'I'm no Marxist', Pope Francis tells conservative critics

[Ridgerunner]

Also to clarify, my opinion is that you go in this order:

Governments start out as Socialist and end up Fascist when a dictator takes over. Socialism as a basic idea isn’t bad, everyone shares everything and everyone has what they need. However, the issue is that it relys on everyone being morally correct and willing to participate. As we know from history, not everyone is pure of heart and eventually one with a dark heart ends up in charge of everything.

Now, authoritarian governments generally speaknig are also fascist.

Some would say that liberals are socialists and conservatives are authoritarians but neither is totally correct. Liberals would like nothing more to make laws against religious beliefs, is much more pro big government which are definitely authoritarian stances. On the other hand, some conservatives can be very nationalistic which is authoritarian as well.

I have to go, but allow me to dissent just a bit before I do.

Generally speaking, socialism in most of its forms is inherently coercive because its very purpose is to oblige people to do that which they do not naturally wish to do. I have seen it simply stated in a simple equation IL (income from labor) + IC (income from capital)=C (consumption) + T (transfer payments). Now, people differ in their consumption; sometimes a great deal, depending on their objectives relative to “T”. In the family, there is a lot of “T”; transfers to spouse, transfers to and for children. In many households there is significant “T”, transfers to charities, other relatives, neighbors, etc.

The main competitors for “T” are the government and thieves. To the extent the government appropriates “T”, it reduces the “T” the indivdual would otherwise choose to make. As the government appropriates more and more “T”, it requires ever greater coercion to do it because the individual would choose the objects of his own “T” if given freedom to do it. Now, the more anybody, including the government, appropriates “T”, the more it begins to look to the individual like theft if the purpose of the government transfers depart greatly from what the individual would have done voluntarily himself.

So, for example, most people really don’t much resent Social Security taxes because the object of them (the elderly) closely resemble the “T” they would make themselves if they could choose. It’s a “transfer to elderly parents” by proxy, and fits a natural instinct. People mostly don’t mind paying taxes for defense, for another example, because, if it came to it, they would voluntarily pay for physical protection if need be. (People do buy guns, after all, and voluntarily.)

But when it is perceived that the objects of the coerced “T” do not fit or at least reasonably resemble the natural objects of peoples’ bounty, the greater is the resentment of it, and therefore the greater the amount of coercion required to exact it from them.

So, to use another example, if I perceive that I, who am middle class, am now obliged to pay much higher health costs and insurance premiums than I otherwise would have, in order, largely, to benefit other middle class people (which is what Obamacare is) who might not be a bit less well off than I am, all things considered, the unnaturalness of it is pretty apparent, and that’s why it becomes more and more unpopular the more people discover about it.

And that’s exactly why the administration lied about its effects. By lying directly, and by hiding the truth by delay (which is also lying), it and its supporters got away with engaging an extraordinarily coercive machinery, and needed to.

 

[WildCatholic]

You forgot this little tidbit:

Capitalism needs a conscience and even capitalists will argue that.

Looks like the Western left is going to have find their excuses to support feel-good solutions and politicians elsewhere.

Exactly, your post reminds me of a quote by Chesterton “Too much Capitalism doesn’t mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists”. I think Pope Francis in a way recognizes this. As a conservative, I agree big government doesn’t really help too many people, at least not wholly. However, Big Business IMHO doesn’t really do much for the soul either. Don’t get me wrong I’m not against big business, but its not like a large business or a few large businesses are going to save us all. To me, a lot of companies number one concern is to make money. Rather, if these businesses were ran by people with christian people, there focus would maybe be making money honestly and helping their community. I think this is what people like Francis want. I hardly feel he wants to get rid of Capitalism. Rather, make it more human and open for people.

 

[mcrow]

I have to go, but allow me to dissent just a bit before I do.

