Is Communism itself a bad thing?

[Bubba_Switzler]

hmm, I’ve never read much from the USCCB, maybe the new missal, and when i want to know what is going on in the Catholic Church across the pond, but not that much, if you check i read more information from the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, yes a secular society, where Charity, sadly does not exist, the salvation army help those that are homeless, and a few charitys help the elderly, very few charities actively help those with disabilities or mental illness, I’m not giving you a false dichotomy, without the help we receive from the state my family WOULD be in relative poverty, no if’s not buts, we would be, because most of the care of my sister is paid for by the state.

I stand corrected, I only later noticed that you were from England. But my larger point still stands. The question is why does charity no longer exist?

The attitude of American (and I presume English) biships is that the state has largely superceded charity. Charity, as it continues today, is little more than a traditional vestiage for the sake of continuity.

Modern Catholics find it much easier to lobby their fellow Catholics to vote for welfare than to give to charity. And why should we be surprised by that? Voting for welfare means getting someone else to pay the bill while giving to charity entails a personal sacrifice.

So now you and your family are welfare dependents.

That is a scandal.

 

[Skeptic92]

I stand corrected, I only later noticed that you were from England. But my larger point still stands. The question is why does charity no longer exist?

The attitude of American (and I presume English) biships is that the state has largely superceded charity. Charity, as it continues today, is little more than a traditional vestiage for the sake of continuity.

Modern Catholics find it much easier to lobby their fellow Catholics to vote for welfare than to give to charity. And why should we be surprised by that? Voting for welfare means getting someone else to pay the bill while giving to charity entails a personal sacrifice.

So now you and your family are welfare dependents.

That is a scandal.

Charity hardly exists here for one reason, Greed, 90% (i am just throwing figures out here so dont quote me) of the population are more greedy then the bankers that got us into the recession. They have a mentality of “My money, it’s for My Benefit, not to help anyone else”, obviously everyone still has that moral feeling they should give to charity, thats why Children in Need etc make so much money here, because if you pull on the publics heartstrings long enough, they will eventually realise, they have to help there Brothers and Sisters.

and Dependent on welfare? Hardly, it keeps our heads above water with helping care for my sister, but both my parents work, and im preparing to enter university to study Theology, the difference between us being lazy and 100% dependent on welfare to support each and everyone of us, and the help the state gives us, because it would take both my parents to have a very well paid job (think doctors) to actually be able to financially take care of all of us.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Charity hardly exists here for one reason, Greed, 90% (i am just throwing figures out here so dont quote me) of the population are more greedy then the bankers that got us into the recession. They have a mentality of “My money, it’s for My Benefit, not to help anyone else”, obviously everyone still has that moral feeling they should give to charity, thats why Children in Need etc make so much money here, because if you pull on the publics heartstrings long enough, they will eventually realise, they have to help there Brothers and Sisters.

My guess is that contributions to charity pale in comparison to contributions to the welfare state. Although certainly a contributing factor, greed is not a sufficient explanation. Soceity in general, including unfortunately most of the Catholic Church, have bought into the idea that welfare is a better method of caring for the poor than charity. In the US, Catholic charity organizations and efforts are thoroughly intertwined with state welfare programs often being nothing more than subcontractors to the state. Greed alone does not explain this situation. The root problem is that the Church has largely ceded it’s role in society to the state.

and Dependent on welfare? Hardly, it keeps our heads above water with helping care for my sister, but both my parents work, and im preparing to enter university to study Theology, the difference between us being lazy and 100% dependent on welfare to support each and everyone of us, and the help the state gives us, because it would take both my parents to have a very well paid job (think doctors) to actually be able to financially take care of all of us.

As you yourself describe it, you and your family depend on state welfare. You cannot imagine a world in which you would not be because your family needs exceed your family income. That you do not depend entirely on the state is beside the point.

The larger problem is that this state of affairs is not sustainable. But nobody wants to talk about that until things to to Greece levels, and even there the assumption is that someone else will bail them out.

 

[Abu]

Bubba Switzler
unfortunately most of the Catholic Church, have bought into the idea that welfare is a better method of caring for the poor than charity.

The Social Teaching of the Popes certainly does not encourage State Welfare but does support State assistance – the idea of taxation relief for families with dependent children, family allowances etc. and assistance for the unemployed.

