If Communism had the atheistic elements of it removed, would the Church approve of it?

[MartyrForJesus]

Just wondering.

Thanks.

 

[edward_george]

I’m not so sure you could divorce Communism from its atheistic elements, and if you did you’d no longer have a meaningful philosophical system. It is based in principle on atheism, and so to remove that is to remove something very much core to it. It’s not so much that a “theistic Communism” would be in principle acceptable, it’s just that making Communism non-atheistic would void enough of Communism that there’d be nothing left.

Now, if you get down to brass tacks, there have been attempts to meld Marxism and Christianity in the form of the liberationist theologies of more recent times. The Church has never found these to be acceptable, for they take the already unacceptable Marxist ideals and couch them in the language of the Gospel (and vice versa, as they attempt to portray Jesus as some kind of revolutionary ideologue); this kind of thinking runs counter to the Church because it reduces salvation to deliverance from oppressive social structures and says that sin exists as a largely societal reality. This ignores the truth, that Jesus did not come for the sake of ideology, he came to save all of us from our sins; he did not come to liberate us from some worldly oppressor, but to liberate us from the slavery of sin and the devil.

-ACEGC

 

[SonCatcher]

It’s really irrelevant. Communism is based on force, not choice. Contrast that with consecrated religious. Similar to communism, they share everything in common. No one owns anything. Everyone enjoys the use of what is owned in common. However, they have freely chosen to live that way.

The Church adamantly stands by the necessity of each individual choosing his own way of living in community.

 

[austenbosten]

I’ll get back to you Martyr with a more in-depth study once I finish reading The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.

However I think a lot of people think that Jesus would be a Socialist because the basis of Socialism in the frame of Marxism is to take the wealth from all and distribute it evenly amongst all the people “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” In the New Testament one could read these verses and see a call to a Socialist utopia.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:44-45[/BIBLEDRB]

and

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 4:34-37[/BIBLEDRB]

Sounds a lot like a Marxist utopia,

However take heed of the words of Christ himself at the Sermon on the Mount

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:1-4.[/BIBLEDRB]

Now here we are told to be charitable in private, but how do we do so if we all publicly declare what “good” people we are because we as a Socialist nation care more for our poor than the “evil” Capitalist swine. Which is what a Socialist nation prides itself on…if it didn’t pride itself in being “fair” and “equal” there would be no argument for it.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:25-33[/BIBLEDRB]

Interesting…what does Jesus say about this? When we hunger who do we turn to? Well God of course, but if we live in a society where the State provides all then we do not turn to God, we turn to the state. I had an ex-Communist friend and we would joke about the old Stalinist trick of bringing in the children and asking them to pray for candy and when nothing happened the teachers would ask them to pray to Stalin for candy and of course some dudes would dump candy from the ceiling vents and the teachers say “God can’t do anything but Stalin can make candy rain from the sky”…sick joke but effective at brainwashing. So hence this is the problem with Marxism…it teaches you to worship the State for provisions instead of God.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 3:11[/BIBLEDRB]

The key word is give ie meaning YOU not some bureaucrat who takes it from you to give to others. It’s about as meaningful as having someone else give your confession to the priest and going to Mass on your behalf…Jesus wants you to get off your fat, lazy behind and do it yourself.

Either way to see if Marxism is Christ centred, just look at how Marxism (Communism, Stalinism, Maoism, National Socialism, Fascism) treated God’s Chosen People the Jews in the 20th century. Look at how it treated Catholics and pious observant Christians such as the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or how Russian Socialism treated Christians like Veniamin (executed by firing squad) and Andronic Nikolsky (buried alive) and Jews whom made up 30% of the Soviet population, only to join their fellow “comrades” in death…all estimated 61 million of them.

All forms of Marxism (Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism) are pure evil…plain and simple and every pious Christian should root this evil out with righteous indignation!

I apologize if I was too heavy on words, brashness, and Scripture…it’s the Lutheran coming out in me. Sola Scriptura and a half-drunken, sauerkraut-farting German attitude to things

 

[tonyrey]

There are various forms of Communism:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” Acts 4.32

Communism based on dialectical materialism is necessarily atheistic and incompatible with Christianity.

 

[carn]

Just wondering.

Thanks.

If all property could be taken from its owners without violating Gods commandments, there would be no problem with a theistic “communism”.
But the mildest plans aiming for communism involves raising gun- and prison-enforced taxes considerably to redistribute wealth, in the hope that this does not reduce overall wealth and does not cause too many people to emigrate to less communistic countries.

