A
april32010
Guest
http://libertopiafestival.files.wor..._ohp_postcard-p239361244071807990trah_210.jpg I’M NO MARXIST, OH WAIT A MINUTE .I AM .GROUCHO MARX
- Status
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
“Je suis un Marxiste, tendance Groucho.” – Jean-Luc Godard
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Huh? Please explain this.
V
Veridical16
Guest
No , Marxists can’t be good people, because a good person will naturally tend to see through its erroneous ways and reject its ideology. That may be the difference between it and Capitalism. Capitalism came out of a perspective from a protestant / English sea change, Marxism came out of a jewish atheist’s perspective.
Pope Francis seems to be focused on people and the reporters. That remark shows his misguidedness to be subtle in defending himself personally. Marxism as an ideology is wrong, and marxists don’t have to be good people for him not to be offended.
It’s the same as when he was actually aware of himself being criticized about the abortion issue by an actual bishop, and then being defensive about it.
Why should he address a conservative commentator overseas…and then justify himself? He needs prayers.
The only difference between Marxism/Socialism is it is defined pretty clear in its incompatibility with man’s nature.
Capitalism has too many cluttered definitions, which is why some think it is the “best system” and depends on the way it is exercised for it to be “Good”. It ignores that the inherent monetary system it requires currently does not lend itself to proving the belief that Capitalism is the best. Also it has nothing to do with being a complement to Christianity which some people who are of a conservative bent talk as if it is, since Reagan’s shining city on a hill rhetoric.
It is understandable for some to want to defend certain insights that Adam Smith provided which were true about economic exchange, but not to the point of almost religious zealousness for certain things are incompatible in regard to its belief of the invisible hand and the idea that there should be no moral impetus in economic exchange.
" Too much capitalism means too few capitalists " - Chesterton
Pope Francis seems to be focused on people and the reporters. That remark shows his misguidedness to be subtle in defending himself personally. Marxism as an ideology is wrong, and marxists don’t have to be good people for him not to be offended.
It’s the same as when he was actually aware of himself being criticized about the abortion issue by an actual bishop, and then being defensive about it.
Why should he address a conservative commentator overseas…and then justify himself? He needs prayers.
The only difference between Marxism/Socialism is it is defined pretty clear in its incompatibility with man’s nature.
Capitalism has too many cluttered definitions, which is why some think it is the “best system” and depends on the way it is exercised for it to be “Good”. It ignores that the inherent monetary system it requires currently does not lend itself to proving the belief that Capitalism is the best. Also it has nothing to do with being a complement to Christianity which some people who are of a conservative bent talk as if it is, since Reagan’s shining city on a hill rhetoric.
It is understandable for some to want to defend certain insights that Adam Smith provided which were true about economic exchange, but not to the point of almost religious zealousness for certain things are incompatible in regard to its belief of the invisible hand and the idea that there should be no moral impetus in economic exchange.
" Too much capitalism means too few capitalists " - Chesterton
N
Norm640
Guest
There were many Nazis that “were good people” too. There are many Muslims that “are good people”. Of course the Pope wouldn’t label himself as a Marxist. He surely doesn’t see himself that way. That doesn’t mean his beliefs about economics aren’t Marxist.
Point is, if everything the Pope said was rooted in Catholic thought and practice anyway, as the Pope’s defenders say, why say it in the first place? Why say something as intellectually lazy as “unfettered capitalism”? Why single that out?
The worst ideology in the world today is humanism, followed closely by Islamism. Regarding the former, as pope at least, he has not been harsh in criticism of homosexuals, etc. And I understand why he did that. He has been relatively silent on Islamism. Again, that isn’t too troubling. But why the harshness against capitalism? That is what doesn’t make sense at all.
The fact is, the USA, home of capitalism, is the most generous country on earth. Clearly, Christians in this country adhere to being generous with money.
So, again, what was the point of attacking capitalism, at this place and time, when he has treated real threats to the world (humanism and its pandora’s box of evils, Islamism) with kid gloves?
And by the way, according to the UN, world poor/rich inequality is shrinking. Not in the US thanks to Obama, but across the world. Why? Capitalism, development, etc.