Generally speaking, socialism in most of its forms is inherently coercive because its very purpose is to oblige people to do that which they do not naturally wish to do. I have seen it simply stated in a simple equation IL (income from labor) + IC (income from capital)=C (consumption) + T (transfer payments). Now, people differ in their consumption; sometimes a great deal, depending on their objectives relative to “T”. In the family, there is a lot of “T”; transfers to spouse, transfers to and for children. In many households there is significant “T”, transfers to charities, other relatives, neighbors, etc.

The main competitors for “T” are the government and thieves. To the extent the government appropriates “T”, it reduces the “T” the indivdual would otherwise choose to make. As the government appropriates more and more “T”, it requires ever greater coercion to do it because the individual would choose the objects of his own “T” if given freedom to do it. Now, the more anybody, including the government, appropriates “T”, the more it begins to look to the individual like theft if the purpose of the government transfers depart greatly from what the individual would have done voluntarily himself.

So, for example, most people really don’t much resent Social Security taxes because the object of them (the elderly) closely resemble the “T” they would make themselves if they could choose. It’s a “transfer to elderly parents” by proxy, and fits a natural instinct. People mostly don’t mind paying taxes for defense, for another example, because, if it came to it, they would voluntarily pay for physical protection if need be. (People do buy guns, after all, and voluntarily.)

But when it is perceived that the objects of the coerced “T” do not fit or at least reasonably resemble the natural objects of peoples’ bounty, the greater is the resentment of it, and therefore the greater the amount of coercion required to exact it from them.

So, to use another example, if I perceive that I, who am middle class, am now obliged to pay much higher health costs and insurance premiums than I otherwise would have, in order, largely, to benefit other middle class people (which is what Obamacare is) who might not be a bit less well off than I am, all things considered, the unnaturalness of it is pretty apparent, and that’s why it becomes more and more unpopular the more people discover about it.

And that’s exactly why the administration lied about its effects. By lying directly, and by hiding the truth by delay (which is also lying), it and its supporters got away with engaging an extraordinarily coercive machinery, and needed to.

No dissent there, I pretty much agree with you.

 

[CaptFun]

***The monetary philosophy of “Mark’s” ***
Is much closer to what Pope Francis addressed in Evangelii Gaudium (IMO)

MONEY IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH GOD’S WILL

Mark 6:8 He instructed them to take nothing for the journey but a walking stick - no food, no sack,*** no money*** in their belts.

MONEY SHOULD NOT TAKE GOD’S PLACE AS A RIVAL, NOR ENCROACH
MUCH LESS SHOULD DISHONEST DEALINGS BE FOUND IN HIS HOUSE

Mark 11:15 They came to Jerusalem, and on entering the temple area he began to drive out those selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.

16 He did not permit anyone to carry anything through the temple area.

17 Then he taught them saying, “Is it not written: ‘My house shall be called a house of prayerfor all peoples’? But you have made it a*** den of thieves.”***

GENEROSITY AND FAITH CAN BE SHOWN THROUGH THE USE OF MONEY

Mark 12:41 He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums.

42 A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, "Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury.

44 For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood."

AN ATTEMPTED “CORRECTION” OF JESUS BY SOME DISCIPLES WAS OVER
A “BETTER USE” OF MONEY INVOLVING A (PRETENDED) "CASE FOR THE POOR***

Mark 14:4 There were some who were indignant. "Why has there been this waste of perfumed oil?

5 It could have been sold for more than three hundred days’ wages and the money given to the poor." They were infuriated with her.

6 Jesus said, "Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me.

7 The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me.

8 She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial.

9 Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."

10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went off to the chief priests to hand him over to them.

11 When they heard him they were pleased and promised to pay him money. Then he looked for an opportunity to hand him over.

** In John 12:4 -6 Judas is shown to have wanted to have the “wasted” money in his purse, which he helped himself to.

**John 12:4 ***Then Judas the Iscariot, one (of) his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, 5 “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?” 6 He said this ***not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief ***and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.

LEVI (MATTHEW) CALLED; DECIDES TO SERVE GOD INSTEAD OF MAMMON

Mark 2:14 As he passed by, he saw Levi, son of Alphaeus, sitting at the customs post. He said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him.
(Matthew left his tax collecting post).

