You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Yep. Cool that they quoted the early Church Fathers.
At the same time we as Americans have a habit of calling anything other than Randian type capitalism socialism. We need to be careful about that.
At the same time we as Americans have a habit of calling anything other than Randian type capitalism socialism. We need to be careful about that.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
There is an ambiguity of terms at play here. Please refer to the distinctions listed below. (For those who don’t like the wikipedia link, follow their references. The distinction between personal and private property is very well documented.
For instance, from the article: “Church Father Lactantius that while private property allows the possibility of both virtue and vice, a “community of goods” disallows the possibility of some virtues…” It’s very clear that Lactantius is talking about PERSONAL PROPERTY (community of goods) and not what socialists would call PRIVATE PROPERTY. Socialism does not disallow personal property. Goods are not on the table of discussion here.
For instance, from the article: “Church Father Lactantius that while private property allows the possibility of both virtue and vice, a “community of goods” disallows the possibility of some virtues…” It’s very clear that Lactantius is talking about PERSONAL PROPERTY (community of goods) and not what socialists would call PRIVATE PROPERTY. Socialism does not disallow personal property. Goods are not on the table of discussion here.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
One distinction when it comes to terms that I’ve seen is possession vs private property.
From the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin:
From the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin:
We are bidden to consider the hard case of some poor fellow who by dint of privation has contrived to buy a house just large enough to hold his family. And we are going to deprive him of his hard-earned happiness, to turn him into the street! Certainly not. If his house is only just large enough for his family, by all means let him stay there. Let him work in his little garden too; our “boys” will not hinder him — nay, they will lend him a helping hand if need be.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
The largest conundrum that one has to deal with as to this thread is that the clearest early example of a socialist community was the Twelve Apostles.
S
StudentMI
Guest
They weren’t socialist in the condemned sense of the term. They were communitarian, not communist. Voluntarist, not coercive.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Then you should understand that no candidate I can think of who is running for office is a socialist in the condemned sense of the term.They weren’t socialist in the condemned sense of the term. They were communitarian, not communist. Voluntarist, not coercive.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Sanders come close. In any event I won’t be voting for him because I think his economic plans are nonsense and his stance on abortion.
There’s also much to say about how his positions violate the principle of subsidiarity.
There’s also much to say about how his positions violate the principle of subsidiarity.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Sanders is a democratic socialist not what you term the ‘condemned sense’ of socialist. There are major differences. That’s how we had Dorothy Day who is up for sainthood even though she led the clearly socialist Catholic Worker movement.Sanders come close. In any event I won’t be voting for him because I think his economic plans are nonsense and his stance on abortion.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Dorothy Day was a distributist and an anarchist, not a democratic socialist like Bernie. Please look at her articles and Peter Maurin’s recommended reading list. You’ll see Kropotkin, Albert Jay Nock, Proudhon. She lived subsidiarity.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
I think that Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement were clearly socialist. If you can make the distinction between her and Sanders you can surely understand the distinction between Sanders and ‘condemned socialism’.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Where did I say Sanders was the condemned sort of socialist? I said he comes close. To be honest I think he’s too scared to call for the means of production to be socialized.
Are you familiar with the writers Maurin and Day cited and recommended repeatedly? Ralph Borsodi, for instance?
Are you familiar with the writers Maurin and Day cited and recommended repeatedly? Ralph Borsodi, for instance?
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
OK, so you are stating that your peroration as to socialism is largely inapplicable to the present candidates for office.Where did I say Sanders was the condemned sort of socialist? I said he comes close. To be honest I think he’s too scared to call for the means of production to be socialized.
S
StudentMI
Guest
I still think he’s scared if that’s what you’re asking. I like it when people state clearly what they believe in. Which is why I don’t like politicians.
I notice you’re not addressing my question about familiarity with any of the writers Day and Maurin recommended.
I notice you’re not addressing my question about familiarity with any of the writers Day and Maurin recommended.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Facts about my studies are irrelevant to this discussion. If either person made a particularly apt statement or conclusion, please cite it. If you are asking, between the lines, if I have a Phd the answer is “no”.I notice you’re not addressing my question about familiarity with any of the writers Day and Maurin recommended.
S
StudentMI
Guest
? It’s not a matter of having a PhD. I think you are incorrect and I’m asking if you are familiar with any of the writers they regularly cited. I’m sorry I was argumentative. That is my fault.
Last edited:
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Agree that communism (extreme socialism) was a huge disaster, there is no denying this fact. It does extend the mind when we try and fit the remnants of Russia, China etc. into today’s situation.
The idea of democratic socialism doesn’t seem correct either. As in a narrowing view of democracy could be described as the “majority rule the minority” It would be hard to deny that Western Democracies indeed use both capitalism and socialism.
Could it be said that the only extreme socialist regime left today is N. Korea? Where as China & Russia seem to integrate capitalism & socialism into some type of new system that raises the wealth of its people. Questionable methods yes, but I do recognize that 30years ago the majority of Chinese people were farmers, very poor & very little wealth. A stark contrast in 2020
I understand the narrow definition of socialism being that of production ownership, personal property & issues around centralized governments to distribute wealth through taxes. I do think the article is talking in context to history as the failures of communism destroyed life and bought people to its knees and falls short of describing changes in the most recent decades.
I do agree with the article but becomes ambiguous when comparing the post war period. How can anyone explain the ever changing sentiment of the Vatican towards both socialism and capitalism.