 

[edward_george]

The overall problem with Communism, as everyone has pointed out, is that at bottom it is the forced redistribution of goods. Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, shows why this is wrong by defending a natural right to own property as essential to the good of the family and thus the good of the state. I would say that if you have a sort of “voluntary communism” that some people here propose, it would cease to be communism–at that point it is little more than charitably and humbly sharing one’s goods; charity must be done willingly. Remove the force from Communism, and it ceases to be Communism.

-ACEGC

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Just wondering.

Thanks.

Jesus said, “give unto Caesar what is unto Caesar”.

In so doing, Jesus acknowledges that the state has authority to make demands of its subjects (such as paying taxes, enforcing laws). Catholicism is not a political system. Neither does it does not seek to prescribe any political system. It thus does not actually approve of any political system but it may accept the legitimacy of a range of political systems with which it has baseline compatibility.That is not the same as endorsing them.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The overall problem with Communism, as everyone has pointed out, is that at bottom it is the forced redistribution of goods. Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, shows why this is wrong by defending a natural right to own property as essential to the good of the family and thus the good of the state. I would say that if you have a sort of “voluntary communism” that some people here propose, it would cease to be communism–at that point it is little more than charitably and humbly sharing one’s goods; charity must be done willingly. Remove the force from Communism, and it ceases to be Communism.

-ACEGC

The only flaw that Socialist/Marxism seems to have is the fact that it ignores the natural right to own something, and it is from this point that things go down hill.

However we have to be careful to remember that nobody has an absolute right to property. In cases where the ownership of property is the cause of poverty and social evil, what is taking place in that event is not a natural right but rather is a form of theft cunningly disguise as the right to ownership. In which case the redistribution of goods in that context would not be wrong, since you would be taking back what rightly belongs to the good of the community. This could happen in the form very high taxes to large businesses, or it could happen in the form of a revolution; and there is such a thing as a Just-Revolution. Also the redistribution of the means to production, is not wrong in cases where giant corporations have bought up all productive usages to such an extent that a large populous of people don’t own anything. This is also a form a theft when the right to private property extends to the point where only a small minority of people own the means to production and thus have absolute control over the needs other people. In this case people become wage slaves and are subject to economic abuse. Competition can evidently become a great moral evil, which people have a moral right to fight.

You only have a right to private property in so far as your doing so is not at the expense of the material good of the larger community. You desire for material good ought never out weigh the material good of larger society, since it is upon that foundation in the first place that you able to produce goods. A virtuous form of private ownership, in the sense “business”, is when your ownership of production is actually contributing to the material good of the community, rather than simply taking away from the material good of the community and abusing the material dignity of workers. In other-words, the right to ownership is not a right to ignore the social good. And when the courts of so called justice keep failing to protect the people against the possible indignities of material competition, there will come a point when people will have no choice but to take physical measures to protect the material dignity of the community when the balance of the individuals good and the social good is abominably uneven. All slavery is wrong, including economic slavery.

Whether Marxism is flawed or not, it was addressing real social evils that freely trampled the earth underfoot in the disguise of the right to private property; and it perceived the church as protecting and sanctifying that evil because the proper religious authorities failed to make a distinction between the right to property and the absolute right to property. And they failed to do so probably because many of them blindly supported unbridled capitalism. Thus the leaders of the Catholic church in that time are somewhat to blame for the negative image that is now smeared all over the church; the idea that the church supports oppression, poverty, and the rich at the expenses of the poor.

Even now, there is such an over emphasizing of the right to private property and the evils of socialism in official documents to such an extent that you would be easily fooled in to thinking that the Church supports the absolute right to property without exception; unless of course you dig more deeply into the issue to find the “small print”, and are aware of the context in which these things are stated.

Its quite sad actually, but not surprising given that the devil seeks to turn sensible people away from the faith.

 

[tonyrey]

The overall problem with Communism, as everyone has pointed out, is that at bottom it is the forced redistribution of goods. Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, shows why this is wrong by defending a natural right to own property as essential to the good of the family and thus the good of the state. I would say that if you have a sort of “voluntary communism” that some people here propose, it would cease to be communism–at that point it is little more than charitably and humbly sharing one’s goods; charity must be done willingly. Remove the force from Communism, and it ceases to be Communism.

-ACEGC

Where there is gross inequality resulting in extreme poverty and needless hardship the government of a State has a moral obligation to legislate for the redistribution of income and wealth.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Where there is gross inequality resulting in extreme poverty and needless hardship the government of a State has a moral obligation to legislate for the redistribution of income and wealth.

 

[tonyrey]

Where there is gross inequality resulting in extreme poverty and needless hardship the government of a State has a moral obligation to legislate for the redistribution of income and wealth.

I expected quite a different reaction - but time will tell.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I expected quite a different reaction

Why?

 

[tonyrey]

Why?

