Socialism and Catholicism

[Vouthon]

Also important to note:

Britannica Money

www.britannica.com

This does not fit the ‘neat’ categories.

The problems come when a ‘market economy’ is conflated with ‘capitalism’. One can be a believer in free markets, as opposed to Soviet-style ‘five year’ economic plans, without subscribing to capitalism.

And Catholic doctrine does not prohibit this in the least.

A good example of a modern ‘market socialist’ party is in Portugal, which not only has a socialist-led leftist government in power right now under Antónia Costa (called the Partido Socialista “Socialist Party” conveniently enough!) but even enshrines ‘socialism’ in its constitution, as the fundamental orientation of the Portuguese Republic (‘Preamble’, 1976, last reviewed 1989):

Constitution of the Republic of Portugal, 1976 - Wikisource, the free online library

The Constituent Assembly affirms the decision of the Portuguese people to defend the national independence, to guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens, to establish the basic principles of democracy, to ensure the rule of democratic law and make way for a socialist society , in respect of the will of the Portuguese people, with a view to building a freer, more just and more fraternal country.

Democratic market socialism in government has not been a ‘disaster’ for Portugal or reduced her civil society to economic penury and bankruptcy. On the contrary, it has high growth - above the average for the eurozone - as a result of budgetary reforms introduced by its socialist government, which involved a reversal of the fiscal austerity and public spending cuts imposed by the preceding centre-right administration (in the aftermath of the sovereign debt crisis) and thereby " proving that by putting more money in people’s pockets it could lift growth ":

Portugal: a European path out of austerity?

The economy has rebounded since the centre-left government reversed post-crisis budget cuts

Europe is still struggling to find a label for the new brand of socialism that has lifted Portugal’s fortunes over the past three and a half years. António Costa, the prime minister who gained office by forging a surprising partnership between the moderate and hard left, simply calls it “turning the page on austerity”. One of the few successful centre-left politicians in Europe, Mr Costa is on course for re-election this year, having presided over an economic turnround that has restored confidence to Portugal, a country that the European debt crisis brought to its knees. Unemployment has halved to 6.7 per cent and the budget deficit could be eliminated this year for the first time in over 40 years.

 

[StudentMI]

One can be a believer in free markets, as opposed to Soviet-style ‘five year’ economic plans, without subscribing to capitalism.

Indeed. That is what many distributists say, and I regularly read stuff from people who call themselves ‘free market anti-capitalists’.

 

[Vouthon]

Indeed. That is what many distributists say, and I regularly read stuff from people who call themselves ‘free market anti-capitalists’.

Yes, consider what Pope St. John Paul II explains:

" In the modern period, from the beginning of the industrial age, the Christian truth about work had to oppose the various trends of materialistic and economistic thought… the danger of treating work as a special kind of “merchandise,” or as an impersonal “force” needed for production (the expression “workforce” is in fact in common use) always exists , especially when the whole way of looking at the question of economics is marked by the premises of materialistic economism…

In all cases of this sort , in every social situation of this type, there is a reversal of the order laid down from the beginning by the words of the Book of Genesis: man is treated as an instrument of production. Precisely this reversal of order, whatever the program or name under which it occurs, should rightly be called “capitalism” …Everybody knows that capitalism has a definite historical meaning as a system, an economic and social system, opposed to “socialism” or “communism.”

It should be recognized that the error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever people are treated on the same level as the whole complex of the material means of production, as an instrument and not in accordance with the true dignity of their work.

Laborem Exercens (“On Human Work”) , Pope St. John Paul II, 1981 #30.

He then explains that this ‘capitalism’ - condemned in and of itself as contrary to God’s plan for creation, just as with ‘Marxist collectivism’ - has a “ definite historical meaning as a system opposed to communism", which is similarly condemned for its Marxian dialectical materialism.

Compare to how Pope St. John Paul II discusses the “market economy”, which he praises (albeit within due social, juridical and moral boundaries that must circumscribe it and direct it to the common good).

The grave error is to make the leap from “market” to “capitalism”.

Pope St. John Paul also stated in that same encyclical that:

[Church teaching on the right to private property], as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the church, diverges radically from the program of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism. At the same time it differs from the program of capitalism

Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation.

Laborem Exercens (“On Human Work”), Pope John Paul II, 1981 #64.

So Catholic Social Doctrine on property ownership aligns perfectly with neither Marxism or capitalism, as secular materialist theories of human flourishing and development.

