Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[nmgauss]

Having been in Sub Sahara Africa, I can honestly say that it is the climate and intensely lethal diseases, snakes, insects, that keep the native people very tradition bound, because that is the way they have survived, with a life expectancy, if they are lucky, to age 45.

For the most part, Sub Sahara Africa depends on minerals for its wealth. The oil of Nigeria, the copper of Congo (Zaire), and the diamonds and gold of South Africa have brought in tremendous wealth. This part of Africa is very old (primarily an ancient plateau) and has poor soils. Its climate varies from tropical rainforest with year-round rain to savannah where half the year is dry without rain. Unless one can cultivate fertile river bottom soils, low fertility will plague most farmers. Transportation is also lacking with few railroads in most countries (South Africa is the exception), Even river traffic on large rivers cannot reach the sea because of rapids. Also Sub Sahara Africa has poor port facilities, thus handicapping international trade. Many countries are landlocked, meaning that they cannot have access to sea trade except through other countries. Manufacturing is thus severely handicapped. And the prospects for large scale food production are dismal.

I cannot be optimistic about this part of Africa ever being able to be prosperous. If population continues to expand, the people will not be able to feed themselves and will not have enough money or raw materials to be able to buy food from abroad. The war on poverty will alleviate some suffering, but it can never solve the persistent widespread poverty.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, I acknowledge everything here you have stated.

Also another one they lack, and I remember this as we used a generator, is the lack of electricity. So people cannot work in darkness, only if they use light. The missions built at 2 am when it was cool and they used lanterns and generators for the contractors.

A Nigerian visited with me and told me the lack of electricity plagues his country and people stop working at 5:30 pm.

I lived about 6 blocks from the Zambezie River and the women would go down there to get their water. People used to live there, were warned but did not heed, and were all drowned when the Cabora Bassa Dam opened its flood gates. There is alot of fatalism and inability to change to even boiling water as they have found ways that enable them to live there.

Yes, I would say in some parts the soil was poor. There were a few who had tractors, and the Africans had to contribute as well to purchasing these tractors. The missionaries refused to give hand outs. They grew mainly corn and rice. I lived in Luabo. It used to be home to Sena Sugar, Ltd. from England. Now I believe it is an American company that is restarting sugar production and I do not think they will make the same mistakes as the English. The Africans told me they would make jokes about them behind their backs, and had special nick names for them.

Yes, the biggest problem is infrastructure along with the diseases, and snakes…mambas most prolific there as well. Highest diversity of mosquitos and snakes, actually. There was talk the slave trade took the most able and intelligent or neighboring tribes for these people to live in places less sustainable. The Lomwe were shunned by the Sena where I lived because they lived in the highlands and had to eat rats and snakes, but the Lomwe were the most devout Catholics. The Sena in Luabo were better off than other Africans but still in such need.

The mission I worked in was destroyed, along with others in Morrumbala, Munhamade, Chinde. The church I prayed in Luabo is still standing but I don’t know if anyone is using it. Sad to see anti-Catholic American evangelicals coming in, as I know there were Adventists in my former mission before me, that were spreading the same kinds of spins as we hear in this country. But the Capuchins did well and most Catholics in Mozambique are located in the province of Zambezia. The priests endured tremendous hardships after Ieft, my pastor/friend sending me letters and newsletters 4 or 5 times every year for ove 25 years. He is now a pastor of a large parish in Apulila and very busy again, my friend for now 40 years.

There is such a thing as the missionary bond. It is so profound. Pope Francis is calling us to be missionary. People don’t realize how wonderful it can be with a missionary spirit…and the fellowship and fraternity that comes with it, and the strength you receive from Christ and His consoling presence within. Pope JPII spoke so succulently in his encyclical, ‘Mission of the Redeemer’.

I think about how fragile life is, and there are so many reports coming out about what could happen if we have this earthquake or a solar flare affecting our electronic systems, or the large cities that have no land and millions upon millions without food, let’s say in NYC.

So I think the best economic system would be that where people have to learn to live with less but alot more in the missionary faith and lifestyle. Of course, that is if we do have some kind of epic tragedy. I live in a region where we could get an earthquake like that which happened in Indonesia, a 9 plus. They say it could come at any time.

People can live in commune only for so long. I think a socialist type system would work where people would have to share. But once an infrastructure is set up again, free market but an intact communal moral value to be in the forefront to avoid excess.

Both Marxism and Capitalism and Socialism have their excesses and evil. Best system is that which allows freedom of religion, because then we know God will provide and enable us.

 

[freeRadical]

Too many text books, and not enough reality. When the two persons exchange a couple of sticks for a sweatshirt. That is a market however limited.

If you look at a larger example you see that it’s simply made up of a multitude of smaller exchanges. Just like the guys in Haiti.

