Pope Warns Against New Colonialism: Corporations, Loan Agencies, and Austerity Measures That Hurt Poor

[lynnvinc]

Here is an interesting take on Laudato Si, which helps to set straight this left-right debate:

“Francis and the Greens” at nationalreview.com/corner/420261/francis-and-greens-yuval-levin?epqF5c7wCteKz41P.01

“A lot of critical interpretations of the encyclical have treated it as abusing the Pope’s standing and authority (in the eyes of Catholics and others) to advance a left-wing or radical environmentalist political agenda by dressing it up as Catholic doctrine. Having finally read the encyclical, I’m left thinking roughly the opposite is the case. The Pope is trying to hijack the standing and authority (in the eyes of global elites and others) of a left-wing or radical environmentalist agenda to advance a deeply traditional Catholic vision of the human good and to get it a hearing by dressing it up as enlightened ecology.”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

They were a whole lot freer than people today in either capitalistic or communistic societies, and in the most democratic societies of today.

You know not of what you speak.

Band-level peoples are free to do what they want, even to join other more accommodating bands.

What killed freedom was the rise of civilization. Modern democracy was supposed to be an antidote to that, but in recent decades our freedoms here in America have been grossly eroded. But even at the height of American freedom, it didn’t come even close to the greater freedom band-level peoples had.

Human history is full of the powerful dominating others, including slavery. Capitalism permits free and voluntary interaction between individuals and groups.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Here is an interesting take on Laudato Si, which helps to set straight this left-right debate:

“Francis and the Greens” at nationalreview.com/corner/420261/francis-and-greens-yuval-levin?epqF5c7wCteKz41P.01

“A lot of critical interpretations of the encyclical have treated it as abusing the Pope’s standing and authority (in the eyes of Catholics and others) to advance a left-wing or radical environmentalist political agenda by dressing it up as Catholic doctrine. Having finally read the encyclical, I’m left thinking roughly the opposite is the case. The Pope is trying to hijack the standing and authority (in the eyes of global elites and others) of a left-wing or radical environmentalist agenda to advance a deeply traditional Catholic vision of the human good and to get it a hearing by dressing it up as enlightened ecology.”

Very interesting take.

I hope he is right!

 

[Thomas_White]

Capitalism permits free and voluntary interaction between individuals and groups.

I will try once again to explain what I bellieve is the obvious teaching of Laudao Si. While it can be said that capitalism “permits free and voluntary interaction between individuals and groups”, nevertheless when an individual commits an immoral act, be it within this political system or any other, it remains an immoral act and contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

A political system is an abstract concept, an idea. As such, it is benign and does not itself have either moral or economic values (whatever that might mean relative to the science of economics). Does one suppose at the Last Judgment the “idea” of either socialism or capitalism, which are intangibles, will be called forth for judgment? I think not. Simply stated, ideas do not have souls.

Who would doubt the killing fields of Cambodia were not the result or immoral actions? But itsn’t it the invidiuals who were guilty of those immoral acts the very ones who are responsible for it rather than a bizarre misconception of socialism?

I believe the teaching of Laudao Si is a moral one. Though capitalism is a an economic system, there can no excuse whatever for immoral acts, committed by individuals, within this or any other political or economic system. In that sense, I believe the encyclical can be understood as a warning. For it simply will not do to define capitalism as good and consequently that every action committed within its system is excused. This is the danger of ideological thinking. Let’s not forget free will.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I believe the teaching of Laudao Si is a moral one. Though capitalism is a an economic system, there can no excuse whatever for immoral acts, committed by individuals, within this or any other political or economic system. In that sense, I believe the encyclical can be understood as a warning. For it simply will not do to define capitalism as good and consequently that every action committed within its system is excused. This is the danger of ideological thinking. Let’s not forget free will.

His rhetoric was identical to leftists attacking free markets.

If he wanted to make a moral case he could have done so without the partisan terminology.

I think you should take this up with the pope. This encyclical was written by someone with a leftist ideology.

As for capitalism, like any other system, it is neither moral or immoral. It is good, though, in that it best distributes goods and services to the most people. Capitalism helps people live better lives.

 

[Thomas_White]

His rhetoric was identical to leftists attacking free markets.

If he wanted to make a moral case he could have done so without the partisan terminology.

