I am a distrubutist and i am proud of it - Catholic Distrubutism makes me proud of being Catholic!

[ishii]

Perhaps that was a bit out of line. I apologize. Of course there is always honest people, but honesty doesn’t always prevail, especially with the temptation of power and everything else that comes with material wealth. Thats why i imagine that some people, who own profitable business’s, would think that it is not in their best economic interest to vote or give power to any organization or thinking bodies that lean in the direction of socialism or the common good. Wouldn’t you agree that private medical businesses would more likely favor a system that didn’t provide a sufficient public heath system? I could be wrong on that; its just that when i think of Darwinian survival of the fittest evolution and the the current nature of economic society, it see some similarities. When it comes to the evolution of ideas, i imagine that when the desire for material wealth prevails over the common good of human life, certain ideologies will be more popular than others and thus will survive, and some ideas will not survive.

What is your frame of reference for saying these things about business owners or private practitioners? Have you ever met either? Did it ever occur to you that private practitioners, in not favoring socialized medicine do so not because they want to put profits over people, but because they believe that the public health would be better served by a more privatized system? Why automatically conclude that they are mere “darwinian survivalists” ? I think most business owners want people to have the money to pay for the products they produce. Don’t business owners want customers who can return and pay for things? I work for a very wealthy man who eschews quick profits in favor of the long term health of his company. It has survived and even thrived - to the point where now he has to employ thousands. And he pays everyone a living wage. Guess what, some of his best customers are his employees! Definitely a free market success story. This is what happens when you have good men and women running a company. Companies don’t have to rip off people in order to make profits and be successful as you wrongly imply. The pie is not finite, but growing. Its not a zero sum game. The problem with socialism is socialism. The problem with capitalism is capitalists. See the difference? I truly hope you reflect on what that means.

Ishii

 

[Abu]

As is clear, there has been no condemnation of free enterprise similar to the denunciation of socialism because “unbridled capitalism” has never existed in any society or country as a political/economic system like socialism, but in the minds and actions of those people described as “the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors” (Rerum Novarum, # 6).

St Augustine taught that wickedness was not inherent in commerce, that price was a function not simply of the seller’s costs, bit also of the buyer’s wants, and it was up to the individual to live righteously. Politics I, 1254]. Thus legitimacy was acquired by merchants, and the deep involvement of the Church in the birth of free enterprise. [Stephen P Bensch, *Historiography: Medieval European and Mediterranean Slavery 1998, p 231; Cf. Stark, The Victory of Reason, Random House, 2005, p 57,58, 254].

Socialism has been condemned in Encyclicals by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI and its disastrous effects were a major factor in the demise of the Soviet Union.

Leo XIII asserts: “…the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies.” Rerum Novarum, #4]. Similarly John Paul II condemns socialism for precisely this among other errors, in Centesimus Annus, making a frank acknowledgement that socialism has failed on its own terms as witnessed by events in Eastern Europe.

In the social teaching of the Popes in Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI, 1931) you will see:
“72. In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.”

That is why bonuses or allowances for children born into a family and offered by the State continue to be, and now more so than ever due to the birth dearth, a real need for the welfare of a nation. How few governments or even Catholics understand this.

Everything outside of faith and morals is meant to be learned and developed by non-Magisterial Catholics (and others) in the world of living and acting using reason, without exercising "religious authority”. Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

As far as the laws of economics exist, the Popes have warned that:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

 

[Eccela]

Perhaps the Distributist principles which are a corrective to “unbridled capitalism” (which has been condemned by the Holy See – and condemed with “severity”) is beginning to get through.

Unbridled capitalism is an evil. That is, the purest form of Capitalism is condemned by the Church.

The modified form that you presented, which calls for government regulation of the market and government initiatives to protect the family from the evils inherent in unbridled Capitalism, is influenced by Distributist principles.

You haven’t yet acknowledged that capitalism, in its purest, unbridled form, is condemned as an evil by the Church, just as socialism is.

 

[Abu]

Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, The *Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

With particular insight Pope John Paul II clearly shows the appreciation of “the fundamental right of economic initiative” in the economic laws discovered by the Catholic Late Scholastics and the operation of cause and effect in a free economy based on the common good of society. This recognises that unemployment may result from attempts to force wage increases which are unrelated to, or out of sync with, the effects on supply and demand for the goods or services produced by a business or an industry.

