socialism

  • Thread starter Thread starter xmydreamsfadex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xmydreamsfadex

Guest
not sure where this thread belongs in but…
is it wrong to agree with the same ideas that marxists/socialists have? for example, the ideas that they have for feeding the poor, creating housing, universal healthcare, etc, all sound good to me. but is it morally wrong to agree with them? i’ll admit i’m ignorant on the whole philosophy but they do seem to make some good points which would serve everybody and not just a favored few, like what the Church teaches.
 
Consider this. Liberation Theology which combined Marxism (the ultimate form of Socialism) and Christianity was condemned by the Church. Socialism (especially its extreme forms like Marxism and Nazism) is inherently anti-religion and violent in nature.

In addition government control does not necessarily mean contributing to the general welfare. In many cases, it actually harms the general populace through rationing of food and healthcare and the burdensome beaurocracy. Free will is removed from the people since every aspect of life is controlled by the state of which, in many case, they are considered property.

Furthermore, socialism has given rise to relativism which is increasing imploding society.

No, socialism in its many forms is not the answer but the problem.
 
xmydreamsfadex said:
not sure where this thread belongs in but…is it wrong to agree with the same ideas that marxists/socialists have?
Click to expand...
Yes. It is.
xmydreamsfadex said:
for example, the ideas that they have for feeding the poor, creating housing, universal healthcare, etc, all sound good to me. but is it morally wrong to agree with them? i’ll admit i’m ignorant on the whole philosophy but they do seem to make some good points which would serve everybody and not just a favored few, like what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Acts of *charity *are virtuous. However, that is not what socialism and marxism propose.

Marxism and socialism propose confiscation of property, nationalization of goods and services, and forced redistribution of wealth through totalitarian government.
 
Maybe Marxism isn’t the best thing, but at the same time, barring things like abortion/totalitarianism/banning religion/etc., the Church is supposed to be outside of politics.

I’m pretty liberal myself (hehehe, my friends all think I’m a ridiculously hardcore conservative, unless they’re conservative and then they call me a communist!) and support things like universal healthcare and such like that. I don’t believe that there should be forced redistribution on wealth. However, I believe federal minimum wage should be raised (it ISN’T enough to survive and people living off it aren’t necessarily being lazy) and more money should be spent on education (not necessarily on welfare, which needs reform) and making our public schools safe and effective places of learning. I don’t however, believe that homosexuality should permeate the educational atmosphere or that education should make “good citizens”. I also am pro life.

G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Day were both Catholic and liberal. Nothing wrong with it, as long as God is your first authority:)
 
There are BIG differences between marxists and socialists.

Quoting Marx’s most famous piece, his “Communist Manifesto”
The proletarian is without property; **his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; **modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. **Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, **behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
Click to expand...
A world where everybody is equal to the point I can not treat my mother special is a terrible world indeed.
 
I cannot locate the citations right now, but I suggest reading Pope Benedict’s encyclicals *Deus Caritas Est *and *Spe Salvi *to get his take on Marxism and its faults.

The Church is “outside of politics,” in that we believe in the separation of Church and state. It does not mean that the Church shies away from making judgments about various political philosophies.

Marxism has never led to a stable government in which the dignity of the human person was protected. China, Cuba, the USSR…all abysmal failures. Its basic philosophy is materialist–it sees the human person in strictly economic terms and values only what he can produce. It is atheistic.

I suggest reading up on JP2’s writings and speeches against communism. Many scholars attribute the fall of the Soviet Union in large part to his influence as pope.

Many of these political issues *sound *nice, but upon closer examination the philosophies which underlie them are rather frightening. This goes especially for socialism. It is possible to value the common good without resorting to Marxism (and really, when you do get to the point of Marx, the common good goes out the window).
 
No it is not wrong. Socialism has a lot of great principles. I think redistribution of wealth is a great thing. (and in line with Christianity ) Socialism in practice has always been an issue though.
 
Believe it or not, the “anti-socialism” and parallel “anti-liberal” movement in American Politics is only a recent phenomenon (Rush Limbaughees). Before the USSR and China went socialist and/or communist, there was a fairly sizable Socialist party in the US.

It wasn’t until the Red Menance did this that socialism was very frowned upon.

There’s a great book - “The Good Old Days: They Were Terrible!” by Otto Bettman.

He paints a picture of life from about 1880 to 1920 and America was ripe with disease-infested foods, street crime, forced child labor, quackery medicine, and filth-infested streets. Being old was synonymous with being impoverished before SSI.

It was mainly the rise of social programs and public health initiatives that stamped out that way of life and produced the standard of living we enjoy today.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow - but capitalism doesn’t solve everything.