Ref. March 2013 Magisterium of Pope Francis - Apostolic Exhortation evangeli gaudium
The article by John Clark is a good one and relevant up to about the end of Mao and Stalin which is why I asked the question about the possibly of N.Korea being the last true extreme socialist.
I am comfortable with moderate socialism as this is what western democracies already practice. I think the word socialism is being used to describe communism and yes there is no doubt that socialism at its extreme is communism and disastrous. But then how do we explain the current situation of the integration of capitalism with socialism today?
Another example of this originated in Spain and a company called “Mondragon Corporation”
I think it gets harder for us to ignore and simply label China & Russia as communist or extreme socialist when what seems to be emerging has raised the eyebrows of many western democracies leaving us asking “how is this possible”
The idea of democratic socialism doesn’t seem correct either. As in a narrowing view of democracy could be described as the “majority rule the minority” It would be hard to deny that Western Democracies indeed use both capitalism and socialism.
Could it be said that the only extreme socialist regime left today is N. Korea? Where as China & Russia seem to integrate capitalism & socialism into some type of new system that raises the wealth of its people. Questionable methods yes, but I do recognize that 30years ago the majority of Chinese people were farmers, very poor & very little wealth. A stark contrast in 2020
I understand the narrow definition of socialism being that of production ownership, personal property & issues around centralized governments to distribute wealth through taxes. I do think the article is talking in context to history as the failures of communism destroyed life and bought people to its knees and falls short of describing changes in the most recent decades.
I do agree with the article but becomes ambiguous when comparing the post war period. How can anyone explain the ever changing sentiment of the Vatican towards both socialism and capitalism.
Ref. March 2013 Magisterium of Pope Francis - Apostolic Exhortation evangeli gaudium
The article by John Clark is a good one and relevant up to about the end of Mao and Stalin which is why I asked the question about the possibly of N.Korea being the last true extreme socialist.
I am comfortable with moderate socialism as this is what western democracies already practice. I think the word socialism is being used to describe communism and yes there is no doubt that socialism at its extreme is communism and disastrous. But then how do we explain the current situation of the integration of capitalism with socialism today?
Another example of this originated in Spain and a company called “Mondragon Corporation”
I think it gets harder for us to ignore and simply label China & Russia as communist or extreme socialist when what seems to be emerging has raised the eyebrows of many western democracies leaving us asking “how is this possible”
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Voluntary sharing or withdrawing of that sharing doesn’t seem to be the lesson of Acts 5
P
pnewton
Guest
Seems a rather illogical article with a more illogical title. Take the first quote.
St. Thomas?
I think his attempt to attack a more intellectual approach by others fails simply because it overreaches. There is no need to go back in history. We have direct condemnation of socialism (pure socialism), and condemnation of some of the major tenets of socialism. That should be sufficient, unless the intent is to discredit Catholic social teaching as well, which has some parallel with socialism, though a vastly different foundation.
It is no surprise that he ends the article with current politics, even though the direction he took has no bearing on the rest of the article. Not one of the people mentioned have shown to have an underlying Gnosticism, or have condemned all ownership of property as immoral. His title hints at this complete disregard for logical consistency. The definition of socialism cannot change in every paragraph.
Not socialism. Theft. Abuse of power.So, if any bishop…confiscates any property from anyone, thinking he is protecting his own church, let him be suspended by his patriarch for a time, having first restored what he took away.
St. Thomas?
Again, this is not socialism, which does not have any teaching of salvation. Also, Gnosticism is not socialism. In the second paragraph, the author writes, “While the word “socialism” only found its way into common parlance in the 19th century, its underlying philosophy dates back several millennia.” He then goes back to show some (and different) philosophies which have some tangential relationship to socialism that have been condemned. Not once did he even attempt to show his primary premise, that is, that all of these things have the same underlying philosophy, which I for one do not believe they have.Now the reason why these people are heretics was because severing themselves from the Church, they think that those who enjoy the use of the above things, which they themselves lack, have no hope of salvation. Therefore it is erroneous to maintain that it is unlawful for a man to possess property.
I think his attempt to attack a more intellectual approach by others fails simply because it overreaches. There is no need to go back in history. We have direct condemnation of socialism (pure socialism), and condemnation of some of the major tenets of socialism. That should be sufficient, unless the intent is to discredit Catholic social teaching as well, which has some parallel with socialism, though a vastly different foundation.
It is no surprise that he ends the article with current politics, even though the direction he took has no bearing on the rest of the article. Not one of the people mentioned have shown to have an underlying Gnosticism, or have condemned all ownership of property as immoral. His title hints at this complete disregard for logical consistency. The definition of socialism cannot change in every paragraph.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
If I were going to condemn socialism, I would do so from the standpoint of sin, which is really the one bad thing. One is hard-pressed to listen to current or past socialist and even liberal politicians and not hear them feeding the demon of envy that is all of us. Class conflict is fueled by envy. We not only want what others have, but if they can’t have it, we do not want them to have it. I see this as the difference between liberal policies (mislabeled socialism) and catholic social teaching. Catholicism hears the cry of the poor and responds as the hands of God to them. Politicians try to change the cry of the poor into envy, demanding an entitlement beyond necessities, for more stuff.
For those who think the two are the same, I would refer to Acts 5. I know times are different, but there is a real lesson for the right to own property. It is not universal, being balanced against the universal destination of goods, but socialism which prohibits owning property is rightfully condemned.
For those who think the two are the same, I would refer to Acts 5. I know times are different, but there is a real lesson for the right to own property. It is not universal, being balanced against the universal destination of goods, but socialism which prohibits owning property is rightfully condemned.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.