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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba_Switzler said:
You are correct that Argentina is not as bad as Venezuala. You are mistaken that one cannot draw further distinctions than that. While Latin America is well represented in the “mostly not free” category the only country that ranks well is Chile.

Here is a list of industires nationalzed by Argentina:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#Argentina

The example that touched most people was the nationalization of pensions.

But that merely represents the most extreme form of government meddling in trade. Other examples include high tarrifs (protectionism), capital controls (limiting saving and investment options), legal burdens to form new companies and law and policy forvoring firms with political connections (crony capitalism), and bribery (corruption).

These and more combine to make a mockery of “free market” capitalism in Argentina and other Latin American countries.

If you’d like to know what genuine free market capitalism is, read here: es.acton.org

More on Agentina:

heritage.org/index/country/argentina
Click to expand...
I would like to point out I am not defending LA countries governments, only trying to explain how they function market-wise. The truth is for the majority of products, and I am referring to agricultural and many foodstuffs, they are bought and sold with little intervention by the government and are subject to the normal laws of supply and demand - thus they fit the definition of free market capitalism.

I understand about Argentina’s current dance with socialism, but not every country have even got to this level. Most LA countries have weak central governments that derive their income for imports and taxing large businesses, while the little businesses are mostly left untouched except for the taxes that the government is able to levy.

Speaking of the nationalization of businesses, from a purely pragmatical point of view the same could be said of the US gov’t’s bailout of Detroit and big banks because they provided them operating capital with conditions. Also, the US agricultural system is run and subsidized by Uncle Sam and gives us a very big trade advantage we countries that we have free trade agreements. The reality there is little “free” about them when agricultural products are concerned.
 
Catolico65 said:
With all due respect I believe there is some confusion. Pope Francis record on this issue has been clear for many years when he was Cardinal. He is neither for Marxism nor unbridled capitalism. I am fluent in Spanish and have seen his commentaries when he was Cardinal.

What many in the west don’t realize is perspective is very important in order to understand the Pope’s position. For example, when the Pope speaks of “trickle down” economics as being an inequitable solution he is basing this on his experience with Latina America countries where there are very little social programs if any at all for the poor, as opposed to the West where they are very vigorous in comparison.

Furthermore, Frances has also consistently opposed the Marxists in Argentina to the point that he has been accused of being a fascist. He opposes Marxism for many reasons, not the least of which is it’s innate opposition to God, it’s use of violence against innocents and of course because it is not self sustainable economically.

What Francis would prefer to see are economic systems where the government doesn’t turn a blind eye to the greed of the super rich and while forgetting the poor. Since it has already been established that Frances firmly opposes Marxism for many reasons the only other solution is a “moral capitalism” with social services. In fact this is very similar to what many countries in Europe and the US have now but he would like to see checks on gross abuses such as what happened in the US and the housing market lending scandal.

In summary, Pope Francis perspective is definitely one of someone from a country with almost no social services who opposes unbridled capitalism while also being ideologically opposed to godless Marxism and it’s failed economic model.
Click to expand...
You’ll have to excuse the American media. They largely have a political agenda, mostly to the left and are perhaps misinterpreting the Pope or being grossly negligent in their duty as journalists, either way undoubtedly in many cases wishing to mislead Catholics into supporting such an agenda.

Furthermore, the idea that a Pope would endorse socialism or Marxism is absurd.
 
Kaninchen said:
It’s not a storm in a Talk Radio - ‘anybody against sending toddlers to work down the mines is a commie rat’ - teacup by any chance?
Click to expand...
Very unhelpful. :sad_yes:

Those who use such unbelievable extremes must be trying to elicit an emotional response because their ideology is absent of facts.

A classic left-wing trick.
 
SuperLuigi said:
You’ll have to excuse the American media. They largely have a political agenda, mostly to the left and are perhaps misinterpreting the Pope or being grossly negligent in their duty as journalists, either way undoubtedly in many cases wishing to mislead Catholics into supporting such an agenda.