This is what I fear with all of our popes. Like Obama veering off the teleprompter, when a pope veers into the political, he often relies on the doctrines he was taught in his formative years. He goes on his prejudices…
“Who am I to judge” said the pope. But regarding capitalism, it seems as if that question is irrelevant. Trust me, Homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, and Islamism do more to hurt civilization than buying and selling goods.
Point is, if everything the Pope said was rooted in Catholic thought and practice anyway, as the Pope’s defenders say, why say it in the first place? Why say something as intellectually lazy as “unfettered capitalism”? Why single that out?
The worst ideology in the world today is humanism, followed closely by Islamism. Regarding the former, as pope at least, he has not been harsh in criticism of homosexuals, etc. And I understand why he did that. He has been relatively silent on Islamism. Again, that isn’t too troubling. But why the harshness against capitalism? That is what doesn’t make sense at all.
The fact is, the USA, home of capitalism, is the most generous country on earth. Clearly, Christians in this country adhere to being generous with money.
So, again, what was the point of attacking capitalism, at this place and time, when he has treated real threats to the world (humanism and its pandora’s box of evils, Islamism) with kid gloves?
And by the way, according to the UN, world poor/rich inequality is shrinking. Not in the US thanks to Obama, but across the world. Why? Capitalism, development, etc.
This is what I fear with all of our popes. Like Obama veering off the teleprompter, when a pope veers into the political, he often relies on the doctrines he was taught in his formative years. He goes on his prejudices…
“Who am I to judge” said the pope. But regarding capitalism, it seems as if that question is irrelevant. Trust me, Homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, and Islamism do more to hurt civilization than buying and selling goods.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I would encourage you to read the actual interview and extend the pope the benefit of the doubt before writing him off as “misguided”. Such words should not be so casually said about our Holy Father. Such is a source of scandal.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
If I had to guess, I’d estimate the ratio of Marxists to anarcho-capitalistsl among the Jesuits to be about 10:0 and in Latin America about 100:0. I wonder if anyone has done a poll.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I think all of these discussions suffer from a tendency to simply the opposition and gloss over subtle, sometimes critical distinctions. There are many varieties on both sides of this debate.
Unfortunately, Pope Francis has set a bad example. I agree that we should be charitable in our debates and discussions but let’s also be honest.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
How has he set a bad example? Because he gave American leftists something to misrerpresent, and American libertarians something to misunderstand?
Other than that use of “trickle down” in the American version (which was different from the expression in other languages, and thus due to the translator) what has he said that’s different from what the Church has taught for a long time?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m inclined to agree with you, ASSUMING that people who regard themselves as Marxists really understand Marxism and particularly Marxism/Leninism. And there are plenty of people who have adopted bits and pieces of Marxist thought without ever having read or understood Marx himself.
I have known people who described themselves as “communists” who were otherwise likeable people. But I never knew one who said that who really understood how communism manifests itself.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
By the employment of straw man arguments as for example in paragraph discussed.
Quite apart from the term in question (which is in the official Vatican translation and apparently in the German translation as well and which has since been reinforced) he is opposing a position that nobody has taken. Elsewhere he has demonstrated a similar misunderstanding of free market capitalism.
Yes, he’s given a lot of ammunition to leftists around the world. Because they recognize him as one of their own.
I do not expect Pope Francis to issue an encylical that contradicts prior Church social teaching but there is more than enough latitude in them given that the detailed issues had largely been left as a prudential matter to the laity.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Reinforced? Where has he said “Oh, yes, I know that in America the term “trickle down” is a leftist term used to promote misunderstanding of the intent of tax reductions for all, but since I don’t favor tax reductions of any kind, I intended the idiomatic meaning of that term.”?
And whether the German version of “trickle down” means the same thing as the English version means in the U.S. (and you don’t demonstrate that it does. You just assert it.) it does not in other languages.
Frankly, I think some are too invested in what they think about the meaning of terminology or what they want others to think about it, to care very much about what the man was really saying.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The paragraph discussed is:
"The pope said in a new interview Saturday. “The promise that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger and nothing ever comes out for the poor.”
That’s not a “straw man” argument. It’s just a fact in many places including, sadly, in this country, if one understands by “the poor” those who are unable to help themselves in meeting the necessities of life. That’s the meaning of the term in the Social Encyclicals. Why not in Pope Francis’ statement?
And in many countries, including this one, economic prosperity does tend to “raise all boats” except for those who can’t do anything to avail themselves of it. The free market can’t be of much use to one who can’t participate in it.
