Pope says communists are closet Christians

[anthony022071]

So a democratic society cannot choose to become communistic?

Not large-scale societies. It would never happen that a society of millions or even tens of thousands of people would choose to give up their individual freedom and the opportunities for improvement of condition and realization of talents that developed civilization affords. It is impossible for large-scale societies to attain the kind of unity of will and community that small communities can have. I think that 500 persons is about the limit for unity of will and closeness of community. In communities that grow larger,people become more individualistic and ambitious because they become less familiar with each other and feel less obliged towards each other.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I did not mean to suggest that none of the individuals from within capitalistic societies donate to the poor, but that, as a whole, the good that is being none is insufficient.

Do note that it’s immoral and against the law to pass up an injury accident, and thus fail to help. Therefore, I claim that it is immoral, and ought to be against international law, when societies capable of helping fail to assist those starving to death in the world.

This is where prudential judgement comes into play. For starters, those who decry starvation are usually being unrealistic about what is possible. To take an extreme current case, there is great misery and suffering in Syria at the moment and there is little anyone can do about it. Try feeding the starving there and you are likely to lose your head. Most places in the world where starvation is greatest are experiencing civil wars of one form or another. Rarely in the modern world to people simply stave merely for lack of food.

Starvation has largely been eliminated in Asia, home to a couple billion people. How did that happen? Hint: it wasn’t Catholic Charities. It wasn’t the Jesuits.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It sounds like we may have different definitions of “communism.” I would say that any classless community that is based on common ownership is communistic.

That works in marriage, it can work in small communities. It has never worked in anything larger than that. On the contrary, whereever it has been attempted at a larger scale, one of the first casualties has been families and community associations which are seen as competitors to the state.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Again, I’m not arguing that the poor are worse off today than they were in feudal Europe. My only point is that just because the poor are better off doesn’t mean it’s fair tha they receive significantly less of the proceeds of the economic system. That’s a problem.

Less in absolute terms or less relative to others? That’s an important distinction.

Some would and have, but that’s not a strawman of communism.

Quite a few more than some.

 

[TheWiseMan]

While there might be some good elements in Communism, I’d say that in general, it is still evil.

What sort of benefits are there from up holding Communsm?

 

[seakelp]

Less in absolute terms or less relative to others? That’s an important distinction.

Relative. I haven’t disagreed with you at all re: absolute gains.

 

[Seamus_L]

Does anyone else find these comments to be even the least bit disturbing ?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Relative. I haven’t disagreed with you at all re: absolute gains.

So is it your contention that inequality in the circumstance of improving poverty, is inherently unfair, unjust or unChristian?

 

[seakelp]

So is it your contention that inequality in the circumstance of improving poverty, is inherently unfair, unjust or unChristian?

I think you’re confused.

In Society X, the amount of wealth is 50. Ten people have equal shares of 5 units of wealth. They switch to a capitalist system, and the total wealth of Society X increases to 100 wealth.

Nine people get an increase of one piece of wealth, bringing their total to 6 units each. The tenth person gets the remaining wealth, bringing his total to 55 wealth.

All ten individuals’ wealth has increased, but would you say it’s just that the tenth person receives practically all the gains of the increase? I hope not.

I’m not saying that all ten people should share in all the gains. I’m simply pointing out to you that, yes, increases in total wealth in a society is good, but that doesn’t mean that inequality isn’t an issue.

 

[JimG]

I just removed my self from this horrible religious forum with a crowd of anti Catholic restorationists. They just brought up P. Francis’ talk proving he is false.

I think the Holy Father was speaking tongue in cheek, but likewise he is forgetting the communists were responsible for millions of deaths.

Well, there’s certainly no doubt that Communism has been responsible for millions of deaths, including deliberate starvation of their own people for ideological reasons. Read “The Black Book of Communism.” As Stalin said, ‘one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.’

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think you’re confused.

In Society X, the amount of wealth is 50. Ten people have equal shares of 5 units of wealth. They switch to a capitalist system, and the total wealth of Society X increases to 100 wealth.

Nine people get an increase of one piece of wealth, bringing their total to 6 units each. The tenth person gets the remaining wealth, bringing his total to 55 wealth.

All ten individuals’ wealth has increased, but would you say it’s just that the tenth person receives practically all the gains of the increase? I hope not.

I’m not saying that all ten people should share in all the gains. I’m simply pointing out to you that, yes, increases in total wealth in a society is good, but that doesn’t mean that inequality isn’t an issue.

That’s a very good hypothetical example. Would I consider that just? Quite possibly. It would depend on facts not clear in the example. For example, did the one whose wealth exploded do all the work? Did he invent something valuable? I would not assume that an injustice has occured merely because of the disproportionate distribution you provide in your example.

Another distinction worth noting is whether we are talking about income or consumption. I would be a more scandalized if the above were consumption. The difference between income and consumption includes, among other things, charity. It may be that the income distribution is fair and just but that are more even distribution of consumption can be achieved by charity on the part of the lucky or hard working individual.

