Socialism

[Peregrino]

Generally speaking, in a democratic society following economic principles of free market economics, people are free to accept or reject. Generally, there is a high degree of economic prosperity. People can choose their economic and social paths.

In a socialist state, there is a strong degree of coercion, limited freedom of choice (or none at all), and very strong influences of “political correctness”. Economic prosperity in socialism is limited. Regimentation seems to prevail. Bureaucracy reigns supreme. There may be high levels of unemployment.

I am glad that we have never seen these things within our capitalist dominant economic structure…

Within a democracy, policies which might be termed “socialist” are anything but coercive given that they are approved by the people, unless of course you believe that when you participate in a democracy and are on the losing side that you are being coerced…

 

[Peregrino]

Also keep inmind that Socialism is Marxism and as such is against God (atheistic).

Please grab a dictionary, encyclopedia or something…

 

[Orionthehunter]

This is a supply side theory which only addresses supply and thus the inaccuracy. Because the suppliers (low wage employees) are also the demander (purchaser of goods) the theory assigns a zero value to this factor. If you look you will find an economic boost accompanies practically every US minimum wage increase.

Texas is advocating a theory that is debated in the economic community. He is correct that most analysis is that there is a short-term benefit in Gross Domestic Product. His premise is limited because this theory it doesn’t factor in the long term effect of capital formation on jobs and wages and future job skill development.

There is another side to this question. The alternative theory rests on two major concerns.

1. Capital formation: One must consider that the increase in wages adversely affects the profits of the business who has to pay increased wages. This decreases the general profitability of the business preventing future expansion (and thus jobs). Additionally, the increased costs are not offset with an increase of productivity creating a exponential effect on long-term capital formation.
2. Future skill development: Those who lose their job or don’t get hired because the employee won’t generate a sufficient return for the employer diminish the development of job skills of these people. Development of job skills is critical to future jobs and this loss might create long-term systemic problems not considered in the analysis of Texas.

But this is just an economic argument. There are significant moral questions. The moral merits of increasing minimum wages for these people are obvious. But there are significant issues one must consider. Future productivity gains is the ultimate engine for opportunity for those lowest on the economic ladder. To the extent that these gains are impeded might ultimately diminish long-term opportunities for these people. If this is the affect, the morality of the wage increase is at least one that can be questioned.

Like I said above, short-term analysis is that the preference to those who retain their jobs at the higher wage does appear to exceed the income adverse affect on those who lose their jobs or do not gain jobs. But this doesn’t address the morality question if it is fair for some minimum wage earners to benefit at the direct adverse affect of those who lose their jobs or don’t get hired. Just because they can’t be identified as easily as those who benefit doesn’t make it less unfair.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I am glad that we have never seen these things within our capitalist dominant economic structure…

Within a democracy, policies which might be termed “socialist” are anything but coercive given that they are approved by the people, unless of course you believe that when you participate in a democracy and are on the losing side that you are being coerced…

Under the principle of subsidiarity, majority rule does not make it inherently just. It can still be immorally coercive. Please read Post #55. Furthermore to the extent one’s prudential judgment deems it immorally coercive or de facto immoral, they are free to pursue and all legitimate and appropriate means to resist. Of course, their resistance must be tempered by legitimate authority of government.

But most importantly, your self-righteous aspersions you cast on those deem them coercive and/or immoral is really getting tiring. While I might have reached the prudential judgment that the US government has excessively intervened in the pursuit of economic justice such the programs are economicly unjust, I have never asserted that those with whom I disagree are “inherently selfish, base, un-enlightened” or your other slanders against their character, fidelity to Christian principles, or concern for the poor.

In fact, such internal absolute arrogance of their being right makes me even more fearful of any delegation of rights, political power, or economic power to such people. I want a government and its decision-makers to be humble and charitable to all.

 

[Peregrino]

Under the principle of subsidiarity, majority rule does not make it inherently just. It can still be immorally coercive. Please read Post #55. Furthermore to the extent one’s prudential judgment deems it immorally coercive or de facto immoral, they are free to pursue and all legitimate and appropriate means to resist. Of course, their resistance must be tempered by legitimate authority of government.