 

[Vouthon]

Something important to note here too:

The ‘definition’ of socialism used in the encyclicals is Marxist collectivism. John Paul II made it abundantly clear: “The tension between East and West is an opposition… between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction…This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism ” ( Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 21).

Pope John Paul II stated in Laborem Exercens that he supported “socialisation versus collectivisation”:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html

The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the Church, diverges radically from the programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism. At the same time it differs from the programme of capitalism …

From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production …

The many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church take on special significance: proposals for joint ownership of the means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and/or profits of businesses…

If a Catholic aims to implement a “socialisation” of society within the rubric of the above guidelines, and calls himself a “socialist” of this “socialisation”, then it is not violating Catholic Doctrine (against state collectivisation ) just like the UK Labour Party didn’t in the 1930s.

Catholics calling themselves ‘socialists’ according to this legitimate model of socialisation (over against illegitimate ‘collectivisation’) are being condemned by some wrongly under a condemnation meant to be directed against Marxism for its dialectical materialist determinism, atheism and class warfare (which calls itself ‘socialism’ - as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

Every reference to ‘socialism’ is a reference to totalitarian Marxist collectivism (as opposed to ‘democratic socialisms’ that are not Marxist collectivist in theory):

POPE PIUS XII Christmas Message of 1942

“ Always moved by religious motives, the Church has condemned the various forms of Marxist Socialism; and she condemns them today ”

It is Marxist collectivist theory, characterised by an anti-religious dialectic and material determinist reading of history, and which seeks to suppress individual liberties within a collectivist social order that undermines “public morality”, that the church condemns in the texts cited by others under the term “socialism” - because that’s what these Marxists called themselves.

 

[Athanasiy]

Communism damaged the nations for generations. Communism in USSR was not monolithic, there were more or less prosperous times, but it was like that desease that only later shows up its wound.
My grandparents were telling me that life during the Stalin’s rule was very bad.
Before the World War Two and after World War Two. Neither before war, nor after the war the life of the people changed for better.
In 1930th the Stanists severely persecuted the Trotskists.
Many sincere and devoted Trotskists ended up in Gulag, and paid too dear price for their fake dream, but early communism was the idea for which many young people easily believed.
Of course, if people were treated as animals through the stages of serfdom, then Lords then communism seemed attractive idea, but in reality the implementation of the system brought much more poverty, stupidity, laziness, craftiness, hypocrisy and constant rotten lies that it eventually collapsed.

 

[HarryStotle]

The Catholic hierarchy in Britain had approved of British Socialism as an acceptable stance for Catholics to vote for:

The Catholic hierarchy in Britain, Ireland and most of Europe have done a remarkable job ever widening what constitutes “acceptable” positions for Catholics. As it now stands, pretty much any secular left position on any moral or political issue resides within the “acceptable” realm for Catholics.

Unfortunately, that has made what might be an identifiably Catholic position very difficult to isolate, let alone clearly define.

 

[StudentMI]

That unfortunately is true. What I believe is to blame is the moral disintegration of western culture and what Robert Higgs calls the ‘ratchet effect’.

 

[HarryStotle]

Catholics calling themselves ‘socialists’ according to this legitimate model of socialisation (over against illegitimate ‘collectivisation’) are being condemned by some wrongly under a condemnation meant to be directed against Marxism for its dialectical materialist determinism, atheism and class warfare (which calls itself ‘socialism’ - as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

Which is not to say that socialism couldn’t be a kind of ideological virus that finds new ways to impose itself on a society in order to wreck the same old authoritarian stranglehold on the people.

I am pretty certain that the initial promoters of the old socialism (aka Marxism) were just as laudatory and spoke in glowing terms of the old form, at least at the beginning.

 

[NoelFitz]

Again according to Humpty Dumpty a definition is never wrong.

Your definition of socialism is wrong.

Incidentally is China a socialist country as it claims it is?

 

[NoelFitz]

The Catholic hierarchy in Britain, Ireland and most of Europe have done a remarkable job ever widening what constitutes “acceptable” positions for Catholics. As it now stands, pretty much any secular left position on any moral or political issue resides within the “acceptable” realm for Catholics.

Vouthon,
thanks. it is good to know that our bishops are wrong. Will I follow my own views or will you clarify what the truth is, since the magisterium is to blame for moral disintegration?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The Catholic hierarchy in Britain, Ireland and most of Europe have done a remarkable job ever widening what constitutes “acceptable” positions for Catholics. As it now stands, pretty much any secular left position on any moral or political issue resides within the “acceptable” realm for Catholics.

