Our Ignorance of Socialism is Dangerous

[on_the_hill]

But if you asked if he would have supported Clinton if she had won, because presumably that would also have been God’s will, then there was a deathly silence. Dead air in the thread. Tumbling tumbleweed rolling through the forum. Literaly no response.

I’m surprised your opponent didn’t claim you made a straw man argument, because God would never choose Clinton.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I think Wikipedia has it right: “There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.”

I have a feeling–ohhh, just like Trump!!!–that people who attack socialism simply take any policy they don’t like and call it “Socialist.”

I could say “Separating children from their parents is a conservative position.” That wouldn’t be fair. And it’s not fair to lump all sorts of positions under the banner of “Socialism.”

Am I a Socialst? Depends on how you define it! Does everyone on this thread support some Socialist positions? I bet they do. If you went back in time a century and listed some positions that everyone supports today, most people would say “That’s Socialism.” If you asked people today, they wouldn’t see those positions as Socialist.

So not only do you have all sorts of Socialists, but the definition changes over time. Yesterday’s Socialist is today’s Conservative.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Amen.
In 1998 EWTN reported a study, that the then population in the world; which has ample resources and replenishment technology - along with things like electrosans for proper sanitation;
~~that the then population of the world, aprox. 6 billion; provided proper food, drink, clothing, shelter, and so on with proper sanitation could; (I’m fairly sure single family homes); live in an area the size of Texas. So many want to live with opulence; in a throw away culture and blame ‘too many children.’
I pray for souls, because so many are not aware of the ‘modernist’ ‘naturalist’ ‘Progressive’ moral relativist culture of death agenda that could care less for someone’s soul - seduced into a ‘I’m basically a good person, and it is OK to support these persons;
cause they really care for the poor; those others are rigid old fashioned clinging to their religion - forcing their religion and morality on everyone; even haters/’ mentality.
This world needs an education; and to reach as many young and old alike regarding
the true history. Yes, there is nothing new under the sun; but the lukewarm Church;
and world that has rejected the authentic Jesus Christ the Chief Stone;
eclipses the Remnant Church; which many like Bishop Fulton J. Sheen; Evangelist David Wilkerson; Dietrich von Hildebrand, and many others prophesied would happen.
Yes, Jesus Christ said blessed are they who mourn; so I don’t let it discourage me.
so with joy of The Lord, I convey what The Remnant Church is well aware of in hopes;
some will accept it. But, while they lead a horse to water, they cannot make them drink.
Or as St. Bernadette put it; it is my job to inform, not to convince.
I will never be able to thank Jesus Christ enough for the wondrous immense gift of saving me from rationalizing sin in my personal life. This gives me diligence to share
what those Evangelizing and re-Evangelizing have learned and what they say.

---

I can’t wait to get my Christmas gift;
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
a 1993 printing of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s work with a forward by John Cardinal O’Connor. “_ Trojan Horse in the City of God: The Catholic Crisis Explained_ Hardcover – August 1, 1993” - source: https://www.amazon.com/Trojan-Horse-City-God-Explained/dp/0918477182
It should help with my personal faith formation; and be informative;
of something very apropos.
Peace.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The relevant section in the Catechism says otherwise. It is not a blanket condemnation of socialism:

[2425] The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

??? “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’.” Following this very unambiguous statement with criticisms of certain aspects of capitalism doesn’t negate the fact that the Church opposes socialism. Incidentally, I wasn’t speaking of socialism as a purely economic ideology, but rather speaking of its social effects, which reject the social kingship of Christ and the natural order.
[/quote]

Notice what is being rejected in 2425. It is not socialism or capitalism. It is totalitarian and atheistic ideologies and individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. If you have capitalism that does not embody individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor, then that practice of capitalism is not rejected. If you have socialism that does not embody totalitarian and atheistic ideologies, then that practice of socialism is not rejected. It is obvious there are many systems today that people call “socialism” that are neither atheistic or totalitarian. Take for example, Social Security in the US. Or government-mandated health insurance in Israel. The Church does not condemn either of these systems, even though they are called socialism by some.

So when you say that the Church condemns socialism, it is important to look at the specific instance of socialism before you and determine if it violates 2425. Just being labelled socialism does not do it automatically.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

While we may very well be defining “socialism” differently, I think it’s worth commenting on what the Catechism actually means in this context.

“The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’.”

Here, it is quite clear that what is being rejected is not limited to certain principles of socialism, but complete ideologies based on socialism or communism.

[/quote]
No, that’s not what 2425 says. The rejected ideologies are totalitarianism and atheism. It does not say those ideologies are based on socialism or communism. It says they are, in modern times, associated with socialism and communism. Don’t change the words to suit your point. If they meant to simply reject socialism they would have simply said the Church rejects socialism. But they did not. To support your view you would have to show somehow that every instance of socialism is necessarily atheistic. Can you do that? I noticed that you are reluctant to discuss examples, like the ones I mentioned. If you did, you would have to face the fact that some examples of socialism are not atheistic or totalitarian, and so do not violate 2425.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In quoting something written long ago, we need to consider if the definitions used at that time are the same as the definitions in common usage today. Even Pius XI in this quote recognizes the possibility by saying “if it remains truly Socialism” I wonder if Pius XI would have called a Affordable Care Act “truly” socialism?

 

[Beryllos]

CCC 2425 seems to be getting a lot of attention here, perhaps because it contains the words “socialism” and “communism” and therefore turns up in quick internet searches, but 2425 is only a tiny part of the section on the Seventh Commandment.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm

Anyone who wishes to stamp out socialism (or just argue about it) should read it all.

