Socialism and Catholicism

[Nepperhan]

Because as far as I understand it, it’s possible to argue that a “social democracy” model is compatible with Catholicism. (At least that it’s possible to have a social democracy that operates in a just fashion.) Just not socialism (even ‘democratic socialism’).

I think that a social democracy is democratic socialism. You do not credit that the Catholic Worker movement was made up of socialists and was a socialist movement, not just a bunch of communities.

If the Pledge and “This Land is Made for You and Me” are cultural standards in a capitalist society, that is my point: Socialism is not antithetical to US patriotism or Catholicism. You should also credit that democratic socialists gave the US the trade union movement in the last century and that the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists was close to Walter Reuther, an avowed democratic socialist.

So it could be said that the trade union movement (which was an early advocate of the civil rights movement) was the implementation of democratic socialist ideas withing a capitalist society. At any rate, we shall have to disagree as to if Socialism is antithetical to Catholicism.

 

[MNathaniel]

Then we do come to a final disagreement. You have declared that “a social democracy is democratic socialism” – facts, and the social sciences, simply disagree with you there. When you’re ready to see it, I encourage you to look again. (A simple Google should do. “social democracy vs democratic socialism” should summon you a succinct summary of the difference.)

In the meantime, it sounds like you’re declaring that “socialism” means whatever you privately decide it means at any given moment… which is very unfortunate in terms of your ability to speak fruitfully with other people, and can only lead you into many unnecessary arguments in life. Which is also unfair to others (who may waste their own precious time in trying to converse with you, and endure temptations to frustration and anger on the stumbling block that is your refusal to use the dictionary definition of words), so I’ll hope and pray that you change your mind, for your sake and others.

But whatever is going on with you that has brought you to the point of saying you do not accept the categorically and clearly defined definitions of words… I imagine you’re likely to feel negatively about me and any continued attempt I make to change your mind. And I don’t want to be a stumbling block for you, either. So, I’ll just say… God bless you, and I honestly hope you have a peaceful night, and that God’s will be done in your life. And into His hands I commend this conversation.

 

[Nepperhan]

In the meantime, it sounds like you’re declaring that “socialism” means whatever you privately decide it means at any given moment… which is very unfortunate in terms of your ability to speak fruitfully with other people, and can only lead you into many unnecessary arguments in life.

You’re making me out to be Humpty Dumpty, stating that words mean what I want them to. I think you ignore the historical incidence of socialist factors in US life, several of which I have cited. As to reference works, the US has been limned as a capitalist economy with a mixture of democratic socialism thrown in. What you call ‘clear definition of words’ seem to me to fail in application.

I’m not a political scientist or a social scientist but I have ‘name college’ degrees on the doctoral level so I am familiar with research and citation.

 

[JSRG]

It would be much easier if the word “socialism” was banned, quite honestly. The word has too many divergent and contradictory meanings. It seems like half of arguments about whether socialism is good or not turn into a debate over what the word even means.

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s where you’re going off the rails, I believe. Socialism is workers controlling the means of production. That does not strip individuals of access to ownership of the means of production. Democratic socialism is workers having a say in the economic institutions within a market economy.

This, fundamentally, is where the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is to be located.

The question is whether the economy is essentially a free market or is inordinately owned or controlled by the state.

If it is a free market economy (including social democracy of some flavour), then it is quite possible to have the workers who do own the means of production operating within that free market. That by no means entails socialism, because the State on behalf of workers does not dictate or control things like ownership, prices, production, wages, supply, etc. The market determines all of those which can fluctuate freely based upon supply and demand. Workers are free to own the means of production communally.

If it is a socialist economy (democratic socialism) the State controls some, all or many aspects of the economy including pricing, supply, wages, etc. If the market is not free to fluctuate based upon supply and demand, then the democracy, autocracy, or oligarchy, or whatever, is socialist to the degree that the various sectors of the economy are controlled by the State.

I would suggest that is where the emphasis on “socialism” is to be placed, precisely.

Otherwise you are just being arbitrary.

 

[HarryStotle]

It would be much easier if the word “socialism” was banned, quite honestly. The word has too many divergent and contradictory meanings. It seems like half of arguments about whether socialism is good or not turn into a debate over what the word even means.

Instead of banning words that are confusing, what about clearly defining them as an alternative to banning?

 

[Maximian]

Socialism is summed up by the maxim “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

At first sight this seems very Christian. Surely every Christian should want to give the best of himself according to his ability, and receive only what he needs? What more charitable life could there be?

However, there is a problem because Charity which is forced is not charity. The socialist programme deprives the faithful of the means to exercise charity. In western countries this has generally been done through punitive taxation; but in many countries it has been done at gunpoint.

 

[AlNg]

“This Land Was Made for You and Me”.

The song that the European capitalist settlers to America sang was that this land was made for me and I have every right to steal this land from the native American indians and to kill and murder him and his family until he concedes and hands over this land. This land does not belong to the native American Indian, but it belongs to us, the European conquerors.

 

[o_mlly]

We will always have the poor, as the Lord taught us, until we are in the City of God. So, it seems to me that in the City of Man, we have two choices:

1. If you would rather have a privileged minority oppress the majority then choose socialism.
2. If you would rather have a minority oppress the privileged majority then choose capitalism.

 

[RobertAdams]

Totally. The toughest thing for me to get used to when in countries with universal healthcare was how the military police were always showing up to confiscate my lunch and give it to the homeless.

 

[tafan2]

Late to this discussion, but the two options presented are both bad and the premise is not sound either. Christ’s kingdom is here, we are to work to build it up, even though we will not meet perfection due to our fallen nature. St Augustine did not defint the City o f God as heaven, he defined it as how Christians should be living here on earth.