Vouthon,
thanks. it is good to know that our bishops are wrong. Will I follow my own views or will you clarify what the truth is, since the magisterium is to blame for moral disintegration?

You may want to check to whom you are addressing your post.

 

[StudentMI]

I’m confused as well. Vouthon didn’t say anything about the bishops being wrong, and I was the one who mentioned moral disintegration.

 

[Athanasiy]

Loading…

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[HarryStotle]

Brett1980:

With regards to basic needs not being met: many “right-wing” economists/theorists have expressed support for basic income or negative income tax, consider Charles Murray and Milton Friedman.

UBI is just common sense. There is literally no good argument against a country as wealthy as the USA not having a universal basic income for every citizen.

The argument against UBI is that when human beings are merely “gifted” with the means or ends it cheapens the value of labour.

Why, for example, do we not have a universal basic food supply for everyone?

Entitlements always end up to become considered entitlements. I “deserve” this. I have a “right” to that. It completely undermines what is basic to the human condition. We ought to put something in in order to get something out of roughly equal value.

 

[HarryStotle]

Social democracy - Wikipedia

Interesting, I suppose, on a vague theoretical level, but actually unhelpful.

Consider that the Nordic countries are held up a models of modern social democracy, the aim of which is to “to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.”

However, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) data suggests that it isn’t the Nordic or European countries that most effectively “distribute” wealth, but the US. The US has the most “progressive” tax using the goals of modern social democracy. The top 10% of earners in the US pay 45% of the tax burden, whereas in Sweden the top 10% only pay 27% and in France 28% of the total burden.

If the US had the same kind of tax structure as Sweden or France the taxes of the bottom 90% of taxpayers would effectively double.

Loading…

www.wsj.com

 

[StudentMI]

One of the bad side effects of social democracy is the effect it has on family structure and local, fraternal organizations. A lot of them have been swallowed up in the name of state charity, equality, alleviation. I once read an article from the BBC of all places that Americans (not the state) give more in charity than any other developed nation on the planet. As Anthony Esolen wrote in this great book I’m reading called Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching, and I’m paraphrasing here, that personal and local charity gives to a person, not just a number.

 

[HarryStotle]

One of the bad side effects of social democracy is the effect it has on family structure and local, fraternal organizations. A lot of them have been swallowed up in the name of state charity, equality, alleviation. I once read an article from the BBC of all places that Americans (not the state) give more in charity than any other developed nation on the planet. As Anthony Esolen wrote in this great book I’m reading called Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching, and I’m paraphrasing here, that personal and local charity gives to a person, not just a number.

Dr. Esolen’s book, Life Under Compulsion: Ten Ways to Destroy the Humanity of Your Child is a critical resource for Catholic parents.

 

[NoelFitz]

You may want to check to whom you are addressing your post.

Oops! Did I get confused? If so it is not unusual. I am here to clarify my thinking and if I misjudged anyone I apologize.

Was the post directed at me?

However I did see the claim:
'The Catholic hierarchy in Britain, Ireland and most of Europe have (sic) done a remarkable job ever widening what constitutes “acceptable” positions for Catholics. As it now stands, pretty much any secular left position on any moral or political issue resides within the “acceptable” realm for Catholics.

Is a part of the hierarchy/magisterium socialist?
Is Pope Francis a Socialist?

 

[NoelFitz]

I see in a post by HS:

However, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ) data suggests that it isn’t the Nordic or European countries that most effectively “distribute” wealth, but the US. The US has the most “progressive” tax using the goals of modern social democracy. The top 10% of earners in the US pay 45% of the tax burden, whereas in Sweden the top 10% only pay 27% and in France 28% of the total burden.

I also note in the www ‘The top 1 percent of American earners pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes . That’s more than the bottom 90 percent pay combined’. However the top 1% own about 40% of American wealth while the bottom 90% own slightly over 20%.
Is it surprising that the wealthy pays more tax? The fact that the rich in the US pays more tax is because they have more wealth, not because of a more effective distribution of wealth or a more progressive tax system.

Is this an example of ‘lies dam lies and statistics’ or of alternative facts?

 

[Brett1980]

I agree Harry, this is a fair argument against UBI. I would say there is reasons for and against it.