So rather than the “Church”, following the failed liberation theology kick and the dissent following Vatican II, too many bishops have failed to appreciate papal teaching and the papal support for free enterprise into their own thought and expressions which have tinged some statements from Bishops Conferences, which really cannot speak with authority for individual bishops.

 

[whitecrayon]

my understandings about communism are very, very simple, and i have never studied communism in any serious depth at all. i did read while in college at emory university “the communist manifesto” by marx and engels, but i do not remember much about it, other than a few of the very basic facts about marxist communism that almost all college-educated people know well.

that being said, i offer here only the fact that communism has always seemed to me to be attractive to some degree in a purely philosophical sense, but that in practice it seems always to have failed, in that it has always led to a small cadre of leaders subjugating their masses to a greater or lesser extent. furthermore, the idea of marx that religion represents “the opiate of the masses” is completely backwards, in my opinion. religion, rather an “opiate” (a drug that stupifies) is something that defines human consciousness and social fiber and which provides most humans with meaning, direction, morality, hope, faith in something beyond death which helps us overcome our deepest primordial fears, heroes to emulate (at least in the case of catholicism, which venerates the holy virgin and the saints), and a purpose outside of just surviving and striving in perpetual competition.

furthermore, the core attraction of straightforward marxist communism i once felt, i believe, is only slightly seductive, once examined. the seduction was this: that communist government promises an end to the suffering of the proletariat and a fair redistribution of resources to all. the simple examination i refer to is this: the primary requirement postulated by marx and engels which might lead to such an end to suffering and a final fair system of resource allocation, that a central control body be established which might enforce militantly their societal rules without any system of checks and balances against abuses, autocracy, impediments to change, etc (all of which the western constitutional forms of government, led by the brilliant founding fathers of the american constitutional form of government, provide), has never succeeded in outcompeting the western models in terms of citizen happiness, economic growth, and philosophical agreement with other great models of human society.

with regard to today’s communist party in china, which governs one of the greatest and most important cultures on earth today, i offer that i believe that the vast majority of chinese citizens are quite happy and content, although apparently, given what i have read in western media, many of them would sincerely like to enjoy greater freedoms and access to more information and more luxuries which they are aware westerns enjoy. i also understand, from my readings, that communist china has begun to make some small changes in their government with these facts in mind. i do not believe that the political and intellectual leaders of the west should attempt for any reason to impose western government models on china or attack china politically or intellectually for its communist ideologies. the only real criticism of chinese government i advocate are those which focus on the draconian punishments for dissidence and other things often imposed. the chinese experiment is still thriving, and that fact is something all of the western intellectuals often fail to mention when they attack communism for its human rights abuses. i hope and pray that china will change slowly over time and that its leaders will choose to grant more freedoms and to bestow more mercy on their citizens once they feel that in doing so they will not threaten to allow for any real revolution which might destabilize their entire nation.

with love
whitecrayon

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Social Teaching of the Popes certainly does not encourage State Welfare but does support State assistance – the idea of taxation relief for families with dependent children, family allowances etc. and assistance for the unemployed.

So rather than the “Church”, following the failed liberation theology kick and the dissent following Vatican II, too many bishops have failed to appreciate papal teaching and the papal support for free enterprise into their own thought and expressions which have tinged some statements from Bishops Conferences, which really cannot speak with authority for individual bishops.

Perhaps what we need is a restoration of the tithe.

jimmyakin.org/2006/02/tithing_giving_.html

It’s interesting that the same Bishops who avoid demanding a tithe (literally 10%) are not the least bit hesitant to advocate tax rates far in excess of that.

 

[Abu]

whitecrayon
one of the greatest and most important cultures on earth today… the only real criticism of chinese government i advocate are those which focus on the draconian punishments for dissidence and other things often imposed. the chinese experiment is still thriving, and that fact is something all of the western intellectuals often fail to mention when they attack communism for its human rights abuses.

How strange that you should be so unfamiliar with Chinese culture and the communist degradation of humanity – the “thriving experiment” that murdered so many millions has turned, since 1979, to massacring by law all children except one per couple.

hli.org/index.php/news/press-releases/905-press-release-92810-hli-raises-alarm-about-chinas-decision-to-continue-destructive-policy
September 28, 2010
HLI Raises Alarm about China’s Decision to Continue Destructive PolicyFRONT ROYAL, VA – Human Life International’s Director of International Coordination, Joseph Meaney, strongly condemned a statement from Li Bin, head of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission. In the statement, Bin said that China’s “One-Child Policy” will remain in place “in the coming decades.”

