fascism” by listing policies is notoriously long and unclear. Which is how we know that “fascism” is to be defined differently, by an examplar: “Fascism is a group of ideologies similar to the ideology of Mussolini.”.

I don’t know about this way of forming definitions. It seems circular. If you define “fascism” as: “Fascism is a group of ideologies similar to the ideology of Mussolini”, you then need to define the ideology of Mussolini, which is “fascist”. So, it seems a rather merry-go-round series of definitions.

So, we define Socialism by aim.

But that’s a terrible way of defining something. Imagine we defined Catholicism by: “The religious system that aims to get people into a saving relationship with Christ for eternity.” How do you differentiate that from Orthodoxy or various other kinds of Protestant Christianity? That’s why I proposed, as coming to something of a definition, that one needs to find out the properties common to various socialist ideologies to reach something of a “common consensus”.

You noted part of a definition as: “The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.” I agree with this as a necessary property of socialism.

He means that you, as a private individual, are likely to make less effort to help your unemployed neighbour, if you know that government already pays him.

And that is bad for you, for him, for the whole neighbourhood. Among other disadvantages, gratitude and friendships are lost. Just imagine how the story in Book of Ruth would have changed, if Ruth and Naomi would have received government assistance!

But where is the empirical evidence to substantiate that claim? I mean, if we look at the list of countries that give to charity, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, the Netherlands and Canada are all in the top 11 and they have forms of social welfare. And just from personal experience, I know lots of people inside and outside my Church community who give generously of their time and wealth to charities.

So, now we see that all problems that were identified in that sentence (once you understand what it says) are actually obvious, even trivially true.

But just because something cost a lot of money and involves government bureaucracies, it doesn’t mean it’s not worth instituting. Practically everything instituted by the government (e.g. involving education, health care, the military, etc.) cost a lot of money and is bureaucratic.

 

[MPat]

But that’s a terrible way of defining something. Imagine we defined Catholicism by:

But we are not defining Catholicism.

So, once again you have no legitimate, honest objections. You can’t find anything that would be misclassified by it.

Such definition is endorsed by Popes, by Socialist International, by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

And let’s face it: the real reason why you do not like it is because it is precisely that which has been definitely condemned by the Church.

And you want to evade that condemnation without having to obey, to renounce Socialism completely and without looking back.

Not a wise choice.

But where is the empirical evidence to substantiate that claim? I mean, if we look at the list of countries that give to charity, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, the Netherlands and Canada are all in the top 11 and they have forms of social welfare.

As opposed to what countries?

How many countries not being Welfare States can you list?

You know, this part does not work unless you can get a fair comparison.

Not to mention that in Article 12 of Australia’s “Charities Act 2013” I see “charitable purposes” including “(e) the purpose of advancing culture;” or “(f) the purpose of promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance between groups of individuals that are in Australia;”. That is not equivalent to helping poor neighbours.

And just from personal experience, I know lots of people inside and outside my Church community who give generously of their time and wealth to charities.

And you personally…?

How much effort did you do to help poor, old, weak neighbours during this pandemic? How much did you donate so that others would be able to help?

And the point to which those questions lead: don’t you think you would have tried harder, if you knew government is not going to help?

Are you really going to claim that everyone makes just as much effort to help the poor, as they would, if government would do nothing?

So, after this torrent of contradictory excuses, we can conclude that that is just a smokescreen.

You are know enough about Social Doctrine of the Church to understand that Church condemns Socialism, including the branch you belong to.

You do not know why Church made this decision, and seem to be unwilling to learn that. Nor do you seem to accept that Church knows better than you.

Therefore, there has to be a real reason (or reasons) why you became a Socialist, and stay one.

And we probably have to discover it before we can help you drop Socialism.

For the first probing question I’d like to ask if there are many Socialists in your social circle?

 

[AlbMagno]

Aside from the Mccarthyist tone of your post, close to a witch hunt argument; by your logic, the Church should stop doing charity so that the individual can try harder! That doesn’t make much sense.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Such definition is endorsed by Popes, by Socialist International, by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

But you’ve just mentioned one aspect of socialism as your definition, i.e., that communal ownership of the major means of production. I agree that’s part of a definition but is insufficient in itself.

And let’s face it: the real reason why you do not like it is because it is precisely that which has been definitely condemned by the Church.

Of course not, that’s silly. I am a very devout Catholic but also open-minded enough to know that what the Church is condemning is clearly Marxist socialism. The reason I have for this is quite simple: that no aspects of other kinds of socialism have been raised or condemned. It’s similar to Trent Horn’s new book. In it, he really only deals with Marxist socialism and doesn’t touch upon the dozen or so varieties of socialism out there.