But most importantly, your self-righteous aspersions you cast on those deem them coercive and/or immoral is really getting tiring. While I might have reached the prudential judgment that the US government has excessively intervened in the pursuit of economic justice such the programs are economicly unjust, I have never asserted that those with whom I disagree are “inherently selfish, base, un-enlightened” or your other slanders against their character, fidelity to Christian principles, or concern for the poor.

In fact, such internal absolute arrogance of their being right makes me even more fearful of any delegation of rights, political power, or economic power to such people. I want a government and its decision-makers to be humble and charitable to all.

You are right, those who hold strong convictions should not be placed in charge. We don’t want Catholics holding strong convictions now do we? You seem to be advocating a position of tolerance. It has been implied to me by other Catholics on this board that tolerance comes close to a sin, simply because my tolerance for postions different than my own basically “confirms another in their sin”.

Sadly my friend, you mistake my opinion and critique of postions other than my own as intolerance, merely because they disagree with your opinion. I absolutely disagree with you, and I am absolutely free to say that you are wrong and I am free to voice these disagreements because we live in a free society. I also absolutely agree with your right to criticize me and mine. To cry foul when someone disagrees with you and to call them intolerant because of that disagreement is silly. Never have I said that you are not entitled to your opinion. THAT would be intolerance.

 

[Orionthehunter]

You are right, those who hold strong convictions should not be placed in charge. We don’t want Catholics holding strong convictions now do we? You seem to be advocating a position of tolerance. It has been implied to me by other Catholics on this board that tolerance comes close to a sin, simply because my tolerance for postions different than my own basically “confirms another in their sin”.

Sadly my friend, you mistake my opinion and critique of postions other than my own as intolerance, merely because they disagree with your opinion. I absolutely disagree with you, and I am absolutely free to say that you are wrong and I am free to voice these disagreements because we live in a free society. I also absolutely agree with your right to criticize me and mine. To cry foul when someone disagrees with you and to call them intolerant because of that disagreement is silly. Never have I said that you are not entitled to your opinion. THAT would be intolerance.

I’m not advocating tolerance so much as respect and charity. I do question why you do the following but infering, implying and accusing that those with whom you disagree are:

“inherently selfish, base, un-enlightened” or your other slanders against their character, fidelity to Christian principles, or concern for the poor.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas is advocating a theory that is debated in the economic community…

1. Capital formation: One must consider that the increase in wages adversely affects the profits of the business …

I would ask you to consider the increase in demand is usually good for the business and would not be expected to decrease profits or employment. In fact it often creates an increase in total production thus an expanding economy. The increase ( demand) must outperform the decrease(profit loss by wage increase) because minimum wage always drags behind the free market. Which can be viewed by a mode of income ( today ~38k) verses the expected full time minimum wage earner ( ~11k)

Second concern if we allow a large number of consumer to become substandard in living condition what would you expect to happen? My answer is a welfare increase which disconnects income from work. An issue many believe to be highly problematic. But address the earlier comment would a welfare increase affect capital markets and future employment? Absolutely, and the change is negative. So the Minimum wage increase is far better than this alternative.

1. Future skill development: Those who lose their job or don’t get hired because the employee won’t generate a sufficient return for the employer diminish the development of job skills of these people. Development of job skills is critical to future jobs and this loss might create long-term systemic problems not considered in the analysis of Texas.

The skills issue is real and must not be dismissed, however as the minimum wage is about 30% of competitive wages is it not already clear a big problem exists for these earners already? In the earlier comment I noted when segments cannot compete, which is a tough decision. The key is a graded system (sliding skill) which complements low wages rather than converting these workers to welfare. Concerning long tern productivity gain the rewards are in place (salary), however that is usually determined between age 12-28 after that the skills are usually in place good or bad. So my point is this a generational issue. I do agree it is a critical issue.

But this is just an economic argument. There are significant moral questions. The moral merits of increasing minimum wages for these people are obvious. But there are significant issues one must consider. Future productivity gains is the ultimate engine for opportunity for those lowest on the economic ladder. To the extent that these gains are impeded might ultimately diminish long-term opportunities for these people. If this is the affect, the morality of the wage increase is at least one that can be questioned.