“The Chinese government is stubbornly persisting in leading their country into a demographic disaster with their population control policy,” said Meaney.

"It is simply incomprehensible that the Chinese National Population and Family Planning Commission can seriously mean to extend this destructive policy for an unspecified number of decades into the future,” said Meaney. “China’s population is currently projected to start shrinking in absolute numbers by 2026, but the coerced low fertility of Chinese women means that the Peoples’ Republic of China is one of the fastest ageing societies in the world.”

**Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor **acton.org/pub/religion-liberty _(Religion & Liberty, March-April, 1999 by John-Peter Pham)

‘An interesting phenomenon of recent years has been the relative ease with which many former Communist parties around the globe have successfully reinvented themselves as “social democrats,” often with strong “environmentalist” stances. What is disturbing about the political comeback of the cadres is that they are preaching essentially the same illiberal, anti-humanistic, and anti-entrepreneurial message, albeit this time under the banner of “scientific” environmental responsibility rather than Marxist historical imperative. This is disconcerting particularly when one recalls Pope John Paul II’s incisive analysis of communism in his 1991 encyclical letter, Centesimus Annus: that its “fundamental error” was “anthropological in nature.” ’

 

[Hastrman]

Hmmm, Monarchy wouldn’t be to bad, or the British Government, governing how parliament was designed to by Oliver Cromwell, not by “what we say goes, don’t care what the public want”.

“What we say goes, don’t care what the public want” is emphatically what Cromwell was after; all the populists in that era were Royalists, mostly because the people were. Also because it is the nature of a governing elite (like parliament) to make its own self-interest the basis of laws, and behave like a clique to prevent any dissent from that position. See also the US Congress.

 

[Athanasiy]

i am from ukraine
a lot of people remember that for your stomack it was not so bad
paradoxicall but for these years of independence we did not get the prosperity level we had under soviet regime ( some ex-communists countries have got higher level of prosperity through the years of market economy)
we had good life ( for stomacks )
factories were working
employment
for the proletariat ( you probably do not have this word on the west ) it was good life
that is why on the east of ukraine , many people still vote for communists
many especially old people , on the east of the country remember the life as the best comparably with up to date.
unemployment
immorality ( which was not so big before )
degradation of society

i was curious , what if communism would be Christian one , what if not to deny God ?
but later when i made more explorations , i found out that - communism its not a system
i was in the library for a while and i made some decisions that :
its a pseudo-system
predestinate for collapse , (sooner or later )
its a failure experiment , like Frankenstains , or Bulgakov’s experiments ( read ''the heart of the dog . Bulgakov)
the system was ‘‘human - hating’’
there were two types of prisoners , two types of prisons , the ones who inside and the once who outside.
and it produced that type of people , who are unable to think for themselves , not creative , not initiative , without critical thinking , without skepticism .
undeveloped autonomous morality , the cult of masses , disrespect to human personality , the passive state of the human unit , cattle psychology

it made very big damage in the history
hitler
Stalin ( who made aliance with Hitler )
the sea of the dead and decieved slaves ( east block )
genocides through killing own people , also artificial starvation of the pesantry in ukraine .

interesting thoughts belong to Chesterton , Belloc ( Distributism )
also some very good counter-argumetns against communism give these guys
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1nos_Kornai

but what i also found out that the system was ''imported ‘’ to ukraine
our pesant despises the culture of poverty
we used to work and to have
farmers , prosperous owners , it was going well

but then came this plague-system and destroyed every thing

the communism is good for lazy people , who do not want to work
the best system for lazy bones

 

[Glorthac]

Hell yes Communism is a bad thing, besides the devil, it ought to be the most despised thing upon this planet.

 

[JaredM]

People rarely seem to forget that communism was originally a Christian concept. Early Christians used the New Testament in which emphasised sharing amongst everyone equally.

“all who owned property or houses sold them and lay them at the feet of the apostles to be distributed to everyone according to his need.” (Acts 4:32-35; see also 2:42-47)

Levellers and the Diggers, were Protestant political movements in the English Civil War that emphasised popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance, and the redistribution of wealth on an egalitarian basis. It’s only after post Marx is that communism is associated with atheism. The idea of communism isn’t bad, it’s the ones who implement who are bad.