I think you should take this up with the pope. This encyclical was written by someone with a leftist ideology.

As for capitalism, like any other system, it is neither moral or immoral. It is good, though, in that it best distributes goods and services to the most people. Capitalism helps people live better lives.

What is it you think I should take up with the pope when I am in full agreement with the teachings of his papal encyclical, Laudato Si’?

And what is it I would take up? As I have explained, I believe the encyclical is a moral teaching and not a political manifesto. I have explained that it is my belief that immoral behavior is immoral. This is not Rocket Science.

What are your reasons?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What is it you think I should take up with the pope when I am in full agreement with the teachings of his papal encyclical, Laudato Si’?

And what is it I would take up? As I have explained, I believe the encyclical is a moral teaching and not a political manifesto. I have explained that it is my belief that immoral behavior is immoral. This is not Rocket Science.

What are your reasons?

You are denying that the encyclical had a political slant. It was much more than a moral teaching.

Man made global warming is a theory proposed almost exclusively by leftist scientists. The pope ignored the 10s of thousands of scientists who have alternate views.

Why did he do this?

 

[Peccavi]

Where do you get your info from ? Fox News ? Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The Pope takes the majority view not the minority.

 

[Tomdstone]

romereports.com/2015/07/10/pope-francis-warns-against-new-forms-of-colonialism

Does he oppose the austerity measures put on Greece?

 

[zz912]

Where do you get your info from ? Fox News ? Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The Pope takes the majority view not the minority.

The Myth of the 97% Statistic…

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented…

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc View Post
As mentioned some 99% of human history societies (not voluntary orgs within them) were communistic.

They were a whole lot freer than people today in either capitalistic or communistic societies, and in the most democratic societies of today.

You know not of what you speak.

Band-level peoples are free to do what they want, even to join other more accommodating bands.

What killed freedom was the rise of civilization. Modern democracy was supposed to be an antidote to that, but in recent decades our freedoms here in America have been grossly eroded. But even at the height of American freedom, it didn’t come even close to the greater freedom band-level peoples had.

So you earlier said that 99% of societies in human history were communistic, and then try to separate prior human societies from communistic societies.

You can’t have it both ways. Your illogic on this needs to be resolved.

 

[lynnvinc]

So you earlier said that 99% of societies in human history were communistic, and then try to separate prior human societies from communistic societies.

You can’t have it both ways. Your illogic on this needs to be resolved.

I’m not sure what your point is. But this may help clarify what I was saying (or meant to say):

For 99% of human history (not 99% of societies) … or up until some 10,000 years ago… most human societies were a type of communistic society which is referred to as “primitive communism” or “generalized reciprocity” (and there a still a few of those today, but they are trapped within state-level societies).

Now I cannot say if ALL those societies of the past followed “generalized reciprocity,” but from what we know in anthropology, it is a good guess that the vast majority of them did, with some getting into balanced reciprocity (which still is NOT anything like modern day capitalism or communism).

Modern day state-level communism (actually socialism) is different from this primitive communism, even tho the latter inspired Marx’s ideas. And Marx’s vision was that everyone would be free under a true communism…once they could learn how to “care and share,” rather than callously horde and cut others off from means of living. That never happened and the so-called communistic systems became bad and corrupt, as the posters here allude to.

It’s funny that Marx thought religion was a problem bec it had failed in bringing about societies focused on the common good and was used to promote bad (he was a material or social determinist, not an ideological determinist). Now that communism had failed, maybe we should give religion a 2nd chance to try and address the problems with capitalism and get it right before we push our life-support eco-systems over the edge.

I think that’s what the Pope is trying to do (he is most certainly NOT suggesting a resurrection of Russian-style communism).

As a non-determinist I don’t blame religion for anything – the problems with capitalism or ISIS or Al Qaeda – nor do I think it will help a whole lot either. It has an impact (among the many impacts from all the dimensions of our human condition – cultural, social, psychological (affective/cognitive), biological, environmental, spiritual), but is not determinant.

Or, as they say, God gave us freedom…to get it wrong or right.

 

[zz912]

I’m not sure what your point is. But this may help clarify what I was saying (or meant to say):

For 99% of human history (not 99% of societies) … or up until some 10,000 years ago… most human societies were a type of communistic society which is referred to as “primitive communism” or “generalized reciprocity” (and there a still a few of those today, but they are trapped within state-level societies).

