Is capitalism a special form of slavery?

[Monte_RCMS]

Here is a link.

Go here and click on it and read up on “Centesimus Annus” and socialism and capitalism.

It is more authoritative than anything I could come up with.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=894993&highlight=centisimus&page=14

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Here is one typical post that is useful:

Jul 28, '14, 2:54 pm POST #202
**Abu **
Regular Member

Join Date: March 8, 2008
Posts: 5,987
Religion: Catholic

Re:** Is Capitalism God-Ordained?**

Such anti-Catholic posturing exposes the fact that none other than the iconoclast William James, no friend of Catholicism, could expose such idiocy by the truism that “those who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

The fact that Catholics – the Catholic monks, followed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, developed the free enterprise system based on Catholic theology and philosophy, the system which has transformed the world and enabled countless millions to escape from poverty, encouraged by St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI – cannot be evaded or truthfully denied any longer in the face of the overwhelming evidence of these facts.

Those anchors of the Catholic case are recognised by:

1. St John Paul II in Centesimus Annus 42:
   ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’
   [The Saint’s disregard for the derogatory Marxist term “capitalism” is noteworthy, but quite lost on those who are unable to see the wood for the trees].

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative,” ’ (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

1. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI then so precisely reveals the value of free enterprise and the market economy as the value of human dignity against the human frailty in Caritas et Veritate, 2009, #36:
   “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”

From Post #83 we have the considered appraisal of Centesimus Annus from none other than the revered Fr James V Schall, S.J. who eloquently summarises:
“If the first unique aspect of this Encyclical is its analysis of the real problem with totalitarianism, the second unique aspect is its willingness to accept the general principles of the market economy. The Pope insists that there are always many dangers of greed, selfishness, and materialism in this market system. No one needs to deny his point to recognise that he also calls attention to what have become commonplace among those who have sought to understand how modern societies develop their material bases.” [Does The Catholic Church Still Exist?, Alba House 1994, p 185-186].

Thus are the anti-Catholic ravings exposed by the eminent Popes and real Catholic scholars.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Question for socialists: How do you keep high skilled people in the country when it turns socialist? Traditionally, socialist countries have limited people’s ability to leave. But there is no justification for such a policy in a free society. So if a tech CEO can move to Canada and make $1 million per year, why would they stay in a socialist country?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Normally, a “definition” is a reliance on some authority or other. Maybe a dictionary or thesaurus.

But, however, what “I” personally think a definition is has zero credibility.

Similarly, your personal opinion has nothing to do with a definition.

My feelings or your feelings are immaterial regarding definitions.

I agree. I am not trying to define socialism and capitalism as an argument or engaging in some kind of Sophistry with semantics. It’s just important for us to know what we’re referring to do when we use these words. Of course the words themselves don’t have concrete definitions, but we are using them to refer to actual economic systems and we need to be clear about what these economic systems actually entail. However, these definitions aren’t completely arbitrary either, historical precedent and other things should determine how we use these words. Sanders would never have been considered a socialist, historically.

You may not like the word “capitalism”, but you don’t just go around making up your own definition.

And you may LOVE the word “socialism”, but again, you just don’t around making up your own definition.

I am not making up definitions. I am using them as they have been used for a long time now. My definition of socialism is the same definition that you will find socialists employing all across the world. It is only “democratic socialists” in America who have seen fit to redefine socialism to mean welfare capitalism.

Furthermore, what it is … commonly accepted … as “capitalism” ALWAYS works to elevate civilization.

Well that demonstrably isn’t true. There are plenty of people living in capitalist countries who live appalling lives, and are exploited in order to produce cheap goods. Would you deny this? Maybe in First World capitalist countries the majority of people live a good life, but this is based on the fact that countries like China and Bangladesh can employ people in terrible conditions to work for next to nothing so we can have cheap consumer goods. Even in the First World capitalism fails to give many people a decent quality of life. I adamantly believe that socialism/communism could provide a better standard of living for everyone, the world over.

‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

I mean this definition isn’t that bad, I can accept it as a definition of capitalism and I oppose a market economy. The fact is, however, that a market economy and privately owned means of production does not actually lead to “free human creativity” in the economic sector. It creates monopolies as capital accumulates in less and less hands. Not to mention the whole class of people who can only sell their labour to capitalists and have few prospects, even in the First World.

There are some socialists who support a market economy though, although other socialists might accuse them of not actually being socialists. A free market can exist without private property is the issue, and it confuses the definition you’re using.

Question for socialists: How do you keep high skilled people in the country when it turns socialist? Traditionally, socialist countries have limited people’s ability to leave. But there is no justification for such a policy in a free society. So if a tech CEO can move to Canada and make $1 million per year, why would they stay in a socialist country?

Well a socialist country would have no need for CEOs. They exist to try to create more profit, and that wouldn’t be an issue in a non-market economy. Not to mention that it seems a little contradictory to workers’ control.

I think ultimately the quality of life would be better in socialist countries, though this might not be immediate. If there were to be the creation of a socialist country in the western world, there would need to be a deep economic crisis too. I also don’t believe socialist countries can exist in isolation, the revolution would have to be an international one.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Well a socialist country would have no need for CEOs. They exist to try to create more profit, and that wouldn’t be an issue in a non-market economy. Not to mention that it seems a little contradictory to workers’ control.

I think ultimately the quality of life would be better in socialist countries, though this might not be immediate. If there were to be the creation of a socialist country in the western world, there would need to be a deep economic crisis too. I also don’t believe socialist countries can exist in isolation, the revolution would have to be an international one.

So you would be fine if all CEOs left the US for other countries? Do we all have equal managerial skill? I have been a manager in the public sector and it is a nightmare. I ask someone to do something and he says no. Now what do I do? The answer: not much. How are things going to be different under socialism?

Can you give me an example of where the quality of life is better under socialism? For example, do people try to sneak into those countries illegally?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So you would be fine if all CEOs left the US for other countries? Do we all have equal managerial skill?

Managerial positions will still exist. They will just be democratically decided and exist to help with production rather than profit. I’m not sure whether they will be allowed to leave for other countries. Certainly their wealth will be appropriated from them.

I have been a manager in the public sector and it is a nightmare. I ask someone to do something and he says no. Now what do I do? The answer: not much. How are things going to be different under socialism?

People will have more of a say in their workplace. They will have some kind of democratic control. They could invest themselves in the government as they do their workplace. They could vote on who manages their workplace.

Can you give me an example of where the quality of life is better under socialism? For example, do people try to sneak into those countries illegally?

Not under modern conditions. Socialism will definition give a better quality of life. I cannot explain this right now, I am drunk. But I will. Give me time. Internationalism is the key.

 

[graciew]

I think ultimately the quality of life would be better in socialist countries, though this might not be immediate. If there were to be the creation of a socialist country in the western world, there would need to be a deep economic crisis too. I also don’t believe socialist countries can exist in isolation, the revolution would have to be an international one.

I agree this is not about semantics. This is a deja vu…it happened already,they attempted it. Communism chose our countries which were unstable and struggling ,and took up arms,and indeed they brought about a deep economic crisis,and it is over and obsolete,thanks be to God.
You do not want to live through this,do you?
Revolution was an idea revolutionaries brought down to earth to make it hellish in practice for a lot of people.Under a flag of social class warfare.There was hatred,I can assure you…
one thing is to freely live under a system you like,and something very different is to have it smashed on your head.
Many sons started hurting their parents because they " had"…but these revolutionaries forgot to “be”… And who said we are all bricks on a wall,cookie cut,photocopies?

And many fell in good faith,full of noble ideas,only to be deceived.

 We need a "CEO" ...or whatever name suits you.. ... Do you  believe we would be able to grow crops and raise cattle without the experience and knowledge of those who have that talent to help us out_?