Of course there are more “monetary advisories” in Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James as well. But “Mark’s” writings exhibit more wisdom on the right use of money than the “class warfare” stylings of Marx that rather enshrine a “Thou SHALT Covet!” attitude as part of the package and as a departed Beatle might have added " … and no religion too-oo!"

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The monetary philosophy of “Mark’s” Is much closer to what Pope Francis addressed in Evangelii Gaudium (IMO)

Of course there are more “monetary advisories” in Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James as well. But “Mark’s” writings exhibit more wisdom on the right use of money than the “class warfare” stylings of Marx that rather enshrine a “Thou SHALT Covet!” attitude as part of the package and as a departed Beatle might have added " … and no religion too-oo!"

Closer than what? None of those points contradict free market capitalsm. And it’s worth noting that tax collectors are not simply seving “mammon”, they are serving government. They were as unpopular then as now.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Closer than what? None of those points contradict free market capitalsm. And it’s worth noting that tax collectors are not simply seving “mammon”, they are serving government. They were as unpopular then as now.

I might be a bit off topic here, but one of the most interesting things I ever read was a formulation by Augustine and Aquinas concerning “justice in exchange”. Justice in exchange, they maintained, occurs when the receiver of a good or service values the good or service more than that which he gives for it.

So, if, for instance, I have earned $1500 or so and want to buy a young cow of breeding age with that money and do so, I value the cow more than I do the $1500 or the labor I spent in earning that $1500. If it was not so, I would keep the $1500. The seller, on the other hand, values the $1500 more than he does the cow, for all the reasons people have for valuing this more than that.

Ideally, that’s the way free markets would work and, by and large, do.

Other systems, most notably the more extreme socialist systems, decree that I must take $1500 or $1,000 or whatever for my cow notwithstanding that I don’t want to do that.

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun Responds in RED

Closer than what? None of those points contradict free market capitalsm.< Yep. You got it. That was my point. Mark’s “points” don’t contradict free market capitalism … whereas MARX does. I probably put something badly and confused people, so thanks for allowing me to clarify.

Come to think of it, some of Jesus’ parables depict God as a King, a landowner, a businessman who goes on a journey and entrusts His vineyard to others. Dispensing talents (money) in unequal amounts to his servants and demanding an accounting from those servants he puts in charge. And it’s worth noting that tax collectors are not simply seving “mammon”, they are serving government. < And in Matthew’s case that government was the occupying force of (pagan) Rome. They were as unpopular then as now.

I’m all for Pope Francis to call people to greater personal responsibility … in the field of economics and elsewhere - and while I favor capitalism to other forms of government, He must do the Lord’s work and urge us to help our neighbors.

The loaded language of the initial document as translated into English got explained somewhat by the Pontiff since then. Apparently Francis has seen greed at work and some poor results in some forms of Capitalism – and clearly said that it would not be the ultimate cure for helping the poor that some folks visualize.

Francis’ summary statement was that ultimately many of the poor didn’t get helped - contrary to promises. I appreciated his statements against Marxism since then.

 

[Tsuwano]

Regardless of how it’s interpreted, capitalism works best.

Pope Francis saying it does or doesn’t will not change that.

Problem in the West there are too many liberal politicians who use the force of government to pick and choose winners and losers. :tsktsk:

Yes, I agree that capitalism can work well, but there are times when it can allow those with money and power to dictate the economy to the detriment of the citizens. Greed can play a part in capitalism, just as it can in any other economic system. The poor must be protected and given opportunities to rise from their poverty. Capitalism can do this, but it can also be a barrier if it is misused and manipulated.

 

[Tsuwano]

CaptFun Responds in RED

I’m all for Pope Francis to call people to greater personal responsibility … in the field of economics and elsewhere - and while I favor capitalism to other forms of government, He must do the Lord’s work and urge us to help our neighbors.

The loaded language of the initial document as translated into English got explained somewhat by the Pontiff since then. Apparently Francis has seen greed at work and some poor results in some forms of Capitalism – and clearly said that it would not be the ultimate cure for helping the poor that some folks visualize.