 

[Athanasiy]

but how to build the capitalism , where the capital stays at home and works for national economy ?
which builds housing market , factories , hospitals , airports , roads ?

 

[Raskolnikov]

but how to build the capitalism , where the capital stays at home and works for national economy ?
which builds housing market , factories , hospitals , airports , roads ?

You do have valid concerns. After the end of the Cold War, many in the west expected the former USSR republics to experience a huge boom with the new free markets. But the Ukraine (and some other former SSRs) actually declined because they couldn’t compete in a global market, and they lost the economic ties to the other Soviet countries, which could now trade with the rest of the world. Capitalism may be a good thing, as I think it is, but free markets alone can’t solve most economic problems.

Countries that can’t compete with the highly industrialized western or East Asia countries often no choice but to keep their markets somewhat shackled, like using trade subsidied or tariffs to help domestic industries grow. The answer, I think, to the economic problems of countries like the Ukraine is not communism, but it also isn’t (at least not yet) true free maket capitalism. They might do well to follow in the footsteps of Japan, which kept trade fairly open, but the government played a significant role in funding technological research, education, and subsidizing certain industries to make them competitive with the US. In the1960s, the Japanese couldn’t compete with us in technology. Just 20 years later, Americans were talking about how the Japanese were taking over the world, because they had surpassed us in so many areas. They certainly didn’t do that by minimizing government intervention across the board.

JaredM:

People rarely seem to forget that communism was originally a Christian concept. Early Christians used the New Testament in which emphasised sharing amongst everyone equally.

“all who owned property or houses sold them and lay them at the feet of the apostles to be distributed to everyone according to his need.” (Acts 4:32-35; see also 2:42-47)

Levellers and the Diggers, were Protestant political movements in the English Civil War that emphasised popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance, and the redistribution of wealth on an egalitarian basis. It’s only after post Marx is that communism is associated with atheism. The idea of communism isn’t bad, it’s the ones who implement who are bad.

All true. I don’t think communism (so long as not in the Marxist/Leninist vein) is bad in a moral sense. I just don’t think it makes for very good economic policy.

 

[Abu]

JaredM
People rarely seem to forget that communism was originally a Christian concept. Early Christians used the New Testament in which emphasised sharing amongst everyone equally….“all who owned property or houses sold them and lay them at the feet of the apostles to be distributed to everyone according to his need.” (Acts 4:32-35; see also 2:42-47)

That is false. See post #21:
“Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

“We see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
(This) shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”

“In Acts 2:44-47, so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.” [Op.cit., p 46].

It’s only after post Marx is that communism is associated with atheism. The idea of communism isn’t bad, it’s the ones who implement who are bad.

The system itself is gravely flawed, unlike the free enterprise laws developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics.
Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120:
“We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel.” (#128).

 

[Abu]

Raskolnikov
Capitalism may be a good thing, as I think it is, but free markets alone can’t solve most economic problems…. The answer, I think, to the economic problems of countries like the Ukraine is not communism, but it also isn’t (at least not yet) true free maket capitalism. They might do well to follow in the footsteps of Japan, which kept trade fairly open, but the government played a significant role in funding technological research, education, and subsidizing certain industries to make them competitive with the US. In the1960s, the Japanese couldn’t compete with us in technology. Just 20 years later, Americans were talking about how the Japanese were taking over the world, because they had surpassed us in so many areas. They certainly didn’t do that by minimizing government intervention across the board.

Try to think of one country where there are no regulations. For free markets to succeed, they require a framework built on rule of law, contracts and secure property rights. Government assistance with research, education and even subsidies may be helpful if restricted in size and time. GATT agreements, and similar, do allow for tariffs under certain conditions.

And, free enterprise, largely unhindered by government manipulation, allowed restoration of worthwhile conditions in the U.S.A. in he 1920’s.
**What happened When No Stimuli Were Applied in the 1920 Crash In The U.S.A.?**After inflating the money supply during and after World War I, the U.S. Federal Reserve began raising the discount rate (to the banks) and the economy slowed. By the middle of 1920 production had slumped, falling by 21% over the following 12 months – conditions were worse than after the first year in the yet to come Great Depression of 1930. The federal government and federal Reserve refrained from using any Keynesian macroeconomic tools – public works spending, government deficits, inflationary monetary policy – resulting in a drastic cleaning up of credit weakness, a drastic reduction in the costs of production and the free play of private enterprise, through keeping spending and taxation low and reducing the public debt.

