Real Wealth vs. “Financial Wealth

[peregrinus_WA]

From my blog:

Real Wealth vs. “Financial Wealth

While checking out anything new on the The Distributist Review, the entry The Midas Touch caught my attention.

In the entry, it goes on about the Capital quest for “Financial Wealth” can, and actually destroys, Real Wealth. One section sums this up:

Now, it is not my place to tell the villagers what they should do. It is neither my village nor my country, and these are decisions which only the people of Rosia Montana and the government of Romania can make. But whether the villagers decide to stay or go, the decision they make is a sign and symbol of something much wider, and part of something much greater. To be specific, it is part of a great joke about capitalism. But it is a joke that no one seems to get. So here is the punchline: Rosia Montana is a place of great natural wealth, BUT THERE IS NO INCOME (as one of the villagers in the film put it). Now, here is a place that has received every gift that a loving God could bestow on any piece of ground: mountains full of minerals, valleys full of farms, pastures full of animals, rivers full of fish. It is a place that could—and has—supported tens of thousands in peace and prosperity, but under capitalism, it cannot provide work for a thousand. An area that should be prosperous and happy becomes an area of forced idleness. There is wealth, real wealth, but there are no jobs, and people, young people especially—that is, the future—feel they must leave. And if they leave with a few Euros provided by the Canadians, who can blame them?

This shows the conflict between Capitalism’s thirst for “Financial Wealth” and Real Wealth. “Financial wealth” is about greed for a few while real wealth is about providing for the many. This is how screwed up the world is these days. In addition, the article goes on to recount how the quest for “financial wealth” in one area can destroy real wealth in a much wider area. The example given, a gold mine in Baia Mare in northern Romania, is eerily similar to the similar to what can happen in Rosia Montana.

This is a prime example of why I am now against Capitalism, especially Global Capitalism, in its present state and now call myself a Distributist.

 

[gam197]

That the people of Romania would destroy their own natural beauty for the sake of a gold business venture that will not profit their village but a corporation in another country, No way. I think that is what capitalism is though. It is up to this village to resist this destruction. to be informed and try to figure if there are other ways that they can prosper with what they have.

It may be up the them to live a simpler life but a still a good life and if that is what is needed at this time, I think that it is the goal they must teach their children.

It seems that in life that so many of us are challenged whether it is over gay marriage, euthanasia or the loss of our village. In a capitalist society we are taught to fight for these things and believe although the fight seems brutal, it is well worth the effort.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

That the people of Romania would destroy their own natural beauty for the sake of a gold business venture that will not profit their village but a corporation in another country, No way. I think that is what capitalism is though. It is up to this village to resist this destruction. to be informed and try to figure if there are other ways that they can prosper with what they have.

It may be up the them to live a simpler life but a still a good life and if that is what is needed at this time, I think that it is the goal they must teach their children.

It seems that in life that so many of us are challenged whether it is over gay marriage, euthanasia or the loss of our village. In a capitalist society we are taught to fight for these things and believe although the fight seems brutal, it is well worth the effort.

Along with Distributism (which I have researched extensively), I am also looking into the Catholic Land, and Catholic Workers movements.

I am a firm believer that today’s society is not sustainable and will implode due to the perversions of Capitalism, Socialism, Relativism, Materialism, and Liberalism. We must be ready for this and have a structure in place to take over when this happens.

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by peregrinus_WA**
Along with Distributism (which I have researched extensively), I am also looking into the Catholic Land, and Catholic Workers movements.

I’ve read some articles about these movements but really do not understand so I really can’t comment. The catholic workers movement always seemed like a peace-nik, socialist movement that didn’t appeal to me although I do like all the charity work that Dorothy Day did. I think if it hadn’t been for the abortion and some of the ideas, she would have a saint.She was a convert(I love converts who shame the so-called regular catholics.) who did a great deal of good.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

I’ve read some articles about these movements but really do not understand so I really can’t comment. The catholic workers movement always seemed like a peace-nik, socialist movement that didn’t appeal to me although I do like all the charity work that Dorothy Day did. I think if it hadn’t been for the abortion and some of the ideas, she would have a saint.She was a convert(I love converts who shame the so-called regular Catholics.) who did a great deal of good.

The Catholic Workers movement was a direct result of Communism infiltrating the Worker movements of the 20’s and 30’s. It was to provide an alternative to Communism which Dorothy Day was involved in. As for the pacifism (which is the term that should be used) part, that is true, but it was more based on St. Francis than anything else.

I am currently reading The Catholic Worker Movement: Intellectual And Spiritual Origins by Mark Zwick which is an excellent book on the movement. It goes deeply into the philosophical and theological roots of the movement. You will be surprised.

As for sainthood for Dorothy Day, you have to remember, the abortion happened before her conversion. This could be and should be a mitigating circumstance on barriers to the process. Also, you got to remember, there are other criteria for sainthood other than the person’s life.

 

[gam197]

I am currently reading The Catholic Worker Movement: Intellectual And Spiritual Origins by Mark Zwick which is an excellent book on the movement. It goes deeply into the philosophical and theological roots of the movement. You will be surprised.

I will think about reading the book but I have done reading on Buddhist philosophy, Hinduism, Muslim religion and so many faiths and then on so many catholic things such as Liberation Theology and Opus Dei and others that I am taking a break.

Along with Distributism (which I have researched extensively), I am also looking into the Catholic Land, and Catholic Workers movements.

I have read some threads on this and read wikipedia to try to get a basic understanding but I really don’t understand the theories of how they would work but I will continue to learn.

I like capitalism with the smallest government and government influence that is possible but with a strong community involvedment and the strongest Catholic faith stressing charity to your neighbor.

 

[manualman]

Abortion before one’s conversion would not disqualify one for sainthood.

Take a look at St. Augustine’s (Hippo) life before he converted.

There’s hope for any of us!

 

[Ridgerunner]

While I think the economic organization of a society is a proper subject for Distributist thought, it is my belief that it is equally important that a person interested in its principles put his efforts into following them in his own life. One cannot wait for a society which is presently going headlong down a corporate statist path, to suddenly see the error of its ways.

Among Distributist principles are:

1. Societal support for those who cannot support themselves. Notwithstanding all its “help the poor” rhetoric, this government does almost nothing for the truly poor except provide free abortions. That fact does not stop us, as individuals, from contributing time and resources to those institutions that truly do help those who cannot help themselves.
2. Acquisition of productive resources at the family level as an aid to personal and philosophical autonomy. Can any of us say we do not over-consume? Are the things we consider “necessities” really necessities? One does not have to adopt an Amish lifestyle in order to formulate an economic base for the family’s security and relative autonomy. But one does have to consider very carefully what one does with the fruits of one’s labor. Do we have an attitude that it is, first and foremost, my personal responsibility to provide for my family, regardless of personal sacrifice, or do I look to government or business to provide?
3. Subsidiarity. Again, the current trend is toward federalization of everything. But that does not mean we, as individuals, cannot contribute to the “most proximate” levels of governance in our own societies. Do we go to city meetings? Do we run for local office, including places on boards that provide, e.g., for the retarded or the mentally ill? Do we support local civic projects? Do we support parish and diocesan projects?

I sometimes think we, as a society, have drifted so far into corporate statism and consumerism that we no longer even recognize those ways in which we may act according to the principles of the Papal Social Encyclicals. Our pastors certainly do not speak of them, nor do our schools. Even the USCCB has adopted a corporate statist attitude toward social issues. We’re a long way down the wrong road.

But that does not prevent any of us from living our own lives as nearly in accord with Distributist principles as possible, or from inculcating them into the thinking of our children.