H
HarryStotle
Guest
Good question. I have no idea.
However, I thought this was informative [well, okay just humorous] relative to socialism…
- Status
However, I thought this was informative [well, okay just humorous] relative to socialism…
R
RandomAlias
Guest
I would agree with the Church on this. Read it carefully:
R
RandomAlias
Guest
That passage from the CCC still leaves room for you to define socialism as whatever you want, whatever supports your view – usually the politics and people you don’t like, right? – but it also touches on the basic principles of human dignity and social justice exemplified and taught by Jesus, not to mention a long line of prophets and the early Church.
Last edited:
P
PJH_74
Guest
Have you missed the meaning of the highlighted words? You are completely ignoring the cost of living in the US. So let me ask you one thing. Would you give up your Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Not sure what point you are making here.
However, keep in mind that welfare benefits in the US put those recipients far above the level of Global middle income standard.
Since most of those promoting socialism in the United States are also promoting open borders and extending welfare benefits even to those they call “undocumented” immigrants, what we have is a recipe for disaster as far as the American people go.
All indications are that the politicians who declare themselves to be socialists and promote socialism are only interested in one thing – bringing down the American economy to the level of the rest of the world. Equalizing income on a global scale. That, and keeping the wealthy elites rich beyond imagining in order that this entire utopian enterprise gets adequately funded.
However, keep in mind that welfare benefits in the US put those recipients far above the level of Global middle income standard.
Since most of those promoting socialism in the United States are also promoting open borders and extending welfare benefits even to those they call “undocumented” immigrants, what we have is a recipe for disaster as far as the American people go.
All indications are that the politicians who declare themselves to be socialists and promote socialism are only interested in one thing – bringing down the American economy to the level of the rest of the world. Equalizing income on a global scale. That, and keeping the wealthy elites rich beyond imagining in order that this entire utopian enterprise gets adequately funded.
P
PJH_74
Guest
OK, then I invite you to live at the poverty line here. The cost of living is substantially lower outside the “western” world. Housing costs more here, food costs more here, most people need cars here to get to work; something often not present in developing nations. Income dollars are not everything fulfillment and contentedness of life is. What the poor have here is judgment that they are not succeeding, lazy, or something to be looked down on.
You are equating to different things, one does not depend on the other. You also might note that many immigrants, legal or not, work. They pay taxes.
How is that bad? It’s a basic Catholic value. You can’t do this on a Global taxation level, we do it on a world policy level. We understand first the effect our actions will have on the people living there. A great example is USA Food AID. We use it in part to prop up American farming. When we use it we end up dumping tons of food in one area causing a power game between who can control it. This happens with many other types of aid, especially material ones. How would you like it if you lively hood was seriously disrupted by a ton of free whatever you do items or services. Ever wonder why most people in Africa are running around in Western T-shirts? Aid has to be thought thru.
However, If you can only view this from a Capitalistic sense, relative income equality is best for consumption; the basic tenant of Capitalism. We may argue about ways to do it, but it’s a fact. Either companies need not emphasize profit over everything or we have to be willing to pay more to keep jobs in this county. Capitalism finds the cheapest way to do everything. These days it often means of shoring and, guess what, good American jobs gone. The current power in Washington is doing things to allow large companies to make even more money. It’s a farce to think they will just hire more people, they’ve mostly been using tax breaks that to do stock buy backs or dividends. People are costs and companies only employ enough to get the job done. Public threatening of companies who take a jobs away in the thousands is a drop in the bucket, it’s political theater.
W
Wozza
Guest
But the examples you gave are examples of socialism. When Biden said he didn’t want socialism then the only sensible reponse would have been to ask him what he meant.
If he meant that he didn’t want the government to control food and fuel prices then I’d agree with him. But if he meant that he wanted private enterprise to take over policing and the fire brigades then I think I’d disagree.
All societies (except those who were completely communist) are a mixture of socialism and capitalism. geting the balance right is what is important. Holding up socialism as a bogey man to be avoided at all costs just shows a lack of understanding of the term.