Do you think that our lives in our family would have been the same without a husband who outweighed me by miles in certain kind of planning and skills?
And our communities grew in good neighbours respect and relationships and we are differently talented and skilled and that is what we offer,but out of love…
God help us be voice of the voiceless,with our own voice and hands and heart,step by step,within a culture of encounter and dialogue.
This is a big family…not all our children are alike nor have the same needs,nor gifts…
All I can say is that I am grateful that those airs of revolution are over,and done,and hopefully buried,and I pray we build a better world sharing the best version of ourselves.,in God s hands.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Managerial positions will still exist. They will just be democratically decided and exist to help with production rather than profit.

How will this ensure that those with managerial skill will be the managers?

I’m not sure whether they will be allowed to leave for other countries.

Why would a free society not want to let people leave if they wish to? Why would the decision to let people be leave even be up for debate?

Certainly their wealth will be appropriated from them.

Of course. Now, will people be allowed to own anything? Will my car now equally belong to my neighbor for his use? Can my neighbor have his friends stay at my house?

People will have more of a say in their workplace. They will have some kind of democratic control. They could invest themselves in the government as they do their workplace. They could vote on who manages their workplace.

If I don’t like my managers, can I leave and start my own business?

Not under modern conditions. Socialism will definition give a better quality of life. I cannot explain this right now, I am drunk. But I will. Give me time. Internationalism is the key.

So what you propose has never worked and reduces freedom. But it will be a panacea.

 

[o_mlly]

When you see all the poverty in Third-World countries while the elite grow fat, it’s hard to deny. It is us, the Western World, that takes resources from the poor countries, and pay next to nothing to the workers. Having 9,500 children dying each day of starvation, with few lifting a finger to help, is nothing less than barbaric on the part of capitalists. Child laborers are common, with nobody caring enough to stop this awful crime.

Capitalism requires:
The right of the individual to own property.
A legal system to defend and enforce that right, i.e. rule of law.
Individual discipline that abstains from consuming all one’s goods, i.e. to save and invest a portion.
Free Enterprise requires:
An economic system that maintains a person’s freedom as a producer or consumer to create, enter or leave a market including the market for labor.

I do not see any of these principles of Free Enterprise Capitalism as intrinsically evil. The Church herself teaches that these principles are good. The system, therefore, is not evil.

However, people – either capitalists or socialists – may do evil since all are under Original Sin. Do you think the principles of socialism would constrain the abuse of children more than capitalism? If so, how?

I don’t think the abuse of the children emanates from or is exaggerated by the particular economic system but from the greed of individuals and a lax legal system that accommodates the greed of the few.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Question for RA and anyone else who advocates socialism: In the US, the home ownership rate is 63%. Why would these people be willing to give up their homes (i.e. private property) for socialism? What would they get in return?

 

[Theo520]

If I don’t like my managers, can I leave and start my own business?

No, you are stuck until your colleagues democraticly vote you off the island, so to speak. All important decision are made by the workers.

So what you propose has never worked and reduces freedom. But it will be a panacea.

I’m guessing Animal Farm wasn’t required reading in his school, or they had a different Cliff Notes to follow.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Capitalism requires:
The right of the individual to own property.
A legal system to defend and enforce that right, i.e. rule of law.
Individual discipline that abstains from consuming all one’s goods, i.e. to save and invest a portion.
Free Enterprise requires:
An economic system that maintains a person’s freedom as a producer or consumer to create, enter or leave a market including the market for labor.

I do not see any of these principles of Free Enterprise Capitalism as intrinsically evil. The Church herself teaches that these principles are good. The system, therefore, is not evil.

However, people – either capitalists or socialists – may do evil since all are under Original Sin. Do you think the principles of socialism would constrain the abuse of children more than capitalism? If so, how?

I don’t think the abuse of the children emanates from or is exaggerated by the particular economic system but from the greed of individuals and a lax legal system that accommodates the greed of the few.