With Centesimus Annus the Church has regained the understanding of what Dr Chafuen incisively points out: “The Doctors offered utilitarian arguments to show that goods that are privately owned are better used than commonly owned goods. This explanation offers a budding theory of economic development: the division of goods and their ultimate possession by private individuals facilitates increased production.”

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/how-catholicism-created-capitalism/
How Christianity Created Capitalism
By Michael Novak

The Catholic Church’s role helped jump-start a millennium of impressive economic progress. In AD 1000, there were barely two hundred million people in the world, most of whom were living in desperate poverty, under various tyrannies, and subject to the unchecked ravages of disease and much civic disorder. Economic development has made possible the sustenance now of more than six billion people–at a vastly higher level than one thousand years ago, and with an average lifespan almost three times as long.
The economic historian David Landes, who describes himself as an unbeliever, points out that the main factors in this great economic achievement of Western civilization are mainly religious:
• the joy in discovery that arises from each individual being an imago Dei called to be a creator;
• the religious value attached to hard and good manual work;
• the theological separation of the Creator from the creature, such that nature is subordinated to man, not surrounded with taboos;
• the Jewish and Christian sense of linear, not cyclical, time and, therefore, of progress; and
• respect for the market.
Capitalism Infused with Caritas

Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185 sums up beautifully:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

 

[Betterave]

@Abu,

reggieM said,
“capitalism, in its purest, unbridled form, is condemned as an evil by the Church, just as socialism is.”

you said, “False.”

reggieM then backed up her claim with several quotes that were to the point.

i would have thought that you would have responded by acknowledging that you were wrong and reggieM was right since the quotes she provided make that fact obvious, but instead you just posted some more of your anti-socialism quotes.

what gives? are your opinions impervious to evidence? if so, since such people are not worth talking with, i will make a note of it and add you to my ignore list, so please let me know whether or not you are one of those people who simply can’t be bothered by rational arguments and evidence that contradict your cherished beliefs.

rocinante

I think it’s clear that you, rocinante, are the one who ignored the evidence. Can you see that now? You begged the question as to what capitalism, in its purest, unbridled form, is. You interpreted a reference to “what has been called unbridled capitalism” as a reference to capitalism in its purest form, but unbridled does not mean pure, and the notion of “unbridled capitalism” was qualified with the phrase “what has been called”; so reggieM’s quote is certainly relevant, but still open to an interpretation in Abu’s sense, it seems. There is no talk of the danger of or disaster ensuing from “unbridled socialism” or “what has been called unbridled socialism” - it’s just socialism.

 

[Rocinante]

I think it’s clear that you, rocinante, are the one who ignored the evidence. Can you see that now? You begged the question as to what capitalism, in its purest, unbridled form, is. You interpreted a reference to “what has been called unbridled capitalism” as a reference to capitalism in its purest form, but unbridled does not mean pure, and the notion of “unbridled capitalism” was qualified with the phrase “what has been called”; so reggieM’s quote is certainly relevant, but still open to an interpretation in Abu’s sense, it seems. There is no talk of the danger of or disaster ensuing from “unbridled socialism” or “what has been called unbridled socialism” - it’s just socialism.

you might have point if Abu had actually addressed reggieM’s quotes and talked about the nuances of interpreting “pure” and “unbridled” and “capitalism,” but instead he just did his usual bit of posting a bunch of cold war era quotes in condemnation of socialism.

in fact Apu doesn’t seem at all capable of the sort of understanding of nuance that you read onto him since he has proven himself unable to distinguish between the soviet style totalitarianism that is criticized in his quotes from common sense government interventions such as school lunch programs for poor children, health care programs for the elderly, and government funding of homeless shelters.

it’s all just evil socialism and hitler mustaches on obama posters and tea parties with him.

 

[Betterave]

you might have point if Abu had actually addressed reggieM’s quotes and talked about the nuances of interpreting “pure” and “unbridled” and “capitalism,” but instead he just did his usual bit of posting a bunch of cold war era quotes in condemnation of socialism.

in fact Apu doesn’t seem at all capable of the sort of understanding of nuance that you read onto him since he has proven himself unable to distinguish between the soviet style totalitarianism that is criticized in his quotes from common sense government interventions such as school lunch programs for poor children, health care programs for the elderly, and government funding of homeless shelters.

it’s all just evil socialism and hitler mustaches on obama posters and tea parties with him.

that’s not the impression I’ve gotten, but I’ll let him reply to this if he wants to.