I think we do not have to make a moral issue of it as it can be a win-win if handled correctly. My guess is Minimum wage around 50-60% of the mode income.

thanks for the post I enjoyed it

 

[Peregrino]

I’m not advocating tolerance so much as respect and charity.

I thought not…lol Why then do you critique me as being “intolerant”?

I do question why you do the following but infering, implying and accusing that those with whom you disagree are:

“inherently selfish, base, un-enlightened” or your other slanders against their character, fidelity to Christian principles, or concern for the poor.

I think it is quite clear and accepted to tell our children that when they do not want to share that they are being selfish. Don’t you? Does this standard change for adults?

“Base” means fundamental. We all have base instrincts.

I did not say “un-enlightened”–YOU DID. I placed “enlightened” in qoutes to raise a question. Clearly within the framework of classical capitalism, “self-interest” can be described as “enlightened” IF you un-questioningly accept its premises.

Sorry if you don’t like my opinion. Critique it on its merits (or lack thereof). Disagreeing with you is not in itself uncharitable nor disrespectful and I fully respect your right to disagree with me.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If you want to have a civil dialogue, we can have it. You could have just asked me to support my statement. It was unnecessary to make the accusation that I’m making it up.

1881 Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but “the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions.” (Gaudium et spes)

You might say I’m quibbling, but this doesn’t say that the power of government has to come from the people. I agree that the church teaches that the good of the people should be the purpose of government. But that isn’t the same. A good monarchy could fulfill what the catechism is saying there.

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” (Centisimus annus)

(Orion’s comment- This principle of subsidiarity is a critical principle. Detailed study of this principle will explain government power can’t usurp any rights given to the individual or the family (domestic Church) by God or impair the individuals capacity to realize his or his families potential as called by God. Ultimately, in practical matters, these limits on government then lead to only one conclusion- government can only do what the people allow and empower the government to do)

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

1888 It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it. (Lumen Gentium)

(Orion’s comment: This section speaks to true social change occurs with my change and your change. Use of a gun to inflict/force/coerce an end without a internal change does not effect what is referenced below)

1886
Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which “subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:” (centesimus annus)

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed. (Pope John XXIII)

Thanks, I guess totalitarianism and collectivism are out the window. But I don’t think this rules out having a strong set of social programs, which is what socialism typically means in western countries.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Texasroofer: I would ask you to consider the increase in demand is usually good for the business and would not be expected to decrease profits or employment. In fact it often creates an increase in total production thus an expanding economy. The increase ( demand) must outperform the decrease(profit loss by wage increase) because minimum wage always drags behind the free market. Which can be viewed by a mode of income ( today ~38k) verses the expected full time minimum wage earner ( ~11k)

I do accept it. This is why there is a short-term gain in GDP. This is the primary measurement that models that support a minimum wage (and usually occassional increases). I just pointed out that when the model begins to incorporate assumptions regarding capital formation, productivity issues, future job skills, and future job opportunities, the effect becomes less clear and sometimes negative.

From Texas Roofer: Second concern if we allow a large number of consumer to become substandard in living condition what would you expect to happen? My answer is a welfare increase which disconnects income from work. An issue many believe to be highly problematic.

This is probably your weakest argument because of the reality that certain people will lose their job or not get hired. Additionally, because the minimum wage increase is a factor determining welfare eligibility, it doesn’t reduce benefits to those who retain their jobs but get a wage increase. But it does increase the amount of benefits that those who lose their jobs or don’t get hired.

Despite being your weakest argument, this is probably the least economically signficant issue as well. Most economists deem the impact on welfare (in the near-term) negligible.

From Texas Roofer: But address the earlier comment would a welfare increase affect capital markets and future employment? Absolutely, and the change is negative. So the Minimum wage increase is far better than this alternative.

See above. Negligible in the near-term. However, I believe it is significant over time because failure to get that first job (or to lose it) can lead to a systemic dependence on welfare that might last a lifetime.