 

[JimG]

I suppose that, despite the Soviet Gulags, despite the Nazi death camps, despite the North Korean concentration camps, despite the killing fields of Pol Pot, despite the desperation of Venezuela and the murderous reign of Castro and Che Guevara, despite the 94 million deaths recounted in “The Black Book of Communism,” one could always hold out the hope that the next century of communism and socialism would be less deadly than the previous century.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Saying the Church condemns socialism in every instance is meaningless unless you can apply that judgement to real examples. Which, if any, of these nations are rejected today because if their socialism: Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, Canada, Germany,
United States. (I concede China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and some others)

 

[ConfusedLucy]

In my book socialism just means government provided healthcare and state benefits. In the UK it’s a term associated with the political left and even if you take a more right wing view it’s not considered that negative a word

 

[ewohdrol]

You realise socialism doesn’t imply communism right?

Germany were socialists. Russians were comminists. They were fighting against eachother.

There are many socialist countries currently that are absolutely not comminist.

 

[JackFrost]

Germany were socialists.

I trust that you are not being so naive as to say that the Nazis , who were right wing thugs , were socialists because they gave themselves the name “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” .

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany. He emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. He is perhaps best remembered for his postwar words about the Nazis : " First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist .Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me . "

The Nazis demanded that Germans accept the premises of the Nazi worldview and live their lives accordingly. They tolerated no criticism, dissent, or nonconformity. Hitler’s political opponents were the first victims of systematic Nazi persecution , and at the top of the list were communists and socialists .

When the Nazis occupied a territory, communists, socialists and anarchists were usually among the first to be repressed; this included summary executions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…which does not imply that principle proceeds from practice, rather than the other way around. Would you argue that objective principles of morality proceed from subjective circumstances?
[/quote]

No, but I would argue that your inability to state one single contemporary application of the principle shows me you do not understand it.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The unironic truth is that all of those examples mentioned are actually just examples of capitalism.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And if you read my previous response to you, you would know that I already conceded Cuba. I asked about some less obvious cases, specifically:

Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, Canada, Germany.

Think of this not so much as challenging you or the Church, but rather as an attempt to find out what the Church considers socialism. Does the Church reject the systems of any of these nations on the grounds of having socialism?

 

[TheNoseKnows]

If those nations are Communist/socialist then a planed economy is evil, but as you suggest if they aren’t “true” Communist/Socialist that means every major attempt at planed economics failed, so they are unachievable and should not be attempted as they always end in horrible misery.

Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, Canada, Germany.

Welfare isn’t inherently socialist those nations have mixed economy’s, also lets not forget about the other western nations like Greece or Portugal funny how no one likes to use them as examples of socialism.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

If those nations are Communist/socialist then a planed economy is evil, but as you suggest if they aren’t “true” Communist/Socialist that means every major attempt at planed economics failed, so they are unachievable and should not be attempted as they always end in horrible misery.

I didn’t say they weren’t “true communism”, I said they were capitalist. Fundamentally their economies functioned in the same way as the liberal or fascist economies at the time - that is, they were based on the exchange of commodities (and therefore the circulation of money) and the exploitation of wage labour to valorise capital, and produce a profit. This isn’t even necessarily a rejection of these places as “bad.” The early Soviet Republic was quite rightly recognised as capitalist by Lenin, but this was seen as a progressive development of capital in a “backwards” country, and the Bolsheviks at the time mostly understood what communism was and what the goals of the communist movement should be despite this.

Communism isn’t a “planned economy”, and the USSR was not even a planned economy in the way the term is understood. Much of the economy was relatively decentralized and outside of the control of the state, particularly agriculture. Communism is the abolition of capital, wage labour and exchange (and therefore money). It’s the centralisation of all of the means of production under the whole of society, something that can only be realized globally. There are no national forms of socialism, as a lot of the states from the mid-20th century imagined there to be.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If those nations are Communist/socialist then a planed economy is evil, but as you suggest if they aren’t “true” Communist/Socialist that means every major attempt at planed economics failed, so they are unachievable and should not be attempted as they always end in horrible misery.

LeafByNiggle:

Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, Canada, Germany.

Welfare isn’t inherently socialist those nations have mixed economy’s, also lets not forget about the other western nations like Greece or Portugal funny how no one likes to use them as examples of socialism.

I don’t think anyone here is defending socialism in general. In fact I have cited numerous socialist nations that are obviously perfect examples of what various Popes have condemned, such as Venezuela. The issue that is implied but not explicitly mentioned is whether these proscriptions apply to specific policies under consideration today, such as universal government-guaranteed health care, rent controls, minimum wage, etc. These are all things that are associated with socialism, or socialist leaning government. To that end, a general statement like “The Church condemns socialism” is not a useful principle to apply without some elaboration. That seems to be what the Catechism has attempted to do - to elaborate on this general principle so that we as faithful Catholics can make decisions consistent with our faith. Section 2425 identifies specific characteristics of Socialism that are the cause of its condemnation - namely, atheistic and totalitarian. This helps us see that Chinese communism is condemned because it is atheistic in the way it tries to replace faith in God with faith in Chinese nationalism. It is also totalitarian in that it assumes the authority to control every aspect of the economy.

But when we try to apply this elaboration to something like universal health care, the situation is less clear. Seeing how this has been applied in various nations, it is clear that it need not be atheistic or totalitarian.

 

[DENNYINMI]

When the Nazis occupied a territory, communists, socialists and anarchists were usually among the first to be repressed; this included summary executions.

Finally. Someone who knows history and isn’t hood winked by the ‘name’…thank you