I consider myself to be a humanitarian, like Pope Francis. Whether or not human abuses occur more in a capitalistic or socialistic society is anybodies guess without a society having humanitarian programs, like the Department of Children Services, which we have here in Los Angeles. I personally do not vote in elections because humanitarianism usually takes a back seat, if it becomes an issue at all. And brotherly love is not anywhere in politics or higher education, like psychology. We need to turn to the Church if we want to hear and promote this type of love. It was the lack of brotherly love in the social sciences that made me give up a prestigious job as a research psychologist in order for me to become much more devout as a Catholic. Whether the world becomes more socialistic or capitalistic matters little to me, as long as Love become the dominant value that drives the world.

 

[o_mlly]

… It was the lack of brotherly love in the social sciences that made me give up a prestigious job as a research psychologist in order for me to become much more devout as a Catholic. Whether the world becomes more socialistic or capitalistic matters little to me, as long as Love become the dominant value that drives the world.

I admire your courage. It takes little to be fore the poor, who isn’t? It takes little more to be with the poor. But to become one with the poor takes love, a love the rich young man in the gospel did not yet have.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

We need a “CEO” …or whatever name suits you… … Do you believe we would be able to grow crops and raise cattle without the experience and knowledge of those who have that talent to help us out_?

There will still be people in managerial positions that are perhaps similar to CEOs, but the position of a CEO is pretty specific to capitalism.

How will this ensure that those with managerial skill will be the managers?

Well the workforce knows what it wants best, and understands the workplace best. I’m sure they could adequately decide on who is best for a managerial role.

Of course. Now, will people be allowed to own anything? Will my car now equally belong to my neighbor for his use? Can my neighbor have his friends stay at my house?

Personal property is not private property. Personal property are things you have for personal use, like your house, car, toothbrush, etc. You own these and can exclude others from using them. Private property refers to the means of production, and includes a particular social relation between those who own it and profit off of it and those who don’t own it but have to work for those who do.

If I don’t like my managers, can I leave and start my own business?

That would depend on the actual specifics of the socialist economy. In all cases there would be an option similar to this if there was enough demand for what you want to produce. You and others who want to start this enterprise would maybe have to petition your local workers’ council for resources. However, you obviously wouldn’t be able to individually own a business and employ others.

Question for RA and anyone else who advocates socialism: In the US, the home ownership rate is 63%. Why would these people be willing to give up their homes (i.e. private property) for socialism? What would they get in return?

As I said, homes are personal property, not private property. Nobody would be expected to give up their homes.

All important decision are made by the workers.

Why is this a controversial or offensive idea? They are the ones who produce all the value in a workplace, and they will also own the workplace, so they should be the ones to make the decisions.

I’m guessing Animal Farm wasn’t required reading in his school, or they had a different Cliff Notes to follow.

Orwell was a socialist, he wanted to get rid of capitalism. He just disliked Stalin and authoritarianism. Animal Farm isn’t against socialism, it’s an anti-Stalinist allegory about the Russian revolution. I haven’t actually read Animal Farm, but I’ve ready many of Orwell’s books (including 1984), and if you know anything about him and know his work you’d know he was a socialist. He fought for the POUM in the Spanish Civil War, a socialist group. Read Homage to Catalonia. I also don’t really see how it could be considered a complete refutation of over a century of political and economic theory, even if it was anti-socialist.

The Spanish war and other events in 1936-7 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects.

From the original preface of Animal Farm. Orwell didn’t even consider the USSR to be a true socialist country:

But on the other hand it was of the utmost importance to me that people in western Europe should see the Soviet regime for what it really was. Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. Moreover, the workers and intelligentsia in a country like England cannot understand that the USSR of today is altogether different from what it was in 1917. It is partly that they do not want to understand (i.e. they want to believe that, somewhere, a really Socialist country does actually exist), and partly that, being accustomed to comparative freedom and moderation in public life, totalitarianism is completely incomprehensible to them.