ATB

I never said there wasn’t a market. Whenever two people voluntarily exchange goods of course there is a market. I simply said that just because there is a market you cannot imply that the economic system is which that market operates is Capitalistic. There are many different types of markets, not all of them are free.

 

[manualman]

Definitions are often poorly defined in these discussions. These are the definitions I learned in school and still use:

Communism: Government owns means of production and citizens have little real power to influence government.

Socialism: Government owns means of production and citizens have free elections to use to keep government accountable (theoretically, anyways!).

Fascism: Mostly private ownership of mean of production, but citizens have litte real power to influence government. (Complicated because fascists often claim to be socialists, but aren’t.).

Capitalism: Private ownership of means of production and citizens have free elections to keep government accountable. My addition: Capitalist systems generally innately favor the investor compared to the entrepenuer over time. Power tends to reinforce itself, after all.

Personally, I favor an alternate approach to free markets and representative government. I’d like to see the corrupting characteristics of capitalism (above) curtailed a bit with law and regulations that tilt the playing field advantage to the entrepenuer rather than the investor who starts the game with money to invest. I think it’s the guys willing to work their butts off to build their own business that really are the heroes of the capitalist system, not the Wall Street guys and stock buyers. They may be necessary servants, but they are brutal when they become the masters. And they ARE the masters these days.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I never said there wasn’t a market. Whenever two people voluntarily exchange goods of course there is a market. I simply said that just because there is a market you cannot imply that the economic system is which that market operates is Capitalistic. There are many different types of markets, not all of them are free.

Oh, I thought that you had.

ATB

 

[nmgauss]

Communism: Government owns means of production and citizens have little real power to influence government

.

Incentives here are linked to politics and power. Whoever bribes the right government officials or uses a quid-pro-quo approach can influence government. Whoever goes against someone with greater power suffers the consequences. Of course, those with the greatest power are not chosen by the citizens.

Socialism: Government owns means of production and citizens have free elections to use to keep government accountable (theoretically, anyways!).

Here again bribery and political influence of government officials on each other can determine governmental decisions even if these officials have been chosen by the citizens.

Fascism: Mostly private ownership of mean of production, but citizens have litte real power to influence government. (Complicated because fascists often claim to be socialists, but aren’t.).

The incentives here are in the hands of the few with power who line their pockets with money brought in by their cronies in government.

Capitalism: Private ownership of means of production and citizens have free elections to keep government accountable. My addition: Capitalist systems generally innately favor the investor compared to the entrepenuer over time. Power tends to reinforce itself, after all.

Here the incentives are to make money for owners and stock holders including entrepeneurs. A single entrepreneur who makes the right choices in a risky venture can become rich very quickly. Just look at what happened to Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Also, Bill Gates, in partnership with somebody else, became extremely rich in a short time. Contrast that with Steve Jobs who struggled for years with Apple. All were entrepeneurs Here the government can shape the capitalist environment by making laws protecting the entrepreneur and investor. But the risk is assumed entirely by the entrepreneur and his financial backers

 

[Robert_Sock]

The central message of the Gospels is LOVE, yet our capitalistic system is a violation of LOVE. When evaluating economic systems, why not make LOVE the criterion value? How can the Catholic Church criticize any system of which it is maximumly promoted?

 

[dshix]

The central message of the Gospels is LOVE, yet our capitalistic system is a violation of LOVE. When evaluating economic systems, why not make LOVE the criterion value? How can the Catholic Church criticize any system of which it is maximumly promoted?

Don’t ask ridiculous questions. There is no such thing as a perfectly “loving” economic system. It’s a fallen world, dude.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Don’t ask ridiculous questions. There is no such thing as a perfectly “loving” economic system. It’s a fallen world, dude.

Are you saying that an economic system that promotes LOVE is a waste of time because we live in a fallen world?

As Catholics, we are commanded by Christ to foster as much LOVE in our fallen world as humanly possible.

 

[dshix]

Are you saying that an economic system that promotes LOVE is a waste of time because we live in a fallen world?

Nope. Read it again. And this time, actually read what I said and not what you wanted me to say.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Nope. Read it again. And this time, actually read what I said and not what you wanted me to say.

Why are you focusing on a ‘perfectly loving’ economic system? Economic systems differ in the amount of LOVE they promote. All I’m saying is that we ought to chose whichever one promotes the most LOVE!

 

[JimG]

Economics is a quantitative discipline. As soon as Love [what kind of love?] can be quantified, perhaps the economists can analyze systems with respect to love. Would it be fair to say that a system such as communism which was responsible for millions of deaths in the 20th century might be lacking in love? Would it be fair to say that Fidel Castro’s revolution where he was lining up members of the middle class to be shot by firing squad without trial might be lacking in love?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Economics is a quantitative discipline. As soon as Love [what kind of love?] can be quantified, perhaps the economists can analyze systems with respect to love. Would it be fair to say that a system such as communism which was responsible for millions of deaths in the 20th century might be lacking in love? Would it be fair to say that Fidel Castro’s revolution where he was lining up members of the middle class to be shot by firing squad without trial might be lacking in love?