Furthermore, the idea that a Pope would endorse socialism or Marxism is absurd.
Click to expand...
👍
 
It is really unfortunate, but the more that these articles on the pope abound, the less clear the picture about his viewpoint becomes.
 
Darryl1958 said:
It is really unfortunate, but the more that these articles on the pope abound, the less clear the picture about his viewpoint becomes.
Click to expand...
True, and it’s by design.Why else would those who fear and detest the Church heap fawning praise on Francis, such as a couple of “person of the year” awards?
 
KSU said:
True, and it’s by design.Why else would those who fear and detest the Church heap fawning praise on Francis, such as a couple of “person of the year” awards?
Click to expand...
Because they want him to change the beliefs of the church. It ain’t happening.
 
Catolico65 said:
I would like to point out I am not defending LA countries governments, only trying to explain how they function market-wise. The truth is for the majority of products, and I am referring to agricultural and many foodstuffs, they are bought and sold with little intervention by the government and are subject to the normal laws of supply and demand - thus they fit the definition of free market capitalism.

I understand about Argentina’s current dance with socialism, but not every country have even got to this level. Most LA countries have weak central governments that derive their income for imports and taxing large businesses, while the little businesses are mostly left untouched except for the taxes that the government is able to levy.
Click to expand...
Let’s not lose sight of the point of this discussion. Your claim was that we needed to understand where Pope Francis was coming from, which I agreed with, and you asserted that those from Latin America could understand him best. He comes from Latin America, true, but more specifically he comes from Argentina.

You mentioned that Argentina was not Venezuala. Well, maybe not quite yet but see:

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579310811794109126

What does it mean, then, for Pope Francis to seek a third way between communism and free market capitalism if he hails from a country that even by Latin American standards is stranded in cronyism?

And what do Latin Ameicans like yourself mean by “free market capitalism”? As you seem to be using the term, it means pretty much anything but Venezuelan-style socialism. Altogether lost is any appreciation of what distinguishes free market capitalism from crony capitalism or from fascism.
Speaking of the nationalization of businesses, from a purely pragmatical point of view the same could be said of the US gov’t’s bailout of Detroit and big banks because they provided them operating capital with conditions. Also, the US agricultural system is run and subsidized by Uncle Sam and gives us a very big trade advantage we countries that we have free trade agreements. The reality there is little “free” about them when agricultural products are concerned.
Click to expand...
But, as I mentioned already, most economists regard the United States as a mixed economy. Here you give a good example of why that is the case. Subsidies are a perfect example of government interference in free markets that does not rest on nationalization.
 
Darryl1958 said:
It is really unfortunate, but the more that these articles on the pope abound, the less clear the picture about his viewpoint becomes.
Click to expand...
It will only become clearer when he, himself, speaks and writes. The rest of us are just guessing, inferring, theorizing, etc. But having read EVANGELII GAUDIUM I am not encouraged that Pope Francis is a deep thinker on economics as compared to, say, Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Let’s not lose sight of the point of this discussion. Your claim was that we needed to understand where Pope Francis was coming from, which I agreed with, and you asserted that those from Latin America could understand him best. He comes from Latin America, true, but more specifically he comes from Argentina.

You mentioned that Argentina was not Venezuala. Well, maybe not quite yet but see:

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579310811794109126

What does it mean, then, for Pope Francis to seek a third way between communism and free market capitalism if he hails from a country that even by Latin American standards is stranded in cronyism?

And what do Latin Ameicans like yourself mean by “free market capitalism”? As you seem to be using the term, it means pretty much anything but Venezuelan-style socialism. Altogether lost is any appreciation of what distinguishes free market capitalism from crony capitalism or from fascism.

But, as I mentioned already, most economists regard the United States as a mixed economy. Here you give a good example of why that is the case. Subsidies are a perfect example of government interference in free markets that does not rest on nationalization.
Click to expand...
My only point is for the majority of goods the normal laws of supply and demand are applicable, so it is not correct to say they they are purely socialist models, where the gov’t runs everything, supposedly. But as we all know that is not the case in reality, where there is communism there needs to be a black market, otherwise people will starve.