Also:

In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement.

 

[graciew]

There will still be people in managerial positions that are perhaps similar to CEOs, but the position of a CEO is pretty specific to capitalism.

Well the workforce knows what it wants best, and understands the workplace best. I’m sure they could adequately decide on who is best for a managerial role.

Personal property is not private property. Personal property are things you have for personal use, like your house, car, toothbrush, etc. You own these and can exclude others from using them. Private property refers to the means of production, and includes a particular social relation between those who own it and profit off of it and those who don’t own it but have to work for those who do.

That would depend on the actual specifics of the socialist economy. In all cases there would be an option similar to this if there was enough demand for what you want to produce. You and others who want to start this enterprise would maybe have to petition your local workers’ council for resources. However, you obviously wouldn’t be able to individually own a business and employ others.

I will try to follow you.
No problem with workers being owners and choosing their manager.Guess a primus ínter pares.
Would they own their factory or not? And what is the purpose of asking for resources and on what ground will they be given resources? Are you talking about this as a private iniciative?

 

[Athanasiy]

Third World countries don’t have capitalism. They have very corrupt governments that oppress the people. Capitalism calls for less government not more.

what do you think, is this capitalism?
Children of poverty: The factory workers as young as FIVE who toil in Bangladeshi recycling plant every day
goo.gl/4jECJl

Also, I do not know whether to call capitalism when clans monopolize control over some activities.
I mean - they have great service and management, but they are lobbying potential competitors exit.
for example, they can create a great product but your presence as a competitor is not desirable because you still will not be able to create such a product, even if you will be able , they don’t need your presence, just because you prevent the all-powerful clan to make money.

 

[Athanasiy]

I tried to solve this problem by investing time and means in the field of Hospitality/Hotel Intermediaries business.
I came to the conclusion that I just play in the business.
many entrepreneurs have killed many years of hard work on their projects and have spent huge sums of money. ( me not)
but what i mean is -The world will belong to the global players and with this it is necessary to agree:sad_yes:.
goo.gl/j4j4uP
slavery is that you can give away for a long time so much of your energy to your project but eventually you’ll realize that the project which entirely enslaved you nor worth a penny.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Here is an example of what happens when a country rejects capitalism:

venezuela-is-becoming-a-failed-state/

washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/04/venezuela-is-becoming-a-failed-state/

It’s a complete disaster.

 

[graciew]

I tried to solve this problem by investing time and means in the field of Hospitality/Hotel Intermediaries business.
I came to the conclusion that I just play in the business.
many entrepreneurs have killed many years of hard work on their projects and have spent huge sums of money. ( me not)
but what i mean is -The world will belong to the global players and with this it is necessary to agree:sad_yes:.
goo.gl/j4j4uP
slavery is that you can give away for a long time so much of your energy to your project but eventually you’ll realize that the project which entirely enslaved you nor worth a penny.

I get you about global players.
It is hard to compete, especial when one is trying to help out those who have the most diffficulty to become competitive.
Yet,many cooperatives work fine. Small,local ,within their possibilities. Proper iniciatives for the good of each and all in mind.
We cannot change the world but we can make it a little better for those at hand within our communities.
With the freedom of the children of God… And this does not mean imposing it on anybody,just sharing.It is something to be glad about,not to freak anyone out.No left,no right but pray God gives us a little pair of wings every now and then for others.

 

[graciew]

Here is an example of what happens when a country rejects capitalism:

venezuela-is-becoming-a-failed-state/

washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/04/venezuela-is-becoming-a-failed-state/

It’s a complete disaster.

And that is clear for Venezuela people and we are hurting for them.too. It is a nightmare.
So by claimimg they are a disaster we are not giving them much hope.
You play the big league,probably see the big picture,how does one get there without becoming a copy paste or dying in the attempt or crushing whoever stands on the way ?
I am sincerely asking you.