Last edited:
L
leland
Guest
Republicans’ ignorance of everything they don’t like is dangerous
Not every government program YOU don’t like is “socialist” or “marxist”
Not every government program YOU don’t like is “socialist” or “marxist”
A
Athanasiy
Guest
This is laconic and impressive, about Latin American socialism.
Last edited:
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
If your response was a rebuttal it wasn’t required. I agree with this paragraph and I venture to say so would Uncle Joe. Not to say trickle down works as it’s proven time and time again it does not. But, in the words of G.K. Chesterton in an economical comparison, “The problem is not too much capitalism, its too few capitalists”. The problem of corporate monopoly is exploiting the potential of livelihood and always has in our country. The biggest problem with monopoly is that only one person wins.
ciao’
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
I agree. A monopoly means that only one person (or group or government) effectively runs the show. You embrace capitalism or socialism and you get the same result. Less choice. At least socialism is up front about it.Wozza:
If your response was a rebuttal it wasn’t required. I agree with this paragraph and I venture to say so would Uncle Joe. Not to say trickle down works as it’s proven time and time again it does not. But, in the words of G.K. Chesterton in an economical comparison, “The problem is not too much capitalism, its too few capitalists”. The problem of corporate monopoly is exploiting the potential of livelihood and always has in our country. The biggest problem with monopoly is that only one person wins.
ciao’
P
PJH_74
Guest
What makes you worthy over others to live in a stable county, that follows the rule of law, and most likely good housing and food? You and I won the birth lottery and nothing more. Quoting two Popes from the 19th century does not make a Catholic teaching. Indeed that quote directly implies that people are inherently unequal.
Do you not believe in the founding precepts of the United States; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”? For many sentences after that the Declaration if Independence goes on to justify the right of average people to change government when it denies this. This also the point of the Bill of Rights.
Do you not believe in the founding precepts of the United States; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”? For many sentences after that the Declaration if Independence goes on to justify the right of average people to change government when it denies this. This also the point of the Bill of Rights.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
Capitalism is not much better but it appears Americans have no problem with it even though unregulated capitalism has led to unregulated greed. The Church has always promoted a third way known as Distributism under Catholic social teaching. An economic system needs to work for the people, in doing so it must revolve around the fact that each person has an intrinsic value and dignity. The greed of companies and the treatment of many of it’s employees with such indignity is something we need to constantly challenge. We are all humans being and our lives have value.
The only way i believe we will ever come to such a fair society is through evangelization because when a man/woman heart has been converted to God’s then if such a person owns a company they will aim to achieve the greater good in what they supply and how their employees are treated. I’m not talking about the type of so called Christians who goes to mass on sunday but never thinks or lives as a Christian, i’m talking about someone converted to God’s heart where they seek to live as a follower of Christ, such like-minded people will automatically create a fairer and fruitful society because it will be in their actions. A specific ideological system will not lead us to a flourishing society unless it is spawned from love. Complete love
The only way i believe we will ever come to such a fair society is through evangelization because when a man/woman heart has been converted to God’s then if such a person owns a company they will aim to achieve the greater good in what they supply and how their employees are treated. I’m not talking about the type of so called Christians who goes to mass on sunday but never thinks or lives as a Christian, i’m talking about someone converted to God’s heart where they seek to live as a follower of Christ, such like-minded people will automatically create a fairer and fruitful society because it will be in their actions. A specific ideological system will not lead us to a flourishing society unless it is spawned from love. Complete love
Last edited:
P
PJH_74
Guest
OK, then tell me you’d be willing to occupy the lowest rung?
You seem it have some discord that one can both play dual Papal quotes and somehow say that Papal teaching in consistently immutable. More importantly, what a Pope says is NOT Cannon law.
You know, if those words weren’t there, especially the 1st Amendment, Catholicism would certainly have no foot hold in America. Deists or not (certainly not all were) they left the door open for your beliefs, an especially rare and brave thing to do at the time.
You seem it have some discord that one can both play dual Papal quotes and somehow say that Papal teaching in consistently immutable. More importantly, what a Pope says is NOT Cannon law.
