National Economic Systems Conforming to Catholic Social Teaching

[vern_humphrey]

How is Capitalism living up to the standard? The US doesn’t value the human person, otherwise there would be no debate over abortion, human cloning, stemcell research and etc.

What has abortion, human cloning, and so on got to do with capitalism?

Capitalism, unlike communism and socialism, is not an ideology. Capitalism is “The private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit, in a competitive system.”

It is impersonal, that is what the point of that sentence was. Goods have nothing to do with it. It breaks down the communication between persons.

No, it doesn’t – it starves people, makes them kneel at a ditch to be shot in the head, and so on. That’s how Communism “communicates.”

The 19th century American economy was capitalism too. Would you say that the way people were living in the lower east side of NYC was just? Capitalism must be regulated.

The situation you describe was not capitalism – it was monopoly, which is the antithesis of captialism.

And yes, capitalism must be regulated – to keep it competitive, to protect people from hucksters, and so on.

The Church doesn’t oppose every aspect of communism or socialism. The Church recognizes that there are good aspects of it.

Which aspects – the artificial famines, or the bullet in the back of the head?

What they reject is the atheistic and totalitarian tendencies.

But that’s what communism is! Find a communist state that isn’t like that!

And likewise they do not teach capitalism as if it is good. They accept that there are some good aspects to it but there are also problems as there are with socialism.

The Church is not very attuned to economics – you might say the Church says about capitalism what Winston Churchill said about democracy, “It’s the worst possible system, except for all the other systems.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

No it wouldn’t. And I assume you don’t like the pre-revolutionary form either but you have already accused me of basically being a socialist so if your words sound like the pre-revolutionary Russians it makes sense that you might support that view.

My views were neither put into practice in Russia nor in China.

Actually, they were. Every time you talk to a communist, he will tell you, “What happened in Russia (or China, or wherever) was not true Communism.”

But he’s wrong – communism requires the state to have total power – and Lord Acton was right. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

To put your idea into effect, someone must have absolute power – the landowners won’t give up their land voluntarily, now will they? And that power will corrupt the men who wield it – as it has in so many cases in the past.

You are projecting your ideas onto myself. If you are going to do this it is reasonable for me to say you are a pure individualist as I accused the conservatives of before. We can both make extreme statements about eachother

Now you are getting really annoying when you try to twist my words. Ok, I have no qualms about calling you an individualist who hates the poor now that you are accusing me of relativism. If you want this discussion to go anywhere then you should stop putting words into my mouth.

How am I twisting your words, and what have I called you. I haven’t called you a liberal, a consevative, a libertarian, or put any other label on you. I have simply discussed your** ideas**.

And your views are based on your prejudices.

Are you saying there was no Collectivisation Famine? That the Chinese Communist (and many other Communists) did not use mass executions to put their programs into effect?

Are you saying that nations like Zimbabwe are models of social justice and harmony?

And that I say the contrary only because of my prejudices?

Every statement you make you sound more like a jerk and you get a little more offensive.

Well, I haven’t gone so far to say you sound like a jerk and are offensive, now have I?

No I am not. I never said the govt. had anything to do with it. In fact I denied that govt. has anything to do with it. Read the first post of mine on the thread. You are continuing to put words into my mouth that I have denied.

It strikes me that there three ways your program could be put into action:

1. The landowners voluntarily give up their property. If they were going to do that, they would have already done it.
2. The government takes the property.
3. The property is seized by mob action.

Is there a way I missed?

This thread ceased to be interesting with this post. You have accused me of many things that are offensive and it is no longer fun to discuss it.

Yes, when you started using words like “jerk” the tone went straight downhill.

By the way, please post a quote from me where I accused you of anything at all.

 

[jimmy]

Yes, when you started using words like “jerk” the tone went straight downhill.

By the way, please post a quote from me where I accused you of anything at all.

How about here where you basically accuse me of dishonesty?
Which is different from a direct accusation only in that it is weasle-worded.
Or where you accuse me of relativism.

But that’s what communism is! Find a communist state that isn’t like that!

No it isn’t. Read Acts, read the writings of any monastic. Read St. Benedict’s rule. They used a form of communism in which there was no private ownership of goods. None of the monks owned anything. In Acts Peter tells Ananias and Saphirah that they will die, and surely they do at that moment, because they lied to the Spirit and with-held some of their property. The fact is that the early Christians gave everything to the Church and it was all handled by the apostles and the deacons for the good of the people.

Capitalism, unlike communism and socialism, is not an ideology. Capitalism is “The private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit, in a competitive system.”

How do you define an ideology? To me an ideology is simply a perception of truth that you guide your life by.

No, it doesn’t – it starves people, makes them kneel at a ditch to be shot in the head, and so on. That’s how Communism “communicates.”

