Socialism

[Ani_Ibi]

How did you get this…

levi86:

The wording of these paragraphs clearly allows the faithful to accept socialism as a legitimate economic model.

from this…

For this reason the Church rejects the ideologies associated in modern times with Communism or with atheistic and totalitarian forms of socialism.

?

 

[St_Benedict]

How did you get this…

from this…

?

Because only atheistic or totalitarian forms are condemned! If you have a form of socialism that is not totalitarian or atheistic then it is not condemmmed. Simple. And before you start there is plenty of socialism out there that is neither aetheistic nor totalitarian.

 

[MikeWM]

You’ve managed 138 posts on socialism without one contextual quote from Populorum Progressivo? Shame on you all

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

The Church (quite obviously) has no time for any system that proclaims that a economic solution is all that is required to bring about true justice in the world, and the form of classical, ‘religion is the opium of the people’ Marx-like socialism does indeed explicitly deny the role of pretty much anything other than economics. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible - and in my opinion highly desireable - to have an economy closer to the socialist model than it is to laissez-faire capitalism (which, let us remind ourselves, the Church is also scathing about, for the same reason) in those very interests of justice. The complete solution? Of course not. However, it seems correct to me to imbed into our Catholicism a desire for a decent and fair economic system as a key part of respecting the dignity of all human beings.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

You’ve managed 138 posts on socialism without one contextual quote from Populorum Progressio? Shame on you all

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

The Church (quite obviously) has no time for any system that proclaims that a economic solution is all that is required to bring about true justice in the world, and the form of classical, ‘religion is the opium of the people’ Marx-like socialism does indeed explicitly deny the role of pretty much anything other than economics. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible - and in my opinion highly desireable - to have an economy closer to the socialist model than it is to laissez-faire capitalism (which, let us remind ourselves, the Church is also scathing about, for the same reason) in those very interests of justice. The complete solution? Of course not. However, it seems correct to me to imbed into our Catholicism a desire for a decent and fair economic system as a key part of respecting the dignity of all human beings.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

England, for example, recently threw out the right to refuse to incriminate oneself with a law that says if a person will not answer questions from the police, the police may infer guilt. Remaining silent, all by itself is now probable cause in England!

Err, it was the Conservative government that did that under John Major. Labour has indeed made repeated, unpleasant, troubling attacks on our civil liberties in the last 10 years, but the contemporary Labour party is only socialist in so far as it still says so on my membership card. Economically speaking, it has done things more right-wing even than Mrs Thatcher on average, with a few notable exceptions.

You can have authoritarian governments from economically-left leaning administrations or economically-right leaning. You can also have libertarian governments with either. There’s no inevitability that one thing leads to another.

Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Because only atheistic or totalitarian forms are condemned! If you have a form of socialism that is not totalitarian or atheistic then it is not condemmmed. Simple. And before you start there is plenty of socialism out there that is neither aetheistic nor totalitarian.

Please specify. Thank you.

 

[Joe_Stong]

How in the world did the USA survive without massive federal programs to help the poor? Oh that’s right, “we the people” took care of our own.

It used to be that families took care of each other; neighbors cared for their neighbors. The parishes ran poor houses, the monsasteries and convents took care of the local poor…and even the poor had access to the church, the local school, books lent by friends and relatives…

We didnt’ need massive bureaucracy to make it all go because the people themselves took care of the poor.

My Irish ancestors didn’t get welfare and handouts, food stamps and preferencial treatment but they were given liberty to buy their own land, live on it in peace and raise their standard of living - and they did.

Who financed all the huge Churches, schools, universities, and Hospitals raised by the Church? The “poor” Catholic working classes… obviously their poverty wasn’t the soulless crushed poverty we see today where the poor have no one but the bureaucracy to ‘save them’ even with free education, free clothing, free food, subsidized housing, preferential treatment in hiring, government grants galore…

Socialism’s chief mischief is to remove PERSONAL and LOCAL initiative from the picture and replace it with functionaries from the far off “Bureau of making the little people feel good for awhile”.