How many countries not being Welfare States can you list?

There are plenty. The US doesn’t really have a welfare state, neither do most countries in Africa or Asia.

Not to mention that in Article 12 of Australia’s “Charities Act 2013” I see “charitable purposes” including “(e) the purpose of advancing culture;” or “(f) the purpose of promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance between groups of individuals that are in Australia;”. That is not equivalent to helping poor neighbours.

They are part of what is considered charitable giving, sure. I just cited that as an example, frankly because I don’t see any empirical evidence to justify the claim that a welfare state makes citizens less likely to give to charity. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

How much effort did you do to help poor, old, weak neighbours during this pandemic? How much did you donate so that others would be able to help?

Are you really going to claim that everyone makes just as much effort to help the poor, as they would, if government would do nothing?

I have no idea. These are just suppositions. I mean, people can respond differently. I guess I could turn the question back onto you: Don’t you want the government helping people? Would you rather people starve or go sick if the government wasn’t there to help them?

As Catholics, we know things don’t have to be either/or; rather we can have the both the government help people and us individually help people too.

Therefore, there has to be a real reason (or reasons) why you became a Socialist, and stay one.

For the first probing question I’d like to ask if there are many Socialists in your social circle?

These are incredible assumptions! Where did I say I’m a socialist? I’m neither a socialist nor a capitalist: I’m a Catholic and a thinking human being who realises there are good and bad things about different political and economic perspectives.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I have to agree. I find that closed-minded approach very disturbing. It’s as if there is only one way to be a true Catholic.

I also find it odd (is it an American thing?) how much fear and hatred there is of government involvement in social life, such as in welfare. Isn’t it better that the government is helping people rather than them starving on the street?

 

[pmitch72402]

It is an American thing indeed. The idea is that if we allow the government to try to solve our individual problems, those that wish to seize power for their own benefit will take advantage of the wants and needs of the people by offering them welfare in exchange for political power. It’s this exact cycle of aid to the poor in exchange for power that led the founding fathers to limit the role of government via checks and balances and the constitution. The government was made to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nothing more.

 

[pmitch72402]

This eventually leads to the government system seen in books like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984. I think Brave New World more accurately displays in what direction the U.S. is going in while 1984 more closely resembles the path of countries like China.

 

[Theo520]

Admittedly, correlation is not causation.​

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

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I know this is a joke, but in my experience the opposite tends to be true. I would consider myself to be a communist (though in practice that no longer means anything besides that I read certain books honestly) and I think I am reasonably well-read on history. Whenever the subject gets brought up by anti-communists, however, generally all they do is quote a “number of deaths caused by communism” from the Black Book of Communism or something (which I am often sure they haven’t read). There often isn’t any knowledge of the specifics, just an idea that “communism has killed millions.”

 

[MPat]

These are incredible assumptions! Where did I say I’m a socialist? I’m neither a socialist nor a capitalist: I’m a Catholic and a thinking human being

Such a short fragment, and yet so much hiding in it!

First, as you should know, in “Marxese” the word “capitalist” refers to the rich who own means of production. It is not opposed to “socialist”.

Second, why such an outburst? Assuming you believe all you claimed in this thread, why should you think calling you a socialist is anywhere close to an insult? In fact, haven’t you put yourself in position where it would be inconsistent for you not to be a socialist?

Third, isn’t it interesting that you apply adjectives “thinking”, “devout”, “open-minded” to yourself? Those other ones are from here:

I am a very devout Catholic but also open-minded enough to know that what the Church is condemning is clearly Marxist socialism.

Let’s think what adjectives where left out. Well, “orthodox”, “faithful”, “obedient” were left out… I wonder why…

Also, what does “thinking” or “open-minded” means in such a context? We are talking about things of faith… Is it that you take upon yourself to judge the clear and consistent teaching of the Church, as if you knew better?

And, as we see, you consistently fail to explain the teaching of Church correctly. From that it is manifest that you reject the teaching of Church without understanding it.

Not that I am all that sure that you have much understanding of Socialist doctrines…

I also find it odd (is it an American thing?) how much fear and hatred there is of government involvement in social life, such as in welfare.

And yet, I am not an American.

I have no idea. These are just suppositions.

Or, in other words, you do have an idea.

You know, you really should take some time to think things through… Your answers are full of self-contradictions.

There are plenty. The US doesn’t really have a welfare state,

If you say so.