Now I cannot say if ALL those societies of the past followed “generalized reciprocity,” but from what we know in anthropology, it is a good guess that the vast majority of them did, with some getting into balanced reciprocity (which still is NOT anything like modern day capitalism or communism).

Modern day state-level communism (actually socialism) is different from this primitive communism, even tho the latter inspired Marx’s ideas. And Marx’s vision was that everyone would be free under a true communism…once they could learn how to “care and share,” rather than callously horde and cut others off from means of living. That never happened and the so-called communistic systems became bad and corrupt, as the posters here allude to.

It’s funny that Marx thought religion was a problem bec it had failed in bringing about societies focused on the common good and was used to promote bad (he was a material or social determinist, not an ideological determinist). Now that communism had failed, maybe we should give religion a 2nd chance to try and address the problems with capitalism and get it right before we push our life-support eco-systems over the edge.

I think that’s what the Pope is trying to do (he is most certainly NOT suggesting a resurrection of Russian-style communism).

As a non-determinist I don’t blame religion for anything – the problems with capitalism or ISIS or Al Qaeda – nor do I think it will help a whole lot either. It has an impact (among the many impacts from all the dimensions of our human condition – cultural, social, psychological (affective/cognitive), biological, environmental, spiritual), but is not determinant.

Or, as they say, God gave us freedom…to get it wrong or right.

Sounds like you are claiming most of human history was some idealized hippie commune where everybody shared and it was love and unicorns all around. That’s not close to the truth. Most of human history was various forms of monarchy, which varied in degree of totalitarianism vs freedom. Very little of human history was communistic, and those we see recently were horrifically violent and evil.

 

[Thomas_White]

Sounds like you are claiming most of human history was some idealized hippie commune where everybody shared and it was love and unicorns all around. That’s not close to the truth. Most of human history was various forms of monarchy, which varied in degree of totalitarianism vs freedom. Very little of human history was communistic, and those we see recently were horrifically violent and evil.

I think the point (if I may interject) was that for 99% of human history–or up until 10,000 years ago–most human societies consisted of a type of communal living referred to as “generalized reciprocity”. These were relatively small and isolated groups that banded together of necessity for survival. This had nothing whatever to do with our modern day conception of communism, and it makes no sense to deny what is known by anthropology.

 

[sallybutler]

I wonder, which would most of us choose, the Church or capitalism. There are areas where the two appear to be in conflict. Which is first in our lives?

 

[SWolf]

I wonder, which would most of us choose, the Church or capitalism. There are areas where the two appear to be in conflict. Which is first in our lives?

Where is there conflict between the free market and the Church?

 

[Thomas_White]

Where is there conflict between the free market and the Church?

Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing. Capital owners can and do influence the terms of trade. While free markets are theoretically part of capitalism, they do not define it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sounds like you are claiming most of human history was some idealized hippie commune where everybody shared and it was love and unicorns all around. That’s not close to the truth. Most of human history was various forms of monarchy, which varied in degree of totalitarianism vs freedom. Very little of human history was communistic, and those we see recently were horrifically violent and evil.

Monarchy arose much much later – at the tail end of human history. It’s only been around about 5,000 years or so.

 

[Charles041]

Our Holy Father is vaguely conspiratorial in his rhetoric denouncing “loan agencies” and “free trade”. His use of scare quotes is even more bizarre. The language is socialistic and indefensible. I just don’t understand how cardinals who elected two amazing Popes have elected a man sympathetic to the causes of the most destructive forces of the past 100 years, namely atheistic communism.

 

[Thomas_White]

Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned. In theory, capital provides the means for the production of goods and services for the benefit of all in a free market of supply and demand. But capital has the ability to influence and even control the terms of trade, including both supply and pricing. A notorious example is health care, where doctors and hospitals have the pricing power to routinely charge patients $60 for a Tylenol tablet or $6,000 daily for a single room, costs not usually even disclosed to the patient before the patient receives the final bill. This has no rational relationship to the true costs in a free market.

Whatever the reasons for it, it is not supply and demand efficiently at work, providing goods and services in a free market for the benefit of the patient. This is rather the intervention of pricing power within a supposedly free market. And I would say it is this type of situation (and there are many others) that Laudato Si questions and not capitalism per se.