 

[o_mlly]

Late to this discussion, but the two options presented are both bad and the premise is not sound either. Christ’s kingdom is here, we are to work to build it up, even though we will not meet perfection due to our fallen nature. St Augustine did not defint the City o f God as heaven, he defined it as how Christians should be living here on earth.

Did you wish to add to the discussion? If so, let us know what your “good option” is? If this is just another “drive by” post, note that the word “heaven” is yours, not mine.

 

[AlNg]

The toughest thing for me to get used to when in countries with universal healthcare was how the military police were always showing up to confiscate my lunch and give it to the homeless.

That is hard to believe. What country was it where the police takes away your lunch?

 

[tafan2]

It’s a drive by post just correcting an egregious error. From a quick review, one of many on both sides of the discussion on this thread.

 

[JSRG]

RobertAdams:

The toughest thing for me to get used to when in countries with universal healthcare was how the military police were always showing up to confiscate my lunch and give it to the homeless.

That is hard to believe. What country was it where the police takes away your lunch?

I believe the post was meant sarcastically.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s a drive by post just correcting an egregious error. From a quick review, one of many on both sides of the discussion on this thread.

Thanks for the honesty. Egregious? You realize your inaccurate criticism is not at the substance of my post but at the metaphor used? By the way, a comment is not an argument so no premise was offered. See, I can be petty too.

 

[NoelFitz]

As the OP I think the focus has changed in this discussion and many of the over 200 posts do not deal with my original concerns.
Basically Socialism means different things. Sweden was given as an example of a socialist country, while others disagreed.
Now few people consider Socialism as the absolute denial of the right to private property.
As an Irish person I have the idea the many contributors use the term Socialism as a stick to beat politicians they disagree with. Is there a smell of dog-whistles from Trump supporters?

As a reminder I quote from the original post:
I read recently an article by Trent Horn and Catherine Pakaluk (Jan 16, 2020) 'Can a Catholic Be a Socialist? with the conclusion ‘not only are Catholics not obligated to be socialists, they—we—cannot be socialists’. I respectfully disagree with this conclusion, as it depends on what it means to be a Socialist and many good Catholics, myself excluded, would claim to be Socialist.

Condemnations of Socialism from those in the US often seem to Europeans to be based on politics, not religion

 

[HarryStotle]

As the OP I think the focus has changed in this discussion and many of the over 200 posts do not deal with my original concerns.
Basically Socialism means different things. Sweden was given as an example of a socialist country, while others disagreed.
Now few people consider Socialism as the absolute denial of the right to private property.
As an Irish person I have the idea the many contributors use the term Socialism as a stick to beat politicians they disagree with. Is there a smell of dog-whistles from Trump supporters?

…
Condemnations of Socialism from those in the US often seem to Europeans to be based on politics, not religion

This move on your part reminds me of some of the descriptions of the modernist heresy that is so rampant in the Church for the past century or so, only applied to politics. Perhaps that is why politics and religion seem to be so intertwined for you?

The way the religious modernist heresy works is that it begins with the acknowledgment that some things in the Church are changeable, forgetting that there is a distinction to be made between what is changeable and what is unchangeable. Modernists wipe out that distinction and posit that everything is up for grabs and changeable.

This is the result of sloppy thought and a lack of precision in language. We can account for and allow some change but modernists claim nothing is unchangeable because everything is always changing. And so, for religious modernists even the most fundamental tenets of faith are always changeable.

All engineering (political, social or religious) is preceded by verbal engineering. Words are emptied of meaning so progressive modernists can use them to mean whatever they want them to mean. When modernists say Scripture is inspired, for example, they don’t mean at all what orthodox Tradition understood the word “inspired” to mean, they intend it to mean something else entirely and so begin the process by diluting the meaning of the word.

A precise and well-defined vocabulary is crucial so that words maintain their most accurate and precise meaning so that we have clarity about what has always been meant by those words – to counter the influence of modernism.

Yet, here you are wanting to dispense with the well-understood and precise conception of socialism in order to insert a kind of benign and nebulous Socialism means different things into the mix to engineer a kind of renewal of socialism.

Readers should not fall for this. Socialism means and will always mean state control over the various sectors of the economy, society, media and education system that ought to be left to the free and voluntary exchange of citizens without undue compulsion by the state. In other words, the state need only interfere where that voluntary exchange is threatened by violence, fraud or intimidation.

 

[HarryStotle]

I am in Canada, by the way. A place with universal health care. Most who can afford it will carry additional private coverage. We are beginning to see the drawbacks of a universal system under stress when those under 65 will be unable to provide for the needs of those over 65.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Keep your eyes and mind open to what is about to happen over the next 10 years.

Apparently, Michael Bloomberg draws the line at 95 years of age.

https://magadailyreport.com/2020/02/bloomberg-commits-political-suicide-says-we-must-deny-elderly-healthcare-to-avoid-going-bankrupt/

 

[StudentMI]

Woo doggies, lots to say.

First a quote from Pope Benedict:

“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”

Europe and Its Discontents by Benedict XVI | Articles | First Things

Second, please don’t confuse popular talking points with Catholic social teaching.

Third, to whoever talked about taxation as a man with a gun stealing from you, no, a thousand times no. If you study the social doctrine of the Church, and the history of Catholic views on government from the likes of Leo XIII and Pius XI among others, you will see that Church teaching on government allows for quite a variety of governmental actions. To use libertarian cliches to describe such things is wrong. The Church also condemns anarchism, by the way.