What do you think he meant by “the poor”?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
As already cited earlier in this thread:
Who exactly promised “that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor”? Who is presenting this as free market capitalism?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
It is a straw man because nobody is claiming what the pope is arguing against. It is further a straw man because it is almost without exception that even the most hard core anti-welfare ideologues recognize that a man in a coma or an infant is not going to find gainful employment. Any reference to free market capitalism that doesn’t include civil society from the family to the Church as an essential component is a straw man. One of the ways that economic propsperity raises all boats is through charity.
I honestly don’t think that Pope Francis understands this.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
K
KP3243
Guest
After 9/11 our airline rules became a lot stricter and the Colombians outsourced the importation of drugs into the US to the Mexicans.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Possible. And it’s possible that Pope Francis is unconcerned with how his words are used by Satan’s minions but he was responding to Rush Limbaugh, albeit on the invitation of journalists. The Vatican translators are within his control and he certainly had the opportunity to clarify himself if he had been misunderstood or misintepreted by others due to faulty translation.
The simpler explanation, I think, is that Pope Francis sees capitalism through the eyes of a leftist.
And he’s not alone. I was listening to Catholic Radio this morning and some bishop was commenting the budget discussions. He said something that went like this: The Church has a social teaching. Society is ordered by politics. Politics is the domain of government. Therefore government is the institution responsible for the care of the poor.
Now you and I both know that’s not exactly Church teaching but it’s a very common line of thought.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Perfect.I like Pope Francis’ reply to the question “What does it feel like to be called a ‘Marxist’?”
“The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”
Simple. To the point. And utterly disarming.
Here’s a link to the original interview with Pope Francis:
lastampa.it/2013/12/14/esteri/vatican-insider/en/never-be-afraid-of-tenderness-5BqUfVs9r7W1CJIMuHqNeI/pagina.html
I read the Exhortation through the part in question. I am a conservative and I find no problem with it at all. I am the type of conservative who believes in subsidiarity economically and politically. No fan of mega corporations, TBH.
I am a “fan” of the man who called the Pope out. I agree with him 98% of the time. Listen to his show daily. If he doesn’t back off the questioning of the Holy Father, I am going to take a show vacation.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps you only fear he doesn’t.
Without purporting to know your thoughts, it has appeared to me that a lot of people on the “right” have become so intellectually embroiled in the “talking point” arguments and pejorative idioms of the American political battles that they react to what they “think” or perhaps “fear” the Pope is saying and take instant umbrage at his statements without really considering the whole context of what he is saying and thinking about it.
I, for one, would be considered a “conservative” by most, “reactionary” by some. I might be considered “liberal” by a handful because I know for sure what life is like for the disabled and think their situation is pretty shameful. I really do think most societies, including but not limited to our own, do very little for the truly poor; those who cannot help themselves. I do not count the able-bodied among the “poor” in the U.S., though there are undoubtedly some in other countries. Now, one may argue (and I have) that ever-increasing forced transfer payments to the federal government are destructive of another principle of papal teachings, that being “subsidiarity”. And one may argue (and I have) that voluntary transfers (charity) are more efficient and virtuous than simply voting to take away the resources of someone else. The latter I consider to be entirely lacking in virtue unless the recipients are truly unable to help themselves and there is no more proximate resource.
I have a great deal of concern about both increased government dependency on the one hand and “wage slavery/consumerism” on the other; both of which have been condemned by the Popes for a long time, and both of which Pope Francis has criticized. And my concern matches theirs; both tend to be destructive of the family and of spiritual values.
But at this point, I fail to see how Pope Francis’ thoughts about economics differ significantly from my own or from those of his predecessors.
Am I perhaps a bit “black helicopter” is thinking the translations are untrustworthy? (To say nothing of the interpretations put to his statements by some) Perhaps. But then, we sure had a lot of unfortunate translations in the Mass for a long, long time; translations concocted by ICEL that didn’t square with translations in other languages and really did change the meanings; sometimes in ways one can only think of as insidious. Are all of those ICEL people dead and gone? Or did they or their ideological successors find their way into whatever Vatican bureaucracy does the English translations nowadays?
I’m more willing to wait and see whatever else the Pope says than I am to immediately suppose he’s hostile to the American economic system, or at least that system as it was intended.
- Status