Francis’ summary statement was that ultimately many of the poor didn’t get helped - contrary to promises. I appreciated his statements against Marxism since then.

Capitalism is not a form of government. It is an economic system.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m all for Pope Francis to call people to greater personal responsibility … in the field of economics and elsewhere - and while I favor capitalism to other forms of government, He must do the Lord’s work and urge us to help our neighbors.

The loaded language of the initial document as translated into English got explained somewhat by the Pontiff since then. Apparently Francis has seen greed at work and some poor results in some forms of Capitalism – and clearly said that it would not be the ultimate cure for helping the poor that some folks visualize.

Francis’ summary statement was that ultimately many of the poor didn’t get helped - contrary to promises. I appreciated his statements against Marxism since then.

Thanks for your clarification of your own post.

I remain skeptical of much of the discussion of Pope Francis’ words. By that I don’t mean that he has nothing good to say but rather that his good words had an unhealthy sprinkling of leftist language and logical fallacy. I think you are giving a generous interpretation of his words.

I am particularly concerned with people inventing promises and then complaining when they have not been kept. This is a common con of politicians and other dishonest fellows. Pope Francis cited a very peculiar promise that I had never heard, much less made.

I might be a bit off topic here, but one of the most interesting things I ever read was a formulation by Augustine and Aquinas concerning “justice in exchange”. Justice in exchange, they maintained, occurs when the receiver of a good or service values the good or service more than that which he gives for it.

So, if, for instance, I have earned $1500 or so and want to buy a young cow of breeding age with that money and do so, I value the cow more than I do the $1500 or the labor I spent in earning that $1500. If it was not so, I would keep the $1500. The seller, on the other hand, values the $1500 more than he does the cow, for all the reasons people have for valuing this more than that.

Ideally, that’s the way free markets would work and, by and large, do.

Other systems, most notably the more extreme socialist systems, decree that I must take $1500 or $1,000 or whatever for my cow notwithstanding that I don’t want to do that.

I know that the Acton Institute has done a lot of historical work on the Catholic history of free market ideas prior to Adam Smith. I hope that someone there can meet with the pope and share this rich Catholic history with him as well as more modern Catholic thought on the subject.

 

[anthony022071]

It’s true he isn’t a marxist,but nonetheless its also true that the popes beginning with John 23,and bishops in general,have accepted European style democratic socialism as the new norm of government and helping the poor,and have picked up on ideas about the role of government that are typical of socialists. There is the idea that the economic system should benefit everyone,as if the intention of businesses is to distribute wealth throughout society. And since businesses can’t be trusted to distribute their wealth voluntarily,the government should do it by taxation and regulation. In reality,people engage in business activity for their own benefit,and everyone has a right to keep and manage their property,which includes profits from business activity. People who don’t benefit from the economy are usually those who don’t have jobs and cant buy what they need. But it is not the responsibility of businesses to hire everyone who needs a job either. And there are obviously many people who don’t even want to work for money. The popes and many bishops tend to overlook the relation between poverty and personal choices and moral character and speak as if all poor people are just helpless victims of their situation.

The popes from Leo 13 to Pius 12 repeatedly rejected socialism both in theory and practice,and they stressed the need for subsidiarity as well as for solidarity. But since the 1960’s the popes and bishops and committees on social justice have called for more and more government action as if that was an expression of Catholic solidarity.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s true he isn’t a marxist,but nonetheless its also true that the popes beginning with John 23,and bishops in general,have accepted European style democratic socialism as the new norm of government and helping the poor,and have picked up on ideas about the role of government that are typical of socialists. There is the idea that the economic system should benefit everyone,as if the intention of businesses is to distribute wealth throughout society. And since businesses can’t be trusted to distribute their wealth voluntarily,the government should do it by taxation and regulation. In reality,people engage in business activity for their own benefit,and everyone has a right to keep and manage their property,which includes profits from business activity. People who don’t benefit from the economy are usually those who don’t have jobs and cant buy what they need. But it is not the responsibility of businesses to hire everyone who needs a job either. And there are obviously many people who don’t even want to work for money. The popes and many bishops tend to overlook the relation between poverty and personal choices and moral character and speak as if all poor people are just helpless victims of their situation.