Isn’t it uncomfortable to your position that it just so happens to be the country with the most charitable donations?

by your logic, the Church should stop doing charity so that the individual can try harder!

The Church does not provide charity in competition with individuals. “Church doing charity” is “individuals doing charity”. It is easy and natural to be grateful to those individuals.

But it is not easy and natural to be grateful to a bureaucrat assigning some money to be payed.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Regular Atheist, I wouldn’t consider myself a communist or a strict socialist - but have leanings in some ways towards socialism - but I too find that communists in my experience are quite well-read on history. The issue with reading history isn’t knowing it, it’s interpreting it; some communists, just like some Catholics or whatever-ideological-persuasion, tend to colour history, excuse the bad and only accept the good.

I’m not a big fan of most communist regimes (at least those I’m very familiar with). Soviet Russia is a great example of a state that was under no illusions to the suffering and death it would cause to establish communism (even veering away from the traditional Marxist line). Mao’s China is very similar. For all the good qualities of socialism (and communism, to some degree), these regimes most definitely tarnish the name.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Second, why such an outburst? Assuming you believe all you claimed in this thread, why should you think calling you a socialist is anywhere close to an insult? In fact, haven’t you put yourself in position where it would be inconsistent for you not to be a socialist?

Hi MPat, it’s not about being an insult, it’s that you are beginning to respond to my points by addressing what you perceive to be reasons why I am making them rather than addressing the points themselves (the genetic fallacy). E.g. in your previous post you said: “…there has to be a real reason (or reasons) why you became a Socialist, and say one”, as a way of excusing part of my argument.

Third, isn’t it interesting that you apply adjectives “thinking”, “devout”, “open-minded” to yourself? Those other ones are from here.

Sure, because I consider myself to be so.

Let’s think what adjectives where left out. Well, “orthodox”, “faithful”, “obedient” were left out… I wonder why…

Wow! Again, your judgement knows no bounds! We’ve just had a brief exchange, discussing an issue of Church social teaching, and from it you’ve gleaned that I’m unorthodox, unfaithful and disobedient to the Catholic Church. Bravo!

I guess I’ll ask you again whether you adhere to the Church’s teaching regarding the unnecessary use of capital punishment in society today?

Also, what does “thinking” or “open-minded” means in such a context? We are talking about things of faith… Is it that you take upon yourself to judge the clear and consistent teaching of the Church, as if you knew better?

They aren’t things of faith. Things of faith are about Christ, the sacraments, etc. This is about social teaching and/or how to apply and interpret different economic systems. There needs to be space to critically discuss these issues or else we end up making the Catholic Church a party-Church or an economic-Church. Rather, she is free of these things and beyond them.

If you say so.
Isn’t it uncomfortable to your position that it just so happens to be the country with the most charitable donations?

Not especially because it is such a rich country with such a high percentage of incredibly wealthy people. But, again, if you look at the stats, it is the highest - for sure - but many of the others do have a welfare system.

Anyway, I really don’t see much value to continuing this conversation. It’s becoming more mud-slinging on both our parts rather than a real discussion of the values of socialism, and that kind of behaviour is unbecoming a Catholic. Thanks for the discussion, MPat.

 

[Theo520]

I know this is a joke, but in my experience the opposite tends to be true. I would consider myself to be a communist (though in practice that no longer means anything besides that I read certain books honestly) and I think I am reasonably well-read on history.

Yes it’s a joke, but there is something to the satire. I would expect many ‘communists’ to be highly educated, which included history. Maybe the issue is that they are too highly educated and frankly are lacking some common sense.

It’s a big clue that communism has never worked for long and only gave improvement when it was replacing a war situation (China) or extreme totalitarian govt (Russia).

I appreciate the ideals of communism but you can’t force people to be different than our innate nature from the top down. The only proven way of changing our innate self interest (IMHO) is through the growth of self reflection that comes primarily with religion. But this growth must be a personal battle. Top down “struggle sessions” give the appearance of change, but not the tangible benefits (China).

 

[MPat]

Wow! Again, your judgement knows no bounds! We’ve just had a brief exchange, discussing an issue of Church social teaching, and from it you’ve gleaned that I’m unorthodox, unfaithful and disobedient to the Catholic Church. Bravo!

You might note that I did not actually write so.

I found it strange that you chose to describe yourself as a good Catholic, as if to reassure me, and, in that, used labels that are not all that reassuring, and not very relevant.