 

[JDaniel]

Perhaps that was a bit out of line. I apologize. Of course there is always honest people, but honesty doesn’t always prevail, especially with the temptation of power and everything else that comes with material wealth.

MoM:

What each of us must always keep in mind, is that the media lives on travail only. It does not live on the good things business and businessmen do as that would be too bland. So, it seems that there’s nothing but evil capitalists as far as the eye can see. I am not sure exactly how many businesses currently exist, in the US, but, not too many years ago the total was about 5,500,000 to 6,000,000. That figure did not include 1099 businesses, only businesses with multiple employees.

In general, the vast majority of those businesses (those with employees) treated their employees fairly and with due respect. Occasionally, some did not. But, to read, or watch, the news, one would come to opinion that almost all of them treated their employees unfairly. If that were the case, there would not be enough newspaper pages to expose them all.

Just as there are occasionally bad Priests, there are occasionally bad businessmen or businesswomen. If you speak to almost any historian, when asked about how blacks were treated by white slave owners, you will lean that, in general, they were well treated. I don’t want to get into the controversy of the morality of slavery. I think slavery is grossly immoral. But, slave owners knew quite well that if you mistreat anything, even a farm animal, you are not going to get the best performance from them. There were particular industries that were somewhat notoriously harsh toward their slaves, such as the mining industry, but again, in general, most slave owners were decent people. One can’t - and shouldn’t - condemn business owners any more than one can’t, and shouldn’t condemn, slave owners, or Priests. It was a mere few - in the greater scheme of things.

Now, if I come to you with a business proposition, and ask to borrow a sizable sum of money to start a business, you’re going to demand some security, as well as a fair return on your investment. Most startup businesses have no security to put up. So, the lender must be enticed some other way. They may be enticed with significant ROI’s (returns on investments). Such lenders often have others they must secure (protect) and entice as well, such as family (trusts, etc.), their own direct employees, partners, cooperatives, etc.

Thats why i imagine that some people, who own profitable business’s, would think that it is not in their best economic interest to vote or give power to any organization or thinking bodies that lean in the direction of socialism or the common good.

Of course not. Such a move would cause a complete abandonment of their commitments and obligations to their employees, lenders, stockholders and partners. It would potentially put the management of good people into the hands of amateurs. Socialism causes and extends misery wherever it has existed.

Wouldn’t you agree that private medical businesses would more likely favor a system that didn’t provide a sufficient public heath system?

I’m not sure I would use the word, “sufficient,” here. When one is in the medical profession, one accepts that, from time to time, uncompensated work will be performed. That is all well and good, except that the suppliers of medical products and technology to that professional must charge money for their technology and supplies. Nothing is free. Yet, the medical profession performs a lot of pro bono work. And, eats the cost.

I could be wrong on that; its just that when i think of Darwinian survival of the fittest evolution and the the current nature of economic society, it see some similarities. When it comes to the evolution of ideas, i imagine that when the desire for material wealth prevails over the common good of human life, certain ideologies will be more popular than others and thus will survive, and some ideas will not survive.

It is not that the ideas don’t survive, it is that, in practice, the concept of socialism is a broken concept. America has the best medical system in the world. Why do you think that is? I lived in Spain, for a time. When I was there, all of us made sure that should something serious happen to any of us, we were to be sent back to America as soon as practicable.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There were particular industries that were somewhat notoriously harsh toward their slaves, such as the mining industry, but again, in general, most slave owners were decent people.jd

I was not aware that it was decent to own a slave.

One can’t - and shouldn’t - condemn business owners any more than one can’t, and shouldn’t condemn, slave owners, or Priests. It was a mere few - in the greater scheme of things.jd

I will condemn slave owners and anybody who promotes it.

Of course not. Such a move would cause a complete abandonment of their commitments and obligations to their employees, lenders, stockholders and partners. It would potentially put the management of good people into the hands of amateurs. Socialism causes and extends misery wherever it has existed.jd

It is a common error to think that just because socialism is condemned that therefore all the concepts which comprise socialism or appear to go in the direction of socialism is also condemned; and that therefore liberal capitalism, profit before peoples needs, is justified. Pure socialism, as a system, is in error to be sure, but it was advocated as a response to a real economic situation that is contrary to the dignity and value of human beings. That some benefited materially from liberal capitalism, is not itself a justification, since extreme wealth is not the sufficient end of morality. Perhaps at one time liberal capitalism, profit before peoples needs, was a necessary evil; but in times where food and other products are mass produced and a lot is wasted, i don’t see it as an acceptable evil anymore because the limits that justified it are nolonger apparent.