I would say that we ought not judge the economic systems in respect to the deaths of innocent people. Remember that 9,500 innocent children die each and every day due to starvation and we in the West turn a blind eye to it. What a crime against humanity we all are committing. Is this LOVE? Is this justice? Our inactions reduce us lower than worms!

 

[JimG]

I would say that we ought not judge the economic systems in respect to the deaths of innocent people. Remember that 9,500 innocent children die each and every day due to starvation and we in the West turn a blind eye to it. What a crime against humanity we all are committing. Is this LOVE? Is this justice? Our inactions reduce us lower than worms!

And how many millions did Stalin deliberately starve while the world turned a blind eye?

When such things are pointed out, it may be objected that it was not feasible to go to war with Stalin. Maybe not.

Do you propose that “the West” somehow take over the entire globe and impose an economic system which will reduce the global starvation? I think such an attempt would be met with war.

 

[markomalley]

Fascism: Mostly private ownership of mean of production, but citizens have litte real power to influence government. (Complicated because fascists often claim to be socialists, but aren’t.).

Fascism is mostly private ownership of the means of production but those means of production are told what to produce and how much to produce of it.

 

[Robert_Sock]

And how many millions did Stalin deliberately starve while the world turned a blind eye?

When such things are pointed out, it may be objected that it was not feasible to go to war with Stalin. Maybe not.

Do you propose that “the West” somehow take over the entire globe and impose an economic system which will reduce the global starvation? I think such an attempt would be met with war.

I do not think the West should impose economic systems worldwide, but it’s a fact that the West has an abundance of resources that could easily be used to make those living in extreme poverty self-sufficient. Again, we in the West are lower than worms with our inaction to these continual atrocities.

I do believe we have a moral and religious duty to spread LOVE the best we can by choosing an economic systems that most allows LOVE.

 

[nmgauss]

I do not think the West should impose economic systems worldwide, but it’s a fact that the West has an abundance of resources that could easily be used to make those living in extreme poverty self-sufficient. Again, we in the West are lower than worms with our inaction to these continual atrocities.

I do believe we have a moral and religious duty to spread LOVE the best we can by choosing an economic systems that most allows LOVE.

The Catholic Church is the richest religious organization in the world. Much of the money comes from accumulated wealth and endowments originally contributed by capitalists and from profitable business activities of the Church. The same source of funds is evident in the Latter Day Saints organization which requires tithing.

LOVE is not part of the equation. Power is. The aim of organized religion is power. The quest for power takes precedence over LOVE. I don’t know what is meant by LOVE, and how that can improve the economic well-being of humanity.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The Catholic Church is the richest religious organization in the world. Much of the money comes from accumulated wealth and endowments originally contributed by capitalists and from profitable business activities of the Church. The same source of funds is evident in the Latter Day Saints organization which requires tithing.

LOVE is not part of the equation. Power is. The aim of organized religion is power. The quest for power takes precedence over LOVE. I don’t know what is meant by LOVE, and how that can improve the economic well-being of humanity.

If you do not know what LOVE is, just read the Gospels!

Why can’t maximizing LOVE be a big part of an economic system?

 

[starshiptrooper]

I do not think the West should impose economic systems worldwide, but it’s a fact that the West has an abundance of resources that could easily be used to make those living in extreme poverty self-sufficient. Again, we in the West are lower than worms with our inaction to these continual atrocities.

I do believe we have a moral and religious duty to spread LOVE the best we can by choosing an economic systems that most allows LOVE.

There are plenty of resources in Africa and Asia. Why do you think the Europeans colonized those continents? Problem is, people of Africa and Asia cannot move forward and exploit those resources since they lack a stable society/and or a socio-political-moral philosophy that encourages progress.

 

[KathleenGee]

nmgaus,

Of all the social institutions and countries, the Catholic Church gives more to humanity than any other entity. I met a priest this past year who was vice president of this organization. It is located outside the Vatican. It was previously headed by an English speaking woman. Because the Curia did not want her heading this international organization, Pope Francis chose a bishop to run it, but with the same vision as the predecessor and Pope Francis.

There is also in the Gospels the parable of the wise steward. I think if you look at the service of the Church to the world in multiple tasks, you can also understand that the endowments, etc., then one would see it more as wise stewardship and there is nothing wrong with that in itself. Especially important, is that no lay people are dictated to give 10%. In the ancient church, only the wealthy were asked to support widows, orphans, women without men in the family. But each household decided freely for themselves how much to give in charity.

People, many Catholics included, do not understand the nature and mission of the Church. Its life comes from Jesus Christ, she is the Bride of Christ, a living breathing sacrament so to speak. The clergy merely administrate.