You know, if those words weren’t there, especially the 1st Amendment, Catholicism would certainly have no foot hold in America. Deists or not (certainly not all were) they left the door open for your beliefs, an especially rare and brave thing to do at the time.
P
PJH_74
Guest
Then again would you occupy that position? I have no argument with (Matt. 23:11-12). But based on your beliefs, could you willingly submit yourself to poverty to obtain that higher state? I can’t say I would, but I readily will admit that I’m not worthy over others to have the physical and financial security I was born into. It’s not about playing to your emotions it’s about consistency. I’m going to have real trouble with your position if you can’t personally accept being assigned to a life of abject poverty if this is supposed to be the natural state of the world. I’m not parleying Papal utterances, Cannon Law or changes to it made by a Pope. If you believe this is the truth the Church teaches, then you can’t claim exception to the will of God.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
America’s children and grandchildren will be paying for the prosperity that you are enjoying today. The US debt mountain is approaching $20 trillion, the interest is around $300 billion per year. This equates to a debt of around $400,000 for every US tax payer. The freedom to have what you want today; will have to be paid for by future generations. How would Jesus see this?
https://www.equities.com/news/the-us-is-following-italy-s-lead-without-realizing-it
C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
Surely some sort of balance is needed between all these concepts mentioned here
E
ewohdrol
Guest
Denmark. Finland. Netherlands. Canada. Sweden. Norway. Ireland.
All economically successful countries with much higher levels ideals of socialism than purely capitalist countries. They are not communist by any means. But have socialist leaning governments and services.
These countries do a good job of allowing a free housing market, trade and consumerism. But have a very good social and health service. This does decrease crime and poverty (I’m looking for my links).
Also interesting to note many socialist or mentioned above countries outperform capitalist countries in education by a significant margin. The theory is due to not having as many privately educated students (spreads the resources around).
I don’t think it is the boogeyman some would have us believe. Let’s be honest and admit capitalism has major problems also.
Food for thought.
All economically successful countries with much higher levels ideals of socialism than purely capitalist countries. They are not communist by any means. But have socialist leaning governments and services.
These countries do a good job of allowing a free housing market, trade and consumerism. But have a very good social and health service. This does decrease crime and poverty (I’m looking for my links).
Also interesting to note many socialist or mentioned above countries outperform capitalist countries in education by a significant margin. The theory is due to not having as many privately educated students (spreads the resources around).
I don’t think it is the boogeyman some would have us believe. Let’s be honest and admit capitalism has major problems also.
Food for thought.
M
MountCarmel
Guest
JimG - Indeed, ignorance always tends to leave ‘us’ vulnerable to the negative issues of a given situation - this also of course goes for aspects of excesses in right-wing views, and indeed in capitalism and democracy. Humanity is flawed, and this flawed nature can be found everywhere, yay, even unto the corridors of the Whitehouse and the Vatican. Beware of complacency, because that tends to walk arm in arm with ignorance.
J
JimG
Guest
From the Walter Williams article:
“Twenty-five percent of millennials who know who Vladimir Lenin was view him favorably. Lenin was the first premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Half of millennials have never heard of communist Mao Zedong, who ruled China from 1949 to 1959 and was responsible for the deaths of 45 million Chinese people.
The number of people who died at the hands of Josef Stalin may be as high as 62 million. However, almost one-third of millennials think former President George W. Bush is responsible for more killings than Stalin.”
It sounds as though the deadly history of sociaism and communism in the 20th century has already been forgotten
“Twenty-five percent of millennials who know who Vladimir Lenin was view him favorably. Lenin was the first premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Half of millennials have never heard of communist Mao Zedong, who ruled China from 1949 to 1959 and was responsible for the deaths of 45 million Chinese people.
The number of people who died at the hands of Josef Stalin may be as high as 62 million. However, almost one-third of millennials think former President George W. Bush is responsible for more killings than Stalin.”
It sounds as though the deadly history of sociaism and communism in the 20th century has already been forgotten
- Status