B
badnewsbarrett
Guest
If yes, has the Vatican made any statements specifically pertaining to democratic socialism? If not, what would be an economic metric that more closely aligns with official Catholic social teaching?
Is democratic socialism the closest cognate to Catholic social teaching?
- Status
C
Catholic_Nation
Guest
Democratic Socialism is usually a secular political belief but may be inline with Church Teaching when it comes to social justice, if anything is nearest to Catholic Social Teaching it would be Distributism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
B
badnewsbarrett
Guest
Very interesting, thank you. I’m especially interested in the book it references toward the end, Grand New Party. A roadmap for revising the Republican Party in the United States, and according to Ross Douthat, “a book written in the distributist tradition.”
Democratic socialism is somewhat distinct from regular socialism, at least to some extent, so although distributism opposes both socialism and capitalism, I wonder if it would oppose democratic socialism. This is the Wiki page on democratic socialism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
Democratic socialism puts an emphasis on collective ownership of the means of production, while distributism emphasizes property ownership as a fundamental right while the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, although not while being under the control of the state. There are some details to work through, but it seems like there could be quite a bit of overlap between the two. Do you suppose I’ll run into anything completely divergent as I look a bit further?
C
Catholic_Nation
Guest
No Problem glad to help.
Distrubitism was an idea that was meant to be an alternative to both socialism and capitalism. You stated about ownership of property being a fundamental which is true, but the main teaching of Distributism is that if it can be done at the most local level then it should be. Credit Unions and Co-operatives are something that has come from this teaching, Socialism teaches however that the State at the highest level should decide what should be done.
So while the Distrubtism says that local communities should work together to provide, Socialism teaches the nation should be guided by a national group.
C
commenter
Guest
Distributism.
The Catholic idea of democracy is not so much that everyone gets an equal vote, over a large action; for instance, that the whole state of New Jersey decide what items should be on the menu for supper at home this month. Rather, the Catholic ideal is that each family decide what they will have in their own home.
Distributism is opposed both to big business and big government. “Democratic Socialism” sounds nice, but in every case so far, certain people end up with far more power than others. The classic writings would be by Chesterton and Belloc, of course, but C S Lewis describes why the alternative to distributism is wrong, from another angle in his novel “That Hideous Strength”, and non fiction book, “The Abolition of Man”.
The Catholic idea of democracy is not so much that everyone gets an equal vote, over a large action; for instance, that the whole state of New Jersey decide what items should be on the menu for supper at home this month. Rather, the Catholic ideal is that each family decide what they will have in their own home.
Distributism is opposed both to big business and big government. “Democratic Socialism” sounds nice, but in every case so far, certain people end up with far more power than others. The classic writings would be by Chesterton and Belloc, of course, but C S Lewis describes why the alternative to distributism is wrong, from another angle in his novel “That Hideous Strength”, and non fiction book, “The Abolition of Man”.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
The Catechism has a very dim view on socialism or any form of central planning.
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
I would say no, since there is not one form of government that the Church has declared to be the best or in most accord with her teachings, but Communism and Socialism (I don’t think this includes democratic Socialism) has been condemned by the Church. Democratic Socialism would not be good for this country.
Neither the socialism party, nor the democracy part, would be good for this country.
Jon
T
total_Catholic
Guest
There is truly NO GOOD CANDIDATE for a catholic to vote for in 2016. Sanders and Clinton both support abortion rights and gay marriage and all Republican candidates support war and the death penalty. I am not voting again as long as I live.
America was founded on rampant anti-catholicism so as a practicing catholic, why should I vote? If I had the money and the passport, I would leave the USA in a heartbeat.
America was founded on rampant anti-catholicism so as a practicing catholic, why should I vote? If I had the money and the passport, I would leave the USA in a heartbeat.
H
HelenRose
Guest
However, the problem with any secular political system; there is power to be had. It doesn’t matter what the type of a government: if the leaders are corrupt that system is not working.
The leaders will be corrupt if the people are corrupt. If the culture does not value courage, honesty, faithfulness the leaders will lack these virtues as well. If a culture does not value life, it will die.
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
This is not a good excuse to abstain from voting. If there is no candidate that completely fits your political ideology or Catholic morality, then you should pick the lesser of the two evils. Your vote as a Catholic can help make this country better. As a side note, it is not against Catholic teaching to support the death penalty.
J
jediliz
Guest
Then don’t complain when your take home pay goes down due to higher taxes if Sanders wins. You do realize voting is a civic duty? And the death penalty is allowed in very limited cases. The republican candidates don’t support the death penalty for the innocent (unborn babies). And sometimes war is necessary in certain cases…we’d still be under English rule of it weren’t for a certain war of independence…
A
Alex_H
Guest
The Vatican has indeed made statements on the ideas found in socialism. In his encyclical, Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII states:
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.
This statement completely contradicts the idea of common ownership of property, something that socialists advocate.
Instead, as Catholics, we must advocate for: Link
- Jobs for all who can work
- Just Wages
- An end to discrimination
- The right of workers to choose whether to organize, join a union, and bargain collectively, and to exercise these rights without reprisal
T
total_Catholic
Guest
Nobody ever went to jail for NOT voting. Sorry, NONE of these candidates reflect my Catholic beliefs. But you let me know how SWELL this nation is gonna be the next 4 years. I would post what George Carlin thought of voting but it would get erased and I’d get banned.
T
twf
Guest
That last sentence is unlikely. Canada and Australia are good examples of countries with somewhat shared history as British colonies that gradually developed independence from Britain without war.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Seems like a pretty “sensational” question.
P
Peter_J
Guest
This reminds me of something said in another thread. I don’t remember the exact words, but something like: If the GOP wants Catholic votes, they need to act Catholic.