 

[St_Benedict]

Please specify. Thank you.

Not an endorsment, I’m simply giving an example of a non-totalitarian, non atheistic socialism

thecsm.org.uk/

 

[Montalban]

So if the community values say Blacks are inferior to whites, it would be just to have restrooms, schools, drinking fountains, and so on reserved to whites, only?[/qyuote]
That’s in fact why those laws existed - because they reflected community values.

If you’re talking about law, it’s not always about justice.

Some people are here saying that the laws should have nothing to do with community values - but only to the point of stopping things such as ‘murder’, etc. Sure, rip poor people off, the law shouldn’t interfere there.
vern humphrey;2086522:

Saint Paul said caring for the poor is our

responsibility, and who fails in that responsibility is worse than an unbeliever. It is the Church, and us as individual Catholics upon whom that responsibility falls, not the government.

That’s why we should have ‘just’ laws. I note that there are Catholics out there who seek to have laws changed on abortion. They want the laws to reflect their values on that issue. If you think the poor should be protected, then why the resistence over laws that help them?

 

[AndyF]

Jayda:

True.

It is difficult in these days of patriotic pride to find someone that says society can do wrong. Clothed in the misunderstood cloak of “common good” many societies see this as a carte blanche permission to enact decrees at will, regardless of the moral principles it breaches. “Common good” assumes the possibility of “common evil”.

Societies are entities as well. It’s form recognised by God and having a collective conscience, capable of making free will choices, it’s occasional invoking of His assistance, it is bound by the Authority’s laws and governance.

AndyF

 

[AndyF]

This is entirely untrue. Class struggle is the single most important aspect of human history. There has never been a society (apart from primitive communal societies) that has ever maintained order without the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

The Church has never denied this fact

Classes are a human creation. It fullfills a temporal purpose that can benefit no one in attaining man’s true end, but assists the man who has chosen his true end in this world of exile. Order is a byproduct or gift, that comes from adherence to God’s laws. Oppression is a condition of living under the yoke of those who wish not to return to the Father, but choose death, and those oppressed will be truly rewarded (see: Sermon on the Mount}.

Servitude to man and God assist in attaining that true end. “He who would be first will be last”

AndyF

 

[mvinca]

Why didn’t anyone think to consult the Catechism before now?

This is the only section within the CCC that deals with socialism, and it certainly does not state that socialism is contrary to the faith. The wording of these paragraphs clearly allows the faithful to accept socialism as a legitimate economic model.

It has been quoted before in this thread.(See post #10 for one example.) And your response seems to have a running theme… socialism as just an economic model. What I submit is that it is impossible for socialism to be just an economic model since its implementation requires a restriction of free will, which requires some type of authority to do the restricting.

Charity, however, is the free giving from one’s heart. We should be converting hearts to Christ which in turn increases charity. In a charitable society, this conversation would be unnecessary.

 

[MikeWM]

What I submit is that it is impossible for socialism to be just an economic model since its implementation requires a restriction of free will, which requires some type of authority to do the restricting.

That objection applies to any economic system, however, with the exception of outright Anarchism (and that’s not really an economic system). The concepts of property, money, distribution, etc. all require some type of authority to restrict free will. Only Anarchism gets around that, and I’m by no means convinced that Anarchism can work.

Charity, however, is the free giving from one’s heart. We should be converting hearts to Christ which in turn increases charity. In a charitable society, this conversation would be unnecessary.

I agree, but in a society where we all perfectly followed Christ, we wouldn’t need any laws at all. No-one is calling for the repeal of laws against murder or rape simply because if we all followed moral principles we wouldn’t do them. I’m not altogether sure why the very people who press strongly for the government to enforce morality with the policeman and the jail, seem to see money and what we ought to do with it as the one thing that is utterly unacceptable to be enforced by the government, the policeman and the jail. Of course it is better if we do it of our own free will, but I don’t see us calling for a repeal of the laws against murder and rape in the meantime.