That’s how Russian and Chinese communism work. That is how those govts worked that were influenced by Marx. But the idea of shared wealth among the community is an ancient one and it was employed by the apostles. This form obviously did not employ the methods which you speak of.

The situation you describe was not capitalism – it was monopoly, which is the antithesis of captialism.

And yes, capitalism must be regulated – to keep it competitive, to protect people from hucksters, and so on.

And how is that different than those who say that Russia didn’t have true communism?

It strikes me that there three ways your program could be put into action:

1. The landowners voluntarily give up their property. If they were going to do that, they would have already done it.

1. The government takes the property.

1. The property is seized by mob action.

Is there a way I missed?

Strangely the apostles and the followers of Christianity followed your proposition 1. All monastics that have every claimed the name Christian have followed this as well.

How am I twisting your words, and what have I called you. I haven’t called you a liberal, a consevative, a libertarian, or put any other label on you. I have simply discussed your** ideas**.

You have accused me of falling into post-modernism which is nothing other than relativism. You have basically accused me of being a Russian communist. You have accused me of using ‘weasle-words’ which sounds like an accusation of dishonesty to me.

Are you saying there was no Collectivisation Famine? That the Chinese Communist (and many other Communists) did not use mass executions to put their programs into effect?

Are you saying that nations like Zimbabwe are models of social justice and harmony?

And that I say the contrary only because of my prejudices?

Everyone has prejudices. Everyone has a perception of the world.

I haven’t denied any aspect of Chinese or Russian history. The Russians used mass murder as a tool as well.

Actually, they were. Every time you talk to a communist, he will tell you, “What happened in Russia (or China, or wherever) was not true Communism.”

But he’s wrong – communism requires the state to have total power – and Lord Acton was right. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And you have shown that capitalists will deny that the 19th century form of capitalism in the US that was mentioned above was actually capitalism. It was. The US might have laws that prevent that way of economics now but it certainly was capitalism. Russian communism represents me far less than19th century capitalism represents you.

I have no problems with the modern US economic approach. The only problem I have is the greed that people have. If people are charitable it is fine.

 

[jimmy]

I want to make something clear. This thread developed in a way that I didn’t intend and that I didn’t expect. My first post was meant to argue against the idea that a single person or a few persons could claim all the resources of a country. Those resources are not the property of a few. Somehow it turned into an arguement of socialism vs. capitalism, even though I am not a socialist or communist in any sense of the word. On the contrary, I think that the US is the greatest country in the world and I think its economic perspective is better than any other nation. But you can not pretend that it is perfect. There are flaws in capitalism. It leads to pure individualism. So it must be regulated. And you can’t say that the US form of capitalism is perfect either.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I want to make something clear. This thread developed in a way that I didn’t intend and that I didn’t expect. My first post was meant to argue against the idea that a single person or a few persons could claim all the resources of a country. Those resources are not the property of a few. Somehow it turned into an arguement of socialism vs. capitalism, even though I am not a socialist or communist in any sense of the word.

Yet the idea you are advancing is the fundamental idea behind Communism – that private ownership of resources is wrong.

And as we pointed out, to take those resources that are privately-owned requires power and force – overwhelming power and force. And absolute power corrupts absolutely – and that’s not just a platitude. We showed that it works in nation after nation – from the Soviet Union, to China, to Albania, to East Germany, and on and on.

And we showed that **every **nation that takes private propterty by assuming absolute power becomes a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship.

On the contrary, I think that the US is the greatest country in the world and I think its economic perspective is better than any other nation. But you can not pretend that it is perfect. There are flaws in capitalism. It leads to pure individualism. So it must be regulated. And you can’t say that the US form of capitalism is perfect either.

The point is not that the US is perfect, nor that the US form of capitalism is perfect – the point is that the wholesale confiscation of private property leads to disaster, every time it is tried.

If you want to bring justice to poor nations, they could do worse than by imitating the United States. They could not do worse than by imitating the Soviet Union, Communist China, Albania, and so on.

So we should not encourage them to imitate the Soviet Union, Communist China, Albania, and so on.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

The quote function isn’t working for me, so I’ll have to improvise…

Jimmy wrote: I like the freedoms which our country gives us…But ultimately these are not divine rights but civil(simply look at the fact that the concept of money is a human concept)

Wrong-o. Our rights come from our creator, in no way are they “granted” by the “country” or “government”. That’s what makes them inalienable.

Jimmy wrote: Ultimately the idea of charity goes before my civil right to own property(property ownership is not a divine right either considering the fact that the whole concept is a human concept).

The question for me comes down to who decides what is “too much” property/things to have. Allowing anyone other than the property owner make that decision leads to bad things, proven by history time and again. It creates a false “us/them” dichotomy that leads to division and ultimately bloodshed. It arouses envy in others, which is not something a Christian should be doing. What was it that Christ said about being a stumbling block to others?