Hi MPat, it’s not about being an insult, it’s that you are beginning to respond to my points by addressing what you perceive to be reasons why I am making them rather than addressing the points themselves (the genetic fallacy). E.g. in your previous post you said: “…there has to be a real reason (or reasons) why you became a Socialist, and say one”, as a way of excusing part of my argument.

And I have pointed out why I think that is entirely justified.

You did not address those reasons, just threw out that outburst.

I guess I’ll ask you again whether you adhere to the Church’s teaching regarding the unnecessary use of capital punishment in society today?

Yes you did that before.

That is also a hint that something is not right.

For let’s say that I answer in the way you seem to expect. What would that change? How would that help you? How would that excuse you? It wouldn’t.

Now, what is the answer? Actually, it is pretty boring (I was trying to give it earlier, but the character limit got in the way).

Capital punishment was abolished in Lithuania more than 20 years ago. It is not a significant political question at the moment.

The Church clearly teaches that capital punishment is legitimate in principle, and I affirm it. The Church teaches that we should not be overly enthusiastic in applying capital punishment, and I affirm it. The Pope has indicated that he does not want us to work towards establishment of capital punishment, and I do not work towards that (not that it is hard to do).

I am not entirely sure about the power of that last part (or, for that matter, about its real content), but reference to the time seems to indicate that it is not a doctrine, a principle one has to affirm, but a command or a piece of advice. Something one is supposed to obey or to take into account, not something one is supposed to affirm.

And in that it differs from rejection of all kinds of Socialism, which does not refer to any time.

Anyway, I really don’t see much value to continuing this conversation.

As you wish.

 

[AlsoRan]

The Catechsim of the Catholic Church does not speak out against either pure communism or pure capitalism. The Church w

The Catechism speaks out against both pure Communism and pure Capitalism (the free market nature of it). What are the main issues with these two economic systems in the eyes of the Catholic Church? And what would an economic system look like that was supported by the beliefs of the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church was not established to endorse either communism or capitalism. It was not established for the purpose of endorsing any political or economic system.
Anyone who says it was established for such a purpose needs to think again.

 

[pmitch72402]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 2425 “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism.’ She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of ‘capitalism,’ individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for ‘there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.’ Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”

 

[arvo]

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…

I know that to seed and spark (yes it is exactly so - we will not machinate or make AI, we will develop in silico system seeded with the current intelligence that futher itself is learning and gaining power) AI/AGI is not so easy, I am far beyond python, keras or whatever. There is lot of hot stuff going here, including neuro-symboli computing, universal problems solving, grammar induction, lot of hot stuff. Lot on investors and career scientists are assuming that AGI can be achieved practically, they are literally betting their life and money on it. So, that is the reason why I think that AGI can be achieved and it will change everything. I myself know this stuff and my reasonable judgement (based on what I see on the frontiers of Science) is that AGI will be achieved in this or next one-two years, there is so little to be done. Actually - it is more about fine tuning and the invention and implementation of the main tools, they are already here. My approach is to use complex systems research and automated complex systems research and mathematical models or artificial consciousness (e.g. Entropy | Special Issue : Models of Consciousness) to tune the complex of existing AI systems and approaches into AGI.

 

[arvo]

Each year the technology changes the world and mindset of the people, generate more insights. The Cathechism is the fruit of its times of creating and it speaks from the position of the technologies of its times, exactly as the Bible speaks from the its times. We should try to find the true meaning for our own ties and some in the Church are not rigid renegates of that past but is open to the future within limits of their competencies and knowledge, e.g. http://www.academyforlife.va/conten...ALL 28 febbraio/Catholic Church_AI_Nature.pdf stills make the mind-machine dichotomy assumption and neglects the emergence of artificial consciousness and Dignity and the Future of Work in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution still is trying to neglect the human value of the work and the true meaning of the work which is value creation and the judgment of this value by the market forces, i.e. by other human beings.

I repeat again - Marx predicted that there will be people that will not wait for the technologies to be ripe for the socio-economic phase transition to happen naturally, there will be people that will try to introduce socialism and communism artificially by the force. And USSR and its sattelites did exactly by the force and China did. That was not true socialism, not true Marxism. That was Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, but not he communism. And current socialists are repeating these arrors again.

Every foced, artificial path to socialism is doomed. Socialism can not be built but the consensus, elections or by the force. Socialism emerges naturally when the technologies are so mature that the capitalism system can not function anymore, that is the true Marxism and historical materialism and nothing else. Transhumanists and technoutopians are the most close to this idea although they are not identifing themselves with Marxism. I expect techno-communists to emerge, but still have to wait.