State Socialism as a solution to those evils is not theologically valid because it also supports views that are contrary to the dignity of human beings, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a serious problem economically, and it is a problem that capitalism alone cannot solve regardless of any success it may have achieved thus far. Situations where, “In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%; On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.” is not reasonable if we believe that people have an intrinsic value.

****Edit; Mistake on my part. ****

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth.

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]

I’m not sure I would use the word, “sufficient,” here. When one is in the medical profession, one accepts that, from time to time, uncompensated work will be performed. That is all well and good, except that the suppliers of medical products and technology to that professional must charge money for their technology and supplies. Nothing is free. Yet, the medical profession performs a lot of pro bono work. And, eats the cost.jd

You live in a society where humans materially benefit from illness. Thats the exploitation of the sick. “if you want to live, pay me!!”

America has the best medical system in the world. Why do you think that is?jd

What it tells me is that the attitude in America is simply this, “i am only willing to fund the saving of peoples lives to a sufficient degree if it means big business for me”

A review of Cubas health service provides a clear contradiction.

 

[Abu]

Rocinante
distinguish between the soviet style totalitarianism that is criticized in his quotes from common sense government interventions such as school lunch programs for poor children, health care programs for the elderly, and government funding of homeless shelters.

The persistent confusion of political systems (totalitarianism) with the economic effects of the political/economic system of socialism bedevils many like Rocinante.

There is no need for this intrinsic confusion. The Church condemns socialism outright, and its failure as an economic system is intrinsic to it, as history testifies. The Church has now seen the intrinsic worth of free enterprise.

With a modicum of attention all have seen in post #130:
The Welfare State is condemned.
From Centesimus Annus , 48, John Paul II, 1991:
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare 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.”

In the social teaching of the Popes in Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI, 1931) all have seen in post #161:
“72. In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.”

That is why bonuses or allowances for children born into a family and offered by the State continue to be, and now more so than ever due to the birth dearth, a real need for the welfare of a nation. How few governments or even Catholics understand this.

On Caritas in Veritate Fr John De Celles points out that the Pope clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also, not only does the encyclical not even once use the world “capitalism”, but it does refer repeatedly to the “market economy,” a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is “the path to true economic and civil progress.” See Centesimus Annus, 42. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth. It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.”
Fr De Celles: “….the Pope writes specifically of the need for the “redistribution of wealth,” which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an “effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by “wealth redistribution” is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42]. No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation…… This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: ‘the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.’ Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.”
[catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102]](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102])

it’s all just evil socialism and hitler mustaches on obama posters and tea parties

What an irrelevant comment! This illustrates the savage disconnect from the reality of the discussion of Catholic developed free enterprise as the best economic system in keeping with human nature, and the infatuation with a partisan political attitude of trying to discredit economic facts with political hype.

 

[Abu]

MindOverMatter2
Pure socialism, as a system, is in error to be sure, but it was advocated as a response to a real economic situation that is contrary to the dignity and value of human beings.
there is a serious problem economically, and it is a problem that capitalism alone cannot solve regardless of any success it may have achieved thus far

At last some realization of the evils of socialism however, Catholic free enterprise has achieved enormous success, and it was the dignity and value of human beings that created that development:
conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/how-catholicism-created-capitalism/
How Christianity Created Capitalism, Michael Novak
“The Catholic Church’s role helped jump-start a millennium of impressive economic progress. In AD 1000, there were barely two hundred million people in the world, most of whom were living in desperate poverty, under various tyrannies, and subject to the unchecked ravages of disease and much civic disorder. Economic development has made possible the sustenance now of more than six billion people–at a vastly higher level than one thousand years ago, and with an average lifespan almost three times as long.”

The serious problem economically is the emasculation of free enterprise by government intervention into the economic laws which are the warp and woof of its success, based on false economic theories and a penchant for government to control. Many examples have been given of the devastating effects of such finagling.

The serious cultural and moral problems in society are due to relativism, selfism and a disregard for the prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance which our human nature requires for a humane society which has to start with the individual and the family.