I"m sure Karl Marx’s quote of “Religion is the Opiate of the Masses” didn’t earn any brownie points with Catholics. . .but there are many European countries who are rather socialist and I am certain you can be a good, bad or anything in between Catholic in that country.

I don’t think secularism and capitalism and socialism are necessarly inclusive or exclusive of each other.
 
Socialism as the end, rather than the means to an end, is a good thing. Marx advocated socialism as the in-between to ultimately bring about communism. He was a communist; why some think that we socialists are Marxists is beyond me. Capitalism in the States has gone awry. Corporations continue to profit from the poorest citizens and when those corporations finally start to fail, taxpayers are left with the bill. The system is broken.
 
Plain and simple. Marxism is the ultimate form of Socialism.
 
Sina said:
No it is not wrong. Socialism has a lot of great principles. I think redistribution of wealth is a great thing. (and in line with Christianity ) Socialism in practice has always been an issue though.
Click to expand...
Voluntary sharing of time, talent, and treasure is biblical.

Forced redistribution and confiscation is not biblical.
 
There are extremes on either side of the political spectrum that are unbiblical.
 
Sina said:
No it is not wrong. Socialism has a lot of great principles. I think redistribution of wealth is a great thing. (and in line with Christianity ) Socialism in practice has always been an issue though.
Click to expand...
How can this be in line with the right of people to OWN what they EARN? The government forcibly taking it from me and giving it to someone else is wrong.

Didn’t JPII excommunicate some South American priests preaching liberation theology when they wouldn’t stop?
 
Sounds as if more Catholic universities need to teach real social justice, along with basic philosophy.

Here’s why Karl Marx theory is bad:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm
http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/261/1294/frameset.html
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
http://marx.eserver.org/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04179a.htm

Here is why socialism has flaws:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14062a.htm
http://www.constitution.org/pla/republic.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Smith
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook33.html

I am a BIG believer in free-markets, choice of conscience in relationship to charity, and I am not fond of big government. That doesn’t mean I don’t know the why behind what I say.
 
xmydreamsfadex said:
not sure where this thread belongs in but…
is it wrong to agree with the same ideas that marxists/socialists have? for example, the ideas that they have for feeding the poor, creating housing, universal healthcare, etc, all sound good to me. but is it morally wrong to agree with them? i’ll admit i’m ignorant on the whole philosophy but they do seem to make some good points which would serve everybody and not just a favored few, like what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
You have to define what you mean by ‘socialism’.

It’s one thing to have voluntary communal living in small groups. That’s a lot like what religious orders do. But when one is forced to stay in such a group we call that group a cult.

Socialism as a form of government, even when as benevolently applied as possible, has a number of problems. Governments don’t work if adherence to the rules are voluntary. This means socialism must be imposed. For socialism to work, the people must work. But socialism tends not to reward industriousness and tends not to punish laziness.

In general, governments must balance the freedoms of the individuals against the equality of the individuals. Socialism tends to prefer equality at the expense of freedom.

Socialistic communities work because the individuals who join them tend to be highly motivated to work for the good of the community. If an individual doesn’t want to meet the needs of the others he is free to leave or he may be kicked out. In a socialistic government, the individual can’t really be kicked out (although he might be able to leave the country.) Frequently the community must put up with sub par performance from that individual but is still required to meet the needs of that individual. As a result, the whole community suffers.

We all know the problems of capitalism. If the individuals are not charitable, those who are unable to care for themselves, for whatever reason, will suffer. (Capitalism tends to favor freedom over equality.) But at least capitalism lends itself to human nature. Those who work hard and wisely tend to prosper. Those who are somewhat lazy or chose to work at something that doesn’t offer much return, don’t prosper. As a result, capitalism tends to police itself.
 
duskyjewel said:
How can this be in line with the right of people to OWN what they EARN? The government forcibly taking it from me and giving it to someone else is wrong.

Didn’t JPII excommunicate some South American priests preaching liberation theology when they wouldn’t stop?
Click to expand...
Why do we need private property ownership?
 
Sina said:
Why do we need private property ownership?
Click to expand...
From the Catechism, starting at 2401:

…The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. For the sake of the common good, **it requires **respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world’s goods to God and to fraternal charity.

…**The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons **and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge.

The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
 
In my sociology class we talked about how socialism often leads to the government replacing the family and the church because it takes the responsibilities of what once belonged to family members and religion. For example, women have no incentive to marry before having children because a single parent recieves more government assistance, and fathers don’t have to stick around. Also, when times get rough instead of turning to one’s religious community, people in socialist societies generally cling to government. I’m not a fan of big government, so I’m not a fan of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top