Socialism

[GregoryPalamas]

I’m convinced that socialism cannot do any good outside of a serious Christian or religious community. Inside of those communities they can be and usually are a blessing. Outside, it is part of the curse of sin.

CDL

 

[levi86]

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?

You are right. The Church has stated that everyone has the right to private property. For an individual to voluntarily relinquish this right is an act of self sacrifice.

 

[MikeWM]

Doesn’t the church profess a right to property?

It professes a right to property, but not an absolute right. Again, have a read of Populorum Progressio.

But if so, wouldn’t this hinder compatibility with your theoretical socialism?

Socialism is more about the ownership of the means of production, not of private property, except where that ownership of private property is excessive and detremental to the needs of the community (again, see Populorum Progressio!)

Here’s a quote to start you off

In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.”

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

There are rights to property, but they are not absolute.

Mike

 

[Joe_Stong]

While property is not an absolute, in practice socialism requires a large - and growing government to determine who gets to have what form of property - and THAT’S WHERE the mischief comes from.

What I don’t understand is why we even need to junk our current system - federated constitutional republic with a capitalist economy in favor of some more powerful government and controlled economy? None of the problems with poverty in this country (or elsewhere) has been or can be solved by increased government and reduced freedom.

Indeed, as Catholics we believe that EVANGELIZATION of the elites, the movers and shakers, stands a far better chance of improving the systems and conditions of all people than by legal/governmental ‘by force’ re-organizations of society.

 

[MikeWM]

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.

I know you had a caveat after this, but if your argument is that we should put in place the system which allows the greatest potential amount of charity, then I’m not at all convinced that is a good plan. Charity is very important, for sure. However, so are forgiveness and mercy - I don’t think any of us will call for us all to go around committing lots of sins just so we have a situation which allows for the greatest potential amount of forgiveness or mercy! Equally, I don’t think we should reintroduce legal slavery just so us Christians can show how good we are by saying ‘well, we choose not to have slaves’.

There may well be unfair systems that allow us obvious opportunities to show we are good Christians, but I don’t think that is a good enough argument to keep the unfair system.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

None of the problems with poverty in this country (or elsewhere) has been or can be solved by increased government and reduced freedom.

Firstly, increased government is not necessary going hand-in-hand with reduced freedom. For example, a government that nationalises things that are private monopolies anyway makes no difference whatever to the amount of freedom you have.

Secondly, the ‘elsewhere’ part just isn’t the case. Look at the Scandinavian countries to see that - they are certainly free, but they have a far better record on poverty than the USA (or the UK).

Mike

 

[mvinca]

There may well be unfair systems that allow us obvious opportunities to show we are good Christians, but I don’t think that is a good enough argument to keep the unfair system.

Mike

Wow, that isn’t what I meant at all. As others have pointed out previously in this conversation, socialism destroys the ability to do charity. Capitalism (which is the fairest of the systems) does nothing to destroy the ability to do charity. Granted, it doesn’t do anything to encourage it either, besides allows someone to decide what to do with their money.

Definiton of “fair” used above: consonant with merit or importance : DUE (m-w.com). But in all fairness, I think you meant fair as in just

 

[MikeWM]

Wow, that isn’t what I meant at all. As others have pointed out previously in this conversation, socialism destroys the ability to do charity.

Does it? Everyone has different needs, even under socialism. I don’t see how it stops anyone being charitable. Yes, it reduces the scope of monetary charity opportunities, but I don’t think that is half as much of a big restriction as you seem to think.

Capitalism (which is the fairest of the systems) does nothing to destroy the ability to do charity. Granted, it doesn’t do anything to encourage it either, besides allows someone to decide what to do with their money.

Of course, charity is very important, but I’m not convinced either that the need to be charitable trumps everything else. The requirement of everyone to receive enough of the benefits of creation for basic human dignity is key too, for example, and right now it seems very clear that a combination of capitalism and charity isn’t providing that. When the world gets better at charity, perhaps, but in the meantime… (again, refer to Populorum Progressio. Did I mention I think everyone should read this and think long and hard about it?

Definiton of “fair” used above: consonant with merit or importance : DUE (m-w.com). But in all fairness, I think you meant fair as in just

Yes

Mike

 

[Contarini]

I agree. We can add that socialism is invariably anti-Christian.

That’s simply false. There have always been Christian socialists as long as there have been socialists at all. You may think them heretical, but they were hardly “anti-Christian” in the sense of opposing Christianity altogether!

Edwin

 

[Montalban]

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.

That’s not always the case. There wsa a socialist government in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas who bowed out in elections when the people voted against them.

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?

Certainly Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but that’s to distinguish ‘wealth’ which was Ceasar’s, with the message that Jesus brought us, so in fact he was distancing himself from what was ‘Caesar’s’.

 

[Montalban]

While property is not an absolute, in practice socialism requires a large - and growing government to determine who gets to have what form of property - and THAT’S WHERE the mischief comes from.

That’s simply not true. The socialistic communities I mentioned much earlier (the Levellers, and the Diggers) were non-governmental, and it was the ‘large government’ that oppressed and repressed them.