As far as subsidies goes, they are modifications of the free market process like anything else and as such detract from the “pure” model. They aren’t fair and that would be a good topic for another thread - the free trade agreements and their steps toward a one world government. I promise I see you there if you start it. 🙂
 
SuperLuigi said:
Very unhelpful. :sad_yes:

Those who use such unbelievable extremes must be trying to elicit an emotional response because their ideology is absent of facts.

A classic left-wing trick.
Click to expand...
Am I right that you are describing Kaninchen as ‘Left Wing’?:confused::confused:
 
Catolico65 said:
My only point is for the majority of goods the normal laws of supply and demand are applicable, so it is not correct to say they they are purely socialist models, where the gov’t runs everything, supposedly. But as we all know that is not the case in reality, where there is communism there needs to be a black market, otherwise people will starve.

As far as subsidies goes, they are modifications of the free market process like anything else and as such detract from the “pure” model. They aren’t fair and that would be a good topic for another thread - the free trade agreements and their steps toward a one world government. I promise I see you there if you start it. 🙂
Click to expand...
So we both agree that Latin America (and the United States) are neither pure socialist nor pure free market. However, I never claimed that even Cuba was pure socialist. Instead, I pointed to the fact that Latin America as a whole, and Argentina in particular, are not free market economies, not merely that they are not pure but that on a global basis the are rated as “mostly unfree”. What precisely the researchers mean by that term is more than what proportion of the goods that you buy come from a government-run enterprise.

The question that I am posing, which is the mirror of your own, is whether we can rely on Pope Francis to understand what “pure” free market capitalism is. Is he against removing subsidies and capital controls and political favoritism? I doubt it.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Furthermore, the idea that a Pope would endorse socialism or Marxism is absurd.
Click to expand...
Absurd or not, it is entirely plausible that he knows well what you say he is not endorsing. If anyone these days understands socialism and Marxism in the present sense it is Latin Americans. I am not the least bit shocked to hear that Pope Francis has Marxist acquiantances. (How many of you can say the same?)

What I question is whether Pope Francis has any free market acquantances. There are not many in Latin America. There is no Jesuit free market movement corresponding to liberation theology.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
So we both agree that Latin America (and the United States) are neither pure socialist nor pure free market. However, I never claimed that even Cuba was pure socialist. Instead, I pointed to the fact that Latin America as a whole, and Argentina in particular, are not free market economies, not merely that they are not pure but that on a global basis the are rated as “mostly unfree”. What precisely the researchers mean by that term is more than what proportion of the goods that you buy come from a government-run enterprise.

The question that I am posing, which is the mirror of your own, is whether we can rely on Pope Francis to understand what “pure” free market capitalism is. Is he against removing subsidies and capital controls and political favoritism? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
The Pope isn’t an economist, although I’m sure he has his advisors. Therefore, what he should do is criticize the excesses and abuses and appeal for governments to look for a moral solution, which he has done. This would be imo a more or less free market system with social services and abuses checked by stringent laws.
 
Pat_the_elder said:
SuperLuigi;11595638:
Very unhelpful. :sad_yes:

Those who use such unbelievable extremes must be trying to elicit an emotional response because their ideology is absent of facts.

A classic left-wing trick.
Click to expand...
Am I right that you are describing Kaninchen as ‘Left Wing’?:confused::confused:
Click to expand...
I respond as much as possible to comments, not individuals, on the forums, and that’s what I did here. To post directly to individuals is probably the “boundary testing” that leads to all kinds of headches for everyone.

Now that you mention it, I will admit to being presumptuous :o and I have no idea what someone’s personal political views are, especially a European, from one sentence. 🤷

I responded as I thought appropriate and a response on my part doesn’t mean I am judging a person’s views. Sometimes, I will expand on comments written by other users to make a point, but I can already see that was a bad choice on my part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top