The popes from Leo 13 to Pius 12 repeatedly rejected socialism both in theory and practice,and they stressed the need for subsidiarity as well as for solidarity. But since the 1960’s the popes and bishops and committees on social justice have called for more and more government action as if that was an expression of Catholic solidarity.

This is spot on.

 

[Tsuwano]

It’s true he isn’t a marxist,but nonetheless its also true that the popes beginning with John 23,and bishops in general,have accepted European style democratic socialism as the new norm of government and helping the poor,and have picked up on ideas about the role of government that are typical of socialists. There is the idea that the economic system should benefit everyone,as if the intention of businesses is to distribute wealth throughout society. And since businesses can’t be trusted to distribute their wealth voluntarily,the government should do it by taxation and regulation. In reality,people engage in business activity for their own benefit,and everyone has a right to keep and manage their property,which includes profits from business activity. People who don’t benefit from the economy are usually those who don’t have jobs and cant buy what they need. But it is not the responsibility of businesses to hire everyone who needs a job either. And there are obviously many people who don’t even want to work for money. The popes and many bishops tend to overlook the relation between poverty and personal choices and moral character and speak as if all poor people are just helpless victims of their situation.

The popes from Leo 13 to Pius 12 repeatedly rejected socialism both in theory and practice,and they stressed the need for subsidiarity as well as for solidarity. But since the 1960’s the popes and bishops and committees on social justice have called for more and more government action as if that was an expression of Catholic solidarity.

What popes and many bishops have accepted (long before John XXIII) is that government does have a role to play in procuring a fair and just society for all citizens. I do not know if the bishops would label it socialism, but I think they would recognize that a just society cannot be brought about without the participation of government on some level. I don’t think it is the intention of business to spread wealth throughout society. The intention, rather, is to accumulate wealth. This is fine to a point, and the point is when the accumulation of wealth leads to injustice in society and the inability of a large number of citizens to rise above poverty despite their strenous efforts to do so. We generally do not trust business to go against its own interests, which, as pointed out, is the accumulation of wealth, and so we tend to expect governments, in a democratic society, to protect the interests of the citizens. That, after all, is a role of government in liberal, democratic societies. It is not the business of business to provide jobs to every person in society, but neither is it in the interest of a just society to ignore those persons who cannot work or cannot find jobs. Neither is it the role of government to allow business interests to utilize the labor of a society without providing justice in the form of just wages, adequate working conditions, and benefits which lead to productive lives for the employees. The Church is right to recognize that both business and government must work together to build a just society. To advocate such a united effort is not to advocate any particular economic system. It is to advocate justice. That is the primary interest of the Church, the Pope and the Bishops. And when business or government fail in attempting to instill justice in society, then the Church should stand as a prophet and condemn those practices which stand in the way of justice. I believe this is what Pope Francis is doing today.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What popes and many bishops have accepted (long before John XXIII) is that government does have a role to play in procuring a fair and just society for all citizens. I do not know if the bishops would label it socialism, but I think they would recognize that a just society cannot be brought about without the participation of government on some level. I don’t think it is the intention of business to spread wealth throughout society. The intention, rather, is to accumulate wealth. This is fine to a point, and the point is when the accumulation of wealth leads to injustice in society and the inability of a large number of citizens to rise above poverty despite their strenous efforts to do so. We generally do not trust business to go against its own interests, which, as pointed out, is the accumulation of wealth, and so we tend to expect governments, in a democratic society, to protect the interests of the citizens. That, after all, is a role of government in liberal, democratic societies. It is not the business of business to provide jobs to every person in society, but neither is it in the interest of a just society to ignore those persons who cannot work or cannot find jobs. Neither is it the role of government to allow business interests to utilize the labor of a society without providing justice in the form of just wages, adequate working conditions, and benefits which lead to productive lives for the employees. The Church is right to recognize that both business and government must work together to build a just society. To advocate such a united effort is not to advocate any particular economic system. It is to advocate justice. That is the primary interest of the Church, the Pope and the Bishops. And when business or government fail in attempting to instill justice in society, then the Church should stand as a prophet and condemn those practices which stand in the way of justice. I believe this is what Pope Francis is doing today.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What popes and many bishops have accepted (long before John XXIII) is that government does have a role to play in procuring a fair and just society for all citizens. … The Church is right to recognize that both business and government must work together to build a just society.