MIke

 

[levi86]

It has been quoted before in this thread.(See post #10 for one example.)
.

Cheers, I’d missed that.

And your response seems to have a running theme… socialism as just an economic model.

The reoccurring theme in this thread is that people are ignorant to the true nature of socialism as expressed by its founders, and instead rely upon their knowledge of Soviet style communism.

I suggest that you (or anyone else who is interested) read some works of earlier socialist writers before claiming to understand socialism. This could include François-Noël Babeuf, Robert Owen or even Karl Marx.

What I submit is that it is impossible for socialism to be just an economic model since its implementation requires a restriction of free will, which requires some type of authority to do the restricting.

This clearly isnt always the case. Did the apostles “force” Christians into a communal lifestyle at Jeruselem? When individuals are dedicated to a cause they require no coersion, the Israeli kibbutzim are a perfect example.

 

[Montalban]

It has been quoted before in this thread.(See post #10 for one example.) And your response seems to have a running theme… socialism as just an economic model. What I submit is that it is impossible for socialism to be just an economic model since its implementation requires a restriction of free will, which requires some type of authority to do the restricting.

Charity, however, is the free giving from one’s heart. We should be converting hearts to Christ which in turn increases charity. In a charitable society, this conversation would be unnecessary.

People can freely form compacts for their own protection and that these can curb our ‘free will’ - such as the USA doesn’t allow you to do whatever you want - does it?

There’s certain limitations on your actions already

 

[Montalban]

The reoccurring theme in this thread is that people are ignorant to the true nature of socialism as expressed by its founders, and instead rely upon their knowledge of Soviet style communism.

I agree. Socialism, as it is being addressed by the negative is one that is wholly anti-religious (as in the Soviet Union). That form of socialism I AM AGAISNT.

But socialism is not inherrently anti-religious

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The reoccurring theme in this thread is that people are ignorant to the true nature of socialism as expressed by its founders, and instead rely upon their knowledge of Soviet style communism.

And our knowledge of leaders – like Castro – who claimed they would adopt socialism but actually adopted totalitarianism.

 

[levi86]

And our knowledge of leaders – like Castro – who claimed they would adopt socialism but actually adopted totalitarianism.

Indeed, but then again, it would wholly unchristian to express a prejudice against any institution based on the actions of an unjust and immoral minority. I’m glad you see the distinction between socialism and totalitarianism, because in reality the two are incompatible.

 

[mvinca]

Indeed, but then again, it would wholly unchristian to express a prejudice against any institution based on the actions of an unjust and immoral minority. I’m glad you see the distinction between socialism and totalitarianism, because in reality the two are incompatible.

Or when the theory of socialism is attempted, you get things like communism and totalitarianism. The results of testing the theory in the real world.

As far as the free will arguments, I was referring to the free will regarding charity, so everyone’s argument against my poor wording is well taken.

Doesn’t the church profess a right to property? I could be wrong. But if so, wouldn’t this hinder compatibility with your theoretical socialism?

 

[mvinca]

That objection applies to any economic system, however, with the exception of outright Anarchism (and that’s not really an economic system). The concepts of property, money, distribution, etc. all require some type of authority to restrict free will. Only Anarchism gets around that, and I’m by no means convinced that Anarchism can work.

To an extent, I agree. That is why charity (among other Christian ideals) are required within any system to compensate for the flaws in that system. Which systems allow the least restriciton of charity? I don’t think socialism is up near the top. Capitialism does. With that being said, capitialism also hits the top of systems that can help the corrupt (along with socialism). Your need a moral people for capitalism, democracy or even socialism to work. But in socialism, when the immoral people get in charge, you go downhill a lot more quickly. (As we see in the posts regarding Communism, totalitarianism, etc.)