The Capitalist mentality is deeply intrenched in countries like the UK where most of the land and wealth belongs to a small minority while many children are living in poverty - and political decisions are often influenced by vested interests…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The Capitalist mentality is deeply intrenched in countries like the UK where most of the land and wealth belongs to a small minority while many children are living in poverty…

This is true. The idea that people have an absolute right to any quantity or property at the expense of human dignity and the material good of the greater community is a fallacy that has convinced a great many people. I am not a capitalist, if by that one means that i believe i have a moral right to legally exploit the human need to survive in order to amass great degrees of wealth at the expense of everyone else, while the workers who make that possible are on low wages. I reject any economic system that forces huge numbers of people into unemployment and poverty.

However, i am not a complete socialist either because i do believe in the natural right to property,** but with exceptions**.

 

[tonyrey]

The Capitalist mentality is deeply intrenched in countries like the UK where most of the land and wealth belongs to a small minority while many children are living in poverty…

I have lived in a so-called socialist state where the individuals in power are as capitalistic as anywhere else because - even though they don’t own - they have the** use** of the best, biggest and most luxurious facilities. Their wives used to go to Paris for the weekend to do their shopping - at the taxpayers’ expense of course!

Aristotle’s principle of moderation applies, in my opinion, to social and political as well as moral principles.

 

[carn]

You only have a right to private property in so far as your doing so is not at the expense of the material good of the larger community.

The problem is, that most people claiming some properity is used to that effect never care or at least attempt to prove that it is so. But if it is uncertain, whether property is used at the expense of the good of the community, one lacks justification to redistribute.

To illustrate the problem, think about the so called third world. According to some the rich countries exploit the third world and keep them in poverty for their own gain.
The evidence?

Boiling it down it is “The rich are rich and the poor are poor and therefore have no chance to develop.”.And that is wrong.
In 1850 Japan was a poor 3rd world country without industry, where the US in colonial manner enforced the laws it wanted. Did the exploitation cause continous poverty?
No,already 55 years later, Japan was a industrialized country capabale of employing a fleet strong enough to defeat russian fleet. (Not that that was a moral use of the industrial power, but they developed although they were mistreated.)
China and Taiwan were poor3rd world countries up to at least 1950-60. Taiwan decided against communism and at latest 1990 it was a industrialized country. China decided for communism and remained poor and when it eased communism in late 70s a grdual development started, which might propel it fully to first world country in 10-30 years. India was quite socialistic up to 1980s. Then it changed and today it is at least on the right track. North Korea “decided” for communism, South Korea for capitalism, North Korea is rotting poor and South is a industrialized country.

All these examples show one thing:
The cause of poverty of a country can lie within the country. But if the cause of poverty lies within the country, one has to take much care, if one wants to establish that the causes are not within the country, but the guilty is the rich country half around the globe.

But if you cannot show the rich country is guilty, redistribution may not be enforced.

The same problem appears on an individual level.

Whether Marxism is flawed or not, it was addressing real social evils that freely trampled the earth underfoot in the disguise of the right to private property;

Did it?

The alternative version i heard is, that the social evils were always there, but they were hidden in the country side. Therefore the intelectuals in the cities did not notice them, because the poorfarmers best chances were to continue farming, as the cities had no jobs to offer for untrained new workers. When industry was established in a city, the poor in the countryside had a reason to go there. The intelectuals noticed this and in classical human reasoning they concluded, that since there were fewer poor visible before industry was established and more poor visible afterwards, the industry must be the cause of poverty.

 

[tonyrey]

Boiling it down it is “The rich are rich and the poor are poor and therefore have no chance to develop.”.And that is wrong.

In countries where there is little or no education for the poor they are trapped in their poverty and misery until the moment they die…

 

[carn]

In countries where there is little or no education for the poor they are trapped in their poverty and misery until the moment they die…

And this trapping happens due to the rich being rich and not due to other causes?

If it happens due to the rich being rich, one is allowed to take the wealth of the rich and reditribute it. If it happens due to other causes, it only allows taking the wealth of the rich, if it helps regarding the cause. If the cause is having a corrupt national government then taking from the rich in other countries and pouring it into that country could be useless or even harmful.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" In the New Testament one could read these verses and see a call to a Socialist utopia.

Acts 11:29 speaks of the disciples freely giving each according to his ability to those in need. That is a Christian mandate from the mouth of Christ. Feed the poor. Christ said nothing about having one’s assets seized by the government and redistributed among the people. And very likely he would never have said such a thing, knowing the hardness of hearts among those who serve Caesar rather than Christ. Look around you. Government taxation and corruption everywhere … all in the name of serving the poor.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Somebody certainly got rich. It wasn’t the poor. Another bottomless pit of wasted charity.