 

[seakelp]

That’s a very good hypothetical example. Would I consider that just? Quite possibly. It would depend on facts not clear in the example. For example, did the one whose wealth exploded do all the work? Did he invent something valuable? I would not assume that an injustice has occured merely because of the disproportionate distribution you provide in your example.

Another distinction worth noting is whether we are talking about income or consumption. I would be a more scandalized if the above were consumption. The difference between income and consumption includes, among other things, charity. It may be that the income distribution is fair and just but that are more even distribution of consumption can be achieved by charity on the part of the lucky or hard working individual.

I 100% agree with you. It is possible to have disparities in wealth. My example was just showing that I agree capitalism has increased wealth and improved the lives of the poor. But I still think that the disparities in society are unjust and should be fixed.

But sure, yeah, some inequality is good, especially if it relates to creating more value for society as a whole. Bill Gates is extremely wealthy because he basically created the personal computer and made it possible for everyone to have a computer in their house. That’s driven huge, positive changes in society (I believe). It makes sense he’s rewarded for that.

On the other hand, I think most of his wealth (mostly his capital) should be taxed at a far higher rate than it is right now. And he actually agrees. So, I think, would the current Pope. I know the Pope isn’t the end-all-be-all when it comes to economic policy, but I personally think he’s right on the money (hehe).

 

[ProVobis]

I think you’re confused.

In Society X, the amount of wealth is 50. Ten people have equal shares of 5 units of wealth. They switch to a capitalist system, and the total wealth of Society X increases to 100 wealth.

Nine people get an increase of one piece of wealth, bringing their total to 6 units each. The tenth person gets the remaining wealth, bringing his total to 55 wealth.

All ten individuals’ wealth has increased, but would you say it’s just that the tenth person receives practically all the gains of the increase? I hope not.

I’m not saying that all ten people should share in all the gains. I’m simply pointing out to you that, yes, increases in total wealth in a society is good, but that doesn’t mean that inequality isn’t an issue.

This example is on the right track but it doesn’t show how circulation of money works. People in reality don’t sit on their “wealth.” There are dynamics involved in an economy.

 

[seakelp]

This example is on the right track but it doesn’t show how circulation of money works. People in reality don’t sit on their “wealth.” There are dynamics involved in an economy.

That’s fair. I’m not against capital markets, either, and I think it makes sense to have them.

Still, the fact is that capital is mostly held by people who are already very wealthy. I’m not an economist, but I’m pretty sure that something like 80% of capital assets are held by the very richest portions of society.

I do, personally / politically / religiously, have a problem with that state of affairs.

 

[freeRadical]

It sounds like we may have different definitions of “communism.” I would say that any classless community that is based on common ownership is communistic.

LOVE!

There’s only one definition of Communism, period. Communism is an economic system in which the means of production are held in common.

 

[freeRadical]

That’s fair. I’m not against capital markets, either, and I think it makes sense to have them.

Still, the fact is that capital is mostly held by people who are already very wealthy. I’m not an economist, but I’m pretty sure that something like 80% of capital assets are held by the very richest portions of society.

I do, personally / politically / religiously, have a problem with that state of affairs.

Maybe if the government didn’t discourage saving and investing then that statistic would change.

 

[seakelp]

Maybe if the government didn’t discourage saving and investing then that statistic would change.

What exactly do you mean?

 

[Avdima]

There’s only one definition of Communism, period. Communism is an economic system in which the means of production are held in common.

Sigh people still think that there has been Communist counties in the world. USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Mongolia, etc… the were never Communist in any way.

Also, you know, intentionally starving people to death, forcibly taking all their property from them, Gulags and executions for the dissenters…
While there might be some good elements in Communism, I’d say that in general, it is still evil.

Please show me where communism has done these things you say?

Starving people to death, Gulags and executions have nothing to do with Communism, just as murdering people, rape, torture and genocide have nothing to do with with Christianity.

 

[Agnessa]

What sort of benefits are there from up holding Communsm?

I think it may very well work in very small societies, where every single member - very important! - chooses this life voluntarily. Monasteries has been mentioned multiple times in the thread.

Please show me where communism has done these things you say?

Starving people to death, Gulags and executions have nothing to do with Communism, just as murdering people, rape, torture and genocide have nothing to do with with Christianity.

Starving people to death has anything to do with Communism; taking all the bread from Ukrainian peasants in winter 1932/33 was motivated by the Communist ideology.

See, I could point at numerous good things that Christianity brought into the world, even purely within secular point of view - charity, human rights etc. Regardless of the fact that some people used Christianity to justify their nefarious acts, the good outweighs them by large.

Same with capitalism. As others mentioned, despite its shortcomings, on the large it has rather benefited the society.

Communism, on the contrary - every single attempt to build a communist society on a large scale has ended in disaster. No exceptions.

 

[Seamus_L]

Saying that Communists are closet Christians is an outrageous insult to the millions of victims of that Satanic idealogy.