Thus was the rally in business production and employment that started in August 1921 soundly based, there was a quick rebound, and quite vigorous growth.[See Dr Thomas E Woods Jr.,* Meltdown, Regnery 2009, p 94-5].

“Harding’s handling of the Depression of 1920-21 is the primary reason why he is universally denigrated by devotees of Big Government. Upon taking office, Harding inherited an economy that was reeling from dislocations caused by World War I. In a few months, wholesale prices collapsed by more than 40 percent. Production plunged over 20 percent. Unemployment zoomed from under 3 percent to over 11 percent. 1920-21 saw the most rapid, severe economic downturn our country has ever experienced.”

In We Could Use a Man Like Warren Harding Again, adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College – Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson – points out that President Harding’s “response was to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments. He didn’t ‘do nothing,’ as President Obama implied when touting his ‘stimulus’ plan; rather, he cut taxes and slashed federal spending 10-20 percent per year. Prices were allowed to fall, supply and demand readjusted, and by 1922 the depression was over. During the next few years, unemployment dove while production soared 60 percent. Harding presided over one of the greatest economic success stories in American history.”
[By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson, August 12, 2009

We Could Use a Man Like Warren Harding Again

The popular 1970s television series “All in the Family” had a cute theme-song sung by Archie and Edith at the beginning of every episode. One lyric was: “Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.” Well, the show … Continue reading

www.faithandfreedom.com

 

[JimG]

I can’t let a thread on Communism pass without linking to this recent article.

Not only did Communism deliberately kill millions of its own people wherever it held sway, it was at constant war with the Catholic Church, because the Church and Communism hold opposite views on the nature of man. Coexistence was not possible.

 

[catharina]

I can’t let a thread on Communism pass without linking to this recent article.

Not only did Communism deliberately kill millions of its own people wherever it held sway, it was at constant war with the Catholic Church, because the Church and Communism hold opposite views on the nature of man. Coexistence was not possible.

Thanks, Jim.

My own response to the thread’s question:
Is Communism itself a bad thing?
YES, always.

 

[copperblade]

What do you think the difference between what we’re talking about as “communism” is, and what the earliest christians did when they took everything was held in common?

I think communism as has been expressed by governments is generally a bad thing, which all lead back to the concept of making the state more important than the individual. Other forms of government have the same problem to differing degrees.

With that said, I don’t think it’s necessary that any form of communism must be bad. I just think it’s nearly impossible if not impossible to achieve in any realistic sense on a big scale. I think on very small (local) scales it can and does work.

 

[catharina]

What do you think the difference between what we’re talking about as “communism” is, and what the earliest christians did when they took everything was held in common?

I think communism as has been expressed by governments is generally a bad thing, which all lead back to the concept of making the state more important than the individual. Other forms of government have the same problem to differing degrees.

With that said, I don’t think it’s necessary that any form of communism must be bad. I just think it’s nearly impossible if not impossible to achieve in any realistic sense on a big scale. I think on very small (local) scales it can and does work.

There is no positive comparison between Christianity and communism.

Early Christians held all things in common. They gave special
consideration to orphans and widows. They obeyed the law of GOD.
Most importantly, Christians were united around the fact of Jesus Christ
as Redeemer and Lord. The truth of the Good News was and is spread.
Love God and love your neighbor is the law.

OTOH, communism exists with a total rejection of God as the
Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifyer. It exists to serve government,
not to serve God or man. It holds no goal of instilling morality
in anyone. Rather it sees men as working beasts, controlled by a few.
Those few have unfettered and unearned power - without any mutual
morality to lead them - and without any idea of sacrificial love.

 

[copperblade]

There is no positive comparison between Christianity and communism.

Early Christians held all things in common. They gave special
consideration to orphans and widows. They obeyed the law of GOD.
Most importantly, Christians were united around the fact of Jesus Christ
as Redeemer and Lord. The truth of the Good News was and is spread.
Love God and love your neighbor is the law.

OTOH, communism exists with a total rejection of God as the
Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifyer. It exists to serve government,
not to serve God or man. It holds no goal of instilling morality
in anyone. Rather it sees men as working beasts, controlled by a few.
Those few have unfettered and unearned power - without any mutual
morality to lead them - and without any idea of sacrificial love.

What about stateless communism?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism