Is conservatism usually on the wrong side of social justice?

[markomalley]

She’s right - all the major documents from Rerum Novarum onwards critique ALL political and economic systems equally.

No.

They have rightly criticized abuses in the capitalist system. They have criticized socialism as being inherently evil.

For example, Bl John XXIII said in Mater et Magistra:

1. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

Can you give me a quote that condemns capitalism as an inherently bad thing? Or can you only find quotes that condemn abuses?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

She’s right - all the major documents from Rerum Novarum onwards critique ALL political and economic systems equally.

That’s NOT what I said.

Catholics stand OUTSIDE the political system of any nation. We follow the politics of Heaven alone.

 

[triumphguy]

No.

They have rightly criticized abuses in the capitalist system. They have criticized socialism as being inherently evil.

For example, Bl John XXIII said in Mater et Magistra:

1. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

Can you give me a quote that condemns capitalism as an inherently bad thing? Or can you only find quotes that condemn abuses?

I think you’ll note that I said critique equally, not condemn equally.

And “unbridled” capitalism (whether called that or not) comes under intense scrutiny in the encylicals marking the anniversary of Rerum Novarum:

eg:

In spite of the great changes which have taken place in the more advanced societies, the human inadequacies of capitalism and the resulting domination of things over people are far from disappearing.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

And later in the same document Blessed John Paull II writes:

We have seen that** it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called “Real Socialism” leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization**. It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development.

 

[markomalley]

I think you’ll note that I said critique equally, not condemn equally.

And “unbridled” capitalism (whether called that or not) comes under intense scrutiny in the encylicals marking the anniversary of Rerum Novarum:

eg:

And later in the same document Blessed John Paull II writes:

And Benedict tells us that it needs to be characterized with gratuitousness. I fully acknowledge that. But in of itself, it is not inherently evil.

It needs to be tempered by charity.

 

[triumphguy]

And Benedict tells us that it needs to be characterized with gratuitousness. I fully acknowledge that. But in of itself, it is not inherently evil.

It needs to be tempered by charity.

And “needs to be tempered by charity” is an imperative according to Pope Leo XIII quoting from St. Thomas Aquinas in Rerum Novarum - it’s not a “nice” option.

 

[markomalley]

And “needs to be tempered by charity” is an imperative according to Pope Leo XIII quoting from St. Thomas Aquinas in Rerum Novarum - it’s not a “nice” option.

Of course. In fact, you can take it back to the Fathers, Augustine, Basil, and John Chrysostom

Charity its never optional.

But this does not mean Robin Hood.

 

[triumphguy]

That’s NOT what I said.

Catholics stand OUTSIDE the political system of any nation. We follow the politics of Heaven alone.

Where’s the disagreement?

 

[triumphguy]

Of course. In fact, you can take it back to the Fathers, Augustine, Basil, and John Chrysostom

Charity its never optional.

But this does not mean Robin Hood.

Who said it does?

What it means is that one’s immortal soul is in peril, not one’s earthly riches if one ignores the moral imperative.

 

[scipio337]

Myth - In 1964 and 1965, southern Democrats were racist segregationists. 1968, southern democrat racist segregationists became Dixiecrats. By 1980 all Dixiecrats had become racist segregationist southern Republicans

Truth - most Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. Dixiecrats were created and then when the civil rights movement accomplished, Dixiecrats returned to the Democrats. Much later, younger Southerners and the thousands of Northerners moved to the South and Republicans began to make gains

Professor of History at University of Washington, Tacoma, Mike Allen:

examiner.com/article/the-dixiecrat-myth

Diana Aldean was in the middle of this in the civil rights era and provides a commentary:

archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml

True! Conservatives proposed (and passed) the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the 19th Amendment.

This thread runs on the huge assumption that classical liberalism and modern liberalism are one and the same. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The modern liberal wants MORE government control of individual lives, not “freedom”.

See Bloomberg, Michael.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

She’s right - all the major documents from Rerum Novarum onwards critique ALL political and economic systems equally.

Triumphguy, you linked your affirmation of my statement with the last which is purely your opinion. I said nothing about the major documents critiquing all political and economic systems equally. I am not qualified to discuss that issue. All I know is that I don’t fit neatly into any political category, not if I live my Catholic faith.

 

[triumphguy]

Triumphguy, you linked your affirmation of my statement with the last which is purely your opinion. I said nothing about the major documents critiquing all political and economic systems equally. I am not qualified to discuss that issue. All I know is that I don’t fit neatly into any political category, not if I live my Catholic faith.

OK - you are right AND the documents since Rerum Novarum have critiqued all forms of economic and political system.

Better?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Or perhaps they have more money and get a tax write off for donating to charity?

So, you think people in, e.g., Mississippi make more money than do people in Maryland? Look it up and you’ll find that it isn’t so.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One of the things that really baffles me is why people somehow think “liberals” are more beneficent to the poor than are “conservatives”. (using the present modern conceptions of those words)

Nothing this administration, which is as “liberal” as liberal gets, has done has been for the benefit of the truly poor. For nearly two years, it had all power…all, and yet it did nothing for the poor. Nor does it propose to do so now.

It did quite a bit for the rich. And it has promised a lot to the “middle class”, but hasn’t delivered anything but higher health insurance premiums and more taxes. It did give the upper middle class and the wealthy “cash for clunkers”. It did do that.

The current “liberal” (again, using the present notions of the word) social goals are libertarian; not differing much from those of “conservative” libertarians.

And the current economic policy is tax more, spend more and tinker with employment more; the “pump priming” of the Roosevelt era. That’s not even “conservative”. It’s retrograde.

If current versions of liberalism collapse, it will actually be for lack of new ideas, when people finally recognize that it has none.

 

[markomalley]

Modern day “liberalism” = a moderate variety of socialism.

 

[livingwordunity]

Right now, I see liberals attacking the Catholic Church and anyone who believe in traditional family values. I don’t see conservatives doing that. I see liberals trying to change the definition of marriage to include sodomy and then misusing the laws to try to force everyone to accept it. I don’t see conservatives doing that. I see liberals trying their hardest to expand abortion (murder) and trying to defend an abortionist who is on trial for murder. I don’t see conservatives doing that. I see liberals trying to convince everyone that the government should take away parents rights to decide how to raise their own children. I don’t see conservatives doing that. I see liberals trying to take away or prevent giving all parents the option to home school their children or send their children to a private school while wealthy liberal politicians and celebrities prefer to send their own children to a nice private school. I see liberals trying to make euthanasia and death panels accepted by society through an “affordable” healthcare system that is “affordable” because it kills people off. I see liberals making everyone pay for other people’s abortions and so-called “sex change” operations. I don’t see conservatives doing that. I could go on.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

Marxism, Leninism, Laissez-faire economics, eugenics, deficit spending (granted, so-called conservatives support this too)…

If that was your presentation on “liberalism”, you wouldn’t think too fondly of it.

Gay “marriage” and abortion and the general moral downward spiral of society are largely the result of liberalism. We don’t see it now, but someday people will look at our society and be like, “Wow, that’s what they thought was “progressive”?” The Roman Empire collapsed because it lost its moral fiber. Same with Catholic Europe before the Reformation. It’ll be the same with us if we don’t do something about it.

And Catholicism doesn’t, can’t, and never will support Liberalism. Modern or Classical. Some of its ideas, such as freedom of religion and the press, can be adopted and held by Catholics, but not for the same reasons. (I.e Catholics support them because we have a right from being coerced within just limits and a right to know the truth, not because we have a right to support falsehoods or a right to circulate in the press whatever we want)

 

[triumphguy]

• Conservative - right wing - property rights (might be against the bourgeoisie and capitalists), support traditional institutions and land-based aristocracy
• Liberal - from centre to right wing - individual rights - capitalism - free labour, free markets and free enterprise, laissez-faire economics, believes in the self made man.
• Socialist - class rights (gay rights, women’s rights, worker’s rights etc) , some central planning
• Communism - central planning, dictatorship of the proletariat, no property rights

I dunno if anyone else studied politics - but this is how the various 'isms broke down when I studied it.

The Church is FOR the rights of everyone to own property.
The Church does not believe that class warfare is inevitable (marxism).
The Church does not believe in historical determinism and the material dialectic (marxism)
The Church believes in individual rights - but the Church believes in the family far more.

 

[markomalley]

• Conservative - right wing - property rights (might be against the bourgeoisie and capitalists), support traditional institutions and land-based aristocracy
• Liberal - from centre to right wing - individual rights - capitalism - free labour, free markets and free enterprise, laissez-faire economics, believes in the self made man.
• Socialist - class rights (gay rights, women’s rights, worker’s rights etc) , some central planning
• Communism - central planning, dictatorship of the proletariat, no property rights

I dunno if anyone else studied politics - but this is how the various 'isms broke down when I studied it.

The Church is FOR the rights of everyone to own property.
The Church does not believe that class warfare is inevitable (marxism).
The Church does not believe in historical determinism and the material dialectic (marxism)
The Church believes in individual rights - but the Church believes in the family far more.

To repeat:

Modern day “liberalism” = a moderate variety of socialism.

By the way, I don’t agree with your distinction between socialism and communism. In true full-blown socialism, “society” owns and directs all the means of production. (Society in practice means the State). Communism is the mythical end-state of revolutionary socialism when the entire world is socialist and there is no need for money because there is no longer any scarcity…because it is the worker’s paradise…

There may be more moderate versions of socialism: where the “workers” (i.e., State) own only some segments of production. Or where the means of production are owned by co-ops. Or where the means of production in the hands of individuals, but production is directed by the State (i.e., a dirigisme economy). But it all boils down to the same thing, in different degrees.

One other thing: socialism has its own form of orthodoxy and heresy against that socialist doctrine is not tolerated.

 

[pnewton]

All I know is that I don’t fit neatly into any political category, not if I live my Catholic faith.

That is a lesson I have learned quite well in my years here. It is neither easy or popular standing with the Catholic Church 100% even on a Catholic website.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

No. Or at least, not in the U.S. Or at least, not if you don’t play historical editor and pretend that people were wrong about what they called themselves. (Which is almost built into your definition, but since your definition may well have the same person be considered a liberal or a conservative for believing the same thing in the space of 20 years, I think I’ll stick with the standard left/right distinction.)

For example, it was our good old Democrat party that resisted the civil rights movement the most. So our liberals were wrong about

Now that liberal Democrat party has realized that that was stupid, but they didn’t learn why - they’ve decided that if anyone ever mentions the word “equality,” they must be right. And so now they don’t realize that gay marriage and abortion aren’t equality issues at all, but rather (resp) trying to create a separate thing that doesn’t and can’t exist and murdering children.

In all ages there will be things that need to change and things that don’t. Claiming that conservatism only tries to maintain the status quo is simply wrong - it’s more complicated than that. If you use that definition, the words become pretty useless. Left and right leaning seems to be relatively fixed, regardless of which one wants to change the way things are.

In fact, in the U.S. at least, I’d tend to say that it’s almost always the other way around: it’s the right leaning people that tend to want to help the poor without unjustly taking from others against their will and who want to make sure that the help is in fact help and not enabling. It is the right side that wants to make sure there is no discrimination based on being of a minority race, but doesn’t want to change this into discrimination against those of the majority race. It is the right side that doesn’t want want the government to force people into religious practices, but doesn’t want to try to shut religion out of the public square entirely. It is the right side that realizes that “gay marriage” is not the same as real marriage and that we shouldn’t pretend that it is, and it is only the right side that realizes that it’s a bad thing to kill children.

Of course, our right side isn’t perfect. But it’s certainly not the opposite.