I guess they need to “act Evangelical” if they want Evangelical votes, and “act Presbyterian” if they want Presbyterian votes, etc.
B
badnewsbarrett
Guest
I might recommend putting some support behind Santorum if he takes another run in another election cycle.
Rome wasn’t exactly founded on a pro-Catholic platform either, or pro-monotheism either for that matter. And it had a spotty history with Christianity for a little while- and by “a little while,” I mean a period of time roughly as long as the history of the United States as an independent country.
The Boston area in particular was very anti-Catholic; in fact, the celebration of Christmas was banned for 22 years and it didn’t become widely fashionable to celebrate it until the mid 19th century.
“For preventing disorders, arising in several places within this jurisdiction by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other communities, to the great dishonor of God and offense of others: it is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shilling as a fine to the county.”
From the records of the General Court,
Massachusetts Bay Colony
May 11, 1659
It depends on the area though, not every city in all 13 colonies was like Boston. As for me, I’m from a city that was founded by a Jesuit, and it’s had a strong Catholic history throughout.
So basically, I do acknowledge that in some areas there was a strong sense of de facto and occasionally (at a local level) de jure anti Catholicism, especially in the early history of the US. But I’m also pointing out how at a federal level and in a Constitutional sense, Americans of all religions have always enjoyed official protection from Congress making laws to the disadvantage of Catholics, which is a favor that nearly every majority-Catholic country would take another two centuries or so to return. And I’m pointing out how these types of things can and often are a moving target- Boston used to make people think of Puritans and anti-Anglican sentiment right alongside anti-Catholic sentiment. Now Boston makes people think of a Catholic stronghold first and foremost. It also makes people think of Ivy League education that is virtually a prerequisite for anyone to be a Supreme Court justice, and of those 9 people, a majority are Catholic.
I hope that gives you at least one or two reasons to rethink just a bit, but let me leave you with this thought. Right now, in the year 2016- or for that matter at any time in the past 75 to 100 years- just imagine what would happen if anyone tried to pass legislation banning the celebration of Christmas in Boston and its surrounding area. Let me know how you imagine that working out in the present day, or something close to it.
J
JackVk
Guest
No, it isn’t. Socialism of any kind, like* Rerum Novarum* points out, empowers nobody but bureaucrats.
What socialism is, is a social system that ascribes definite economic value based on a perceived social value, for example what is in the common good, what serves the fatherland or what is in the best interest of the volk (not a typo).
The obvious question for those who believe in free will and free markets is “So who decides what is in the best interest of the common good?”. The answer is always the same; the socialists decide what is the common good.
Socialism must always be imposed, it is never voluntary, because once you remove the impetus of the socialist’s social contract then free will and free markets will always prevail. Without the imposition of force not even the most dedicated socialists can remain socialist if they are not the one’s writing the contract.
What’s more, think about the “democratic” handle that Bernie Sanders plugs. Remember that democracy, in its purest form, is mob rule. So instead of the police or military seizing your property and assets, it’s the hordes. You cannot vote away someone else’s economic freedom and live in a free country. Democratic Socialism necessarily results in tyranny of the majority.
The only real difference between socialism and communism is how it is imposed; the former by the ballot, the latter by the bullet. It’s like forcing a man to choose between being murdered and committing suicide.
Finally, the government should not be attempting to “fix” what the free market already does most efficiently.
What socialism is, is a social system that ascribes definite economic value based on a perceived social value, for example what is in the common good, what serves the fatherland or what is in the best interest of the volk (not a typo).
The obvious question for those who believe in free will and free markets is “So who decides what is in the best interest of the common good?”. The answer is always the same; the socialists decide what is the common good.
Socialism must always be imposed, it is never voluntary, because once you remove the impetus of the socialist’s social contract then free will and free markets will always prevail. Without the imposition of force not even the most dedicated socialists can remain socialist if they are not the one’s writing the contract.
What’s more, think about the “democratic” handle that Bernie Sanders plugs. Remember that democracy, in its purest form, is mob rule. So instead of the police or military seizing your property and assets, it’s the hordes. You cannot vote away someone else’s economic freedom and live in a free country. Democratic Socialism necessarily results in tyranny of the majority.
The only real difference between socialism and communism is how it is imposed; the former by the ballot, the latter by the bullet. It’s like forcing a man to choose between being murdered and committing suicide.
Finally, the government should not be attempting to “fix” what the free market already does most efficiently.
P
philipl
Guest
The problem with distributism it doesn’t work in large scale economies. Sure if you want to be an artist or a farmer then it works well but try to imagine producing iPhones, computers or safe cars. If you want go back to the horse and buggy days sure you can have lots of companies producing buggies and we did. as those companies transition to making cars, it didn’t work out so well for them.
the reason computers work so well today is because they been standardized. Go back 20 or 30 years And what would work on one computer wont work on another. now for all intensive purposes there’s only two computer types, Windows PC and Mac PCs. the simple fact is, they are companies that only work in large-scale. everybody wants to say that Rockefeller was a bad man because he had a monopoly. but what we forget is that he lowered by a factor of four the cost and produced a product that was safer than what was being produced by the smaller kerosene companies. that is why he named his company standard oil, he standardized the manufacturing of his kerosene. everybody knew that if you bought from standard oil you are getting a product that was safer.
you want an example of distributism look no further than Linux. there are hundreds if not thousands of different distributions of the Linux kernel and unless you really know what you’re doing it is very difficult to get one program running on one distribution and have it run on another. to top it off, linux is free. I run it on one of my computers. it’s called mint and I love it. but I had to go to a Mac just so I can get things done.
now can distributism work in our economy, absolutely, why is there a need for a large school system? A large school system is extremely inefficient. just think about it, look around your house, what items and what things could’ve produced on a small scale and what items would it take that only can be manufactured on a large scale?
- Status