The problem that I (and I think many, but I don’t want to claim to speak for others) have with this is that almost without exception the moral analysis is exactly as above: government vs. business (or, alternatively, free market capitalism); If business/free markets can’t do it then government must.

This is idiotic and does not engender trust in the reasoning of clerics on matters of economics and related issues of justice.

Have they heard of the Catholic Church? It’s not a business and it’s not government. How about the family? How about private charity? There is an entire web of institutions, usually called “civil society”, that are neither business nor government that fill a crucial void.

But for some very odd reason they are never considered when the clergy leap from what business cannot do to what government must do.

What’s up with that?!

 

[stinkcat_14]

The problem that I (and I think many, but I don’t want to claim to speak for others) have with this is that almost without exception the moral analysis is exactly as above: government vs. business (or, alternatively, free market capitalism); If business/free markets can’t do it then government must.

Can you cite some Church teaching that makes this claim?

This is idiotic and does not engender trust in the reasoning of clerics on matters of economics and related issues of justice.

It depends on what they say in the specific instance.

Have they heard of the Catholic Church? It’s not a business and it’s not government. How about the family? How about private charity? There is an entire web of institutions, usually called “civil society”, that are neither business nor government that fill a crucial void.

I don’t recall any Church teaching that talks against these institutions.

But for some very odd reason they are never considered when the clergy leap from what business cannot do to what government must do.

What’s up with that?!

Like I said, we would have to see the data first.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Can you cite some Church teaching that makes this claim?

It depends on what they say in the specific instance.

I don’t recall any Church teaching that talks against these institutions.

Like I said, we would have to see the data first.

Here is just one example:

“It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare.” (EVANGELII GAUDIUM, 205)

The poster to which I replied provided his own example but he was just repeating the same formulation I’ve seen and heard many times before.

Of course, I don’t believe that the Catholic clergy has actually forgotten about the Church, family, and others institutions of civil society in general. (Pope Benedict gave them a lot of attention in his own writing.) They only seem to suffer temporary amnesia when they are discussing the role of government.

So whatever happened to your claim that sacrifice is theologically and practically essential to giving?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Here is just one example:

“It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare.” (EVANGELII GAUDIUM, 205)

There is nothing in this statement that says work or education or healthcare must be provided by the government.

The poster to which I replied provided his own example but he was just repeating the same formulation I’ve seen and heard many times before.

Of course, I don’t believe that the Catholic clergy has actually forgotten about the Church, family, and others institutions of civil society in general. (Pope Benedict gave them a lot of attention in his own writing.) They only seem to suffer temporary amnesia when they are discussing the role of government.

The role of government is something which people may have a variety of opinions on and still be faithful Catholics.

So whatever happened to your claim that sacrifice is theologically and practically essential to giving?

In Mark 12: 41-44, Jesus clearly says that sacrificial giving is strictly better than nonsacrificial giving.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There is nothing in this statement that says work or education or healthcare must be provided by the government.

The role of government is something which people may have a variety of opinions on and still be faithful Catholics.

In Mark 12: 41-44, Jesus clearly says that sacrificial giving is strictly better than nonsacrificial giving.

You contributions to this discussion are becoming trollish.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You contributions to this discussion are becoming trollish.

I am not sure I understand your point. Let’s start with your original claim. Is your claim that our only obligation to the poor is to pursue our own self interests in the marketplace? If that is not your claim, then tell me what your claim is.