From TexasRoofer: The skills issue is real and must not be dismissed, however as the minimum wage is about 30% of competitive wages is it not already clear a big problem exists for these earners already? In the earlier comment I noted when segments cannot compete, which is a tough decision. The key is a graded system (sliding skill) which complements low wages rather than converting these workers to welfare.

And in my opinion, this issue is what usually pushes me over the top on efforts to increase the minimum wage too close to prevailing local wages for unskilled experienced workers. Training costs for inexperienced unskilled workers is quite high no matter how it is measured. Because these are “employment costs” borne by the employer because the employee is untrained, I believe that it being too close to experienced unskilled workers becomes a significant long-term detriment to job opportunities for the inexperienced.

From TexasRoofer: Concerning long tern productivity gain the rewards are in place (salary), however that is usually determined between age 12-28 after that the skills are usually in place good or bad. So my point is this a generational issue. I do agree it is a critical issue.

I think we both understand the issue that makes this more complex than just saying we want to improve the lives of the working poor.

From TexasRoofer: I think we do not have to make a moral issue of it as it can be a win-win if handled correctly. My guess is Minimum wage around 50-60% of the mode income.

As one who generally advocates for more unfettering of the economy and economic decisions, it is odd that I will make this argument. If we remove morality totally from the equation, in the end the only rational economic policies will be increasingly less government intervention in all facets. Despite being a general advocate of capitalism as the best mechanism for ensuring the best lifetime opportunities for the poor, there is justification for limited intervention to protect from egregious exploitation. Worker safety standards is one such area because of the long-term affect on their life. But, on introductory workforce wages, I believe morally we are doing more harm than good for the people we intend to help.

 

[Orionthehunter]

You might say I’m quibbling, but this doesn’t say that the power of government has to come from the people. I agree that the church teaches that the good of the people should be the purpose of government. But that isn’t the same. A good monarchy could fulfill what the catechism is saying there.

Thanks, I guess totalitarianism and collectivism are out the window. But I don’t think this rules out having a strong set of social programs, which is what socialism typically means in western countries.

A couple of points:

1. 
   *]In concept, a good monarchy could fulfill what the catechism is saying. In fact, in previous eras the lack of information flow to the general population and virtually no education made monarchies the best informed mechanism for ruling a nation. However, today, I believe that in virtually every corner of the world the people are now sufficiently capable of knowing their own domestic self-interest such that the principle of subsidiarity requires it to be a democracy. Not to mention the fact that there isn’t a single country in the world ruled by a king (divine right or by seizing absolute power) that isn’t losing pace to the world economicly, politically and in the realm of civil rights.
   
   “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” (A quotation by Lord Acton (English Catholic Historian) in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton (Anglican Bishop) in 1887)
   
   *]There is also a practical consideration in the world economy as it is today. A lack of a check on the power on the soveriegn is a detriment in the formation of long-term investment capital from outside its borders.
   
   *]Finally, a monarchy (where the king essentially owns and is accountable to nobody) is a form of collectivism that is opposed by the Church. Especially since it is a collectivization of both political and economic power.
   
   I hope you will now concede that I am not making it up.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

A couple of points:

1. 
   *]In concept, a good monarchy could fulfill what the catechism is saying. In fact, in previous eras the lack of information flow to the general population and virtually no education made monarchies the best informed mechanism for ruling a nation. However, today, I believe that in virtually every corner of the world the people are now sufficiently capable of knowing their own domestic self-interest such that the principle of subsidiarity requires it to be a democracy. Not to mention the fact that there isn’t a single country in the world ruled by a king (divine right or by seizing absolute power) that isn’t losing pace to the world economicly, politically and in the realm of civil rights.
   
   “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” (A quotation by Lord Acton (English Catholic Historian) in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton (Anglican Bishop) in 1887)
   
   *]There is also a practical consideration in the world economy as it is today. A lack of a check on the power on the soveriegn is a detriment in the formation of long-term investment capital from outside its borders.
   
   *]Finally, a monarchy (where the king essentially owns and is accountable to nobody) is a form of collectivism that is opposed by the Church. Especially since it is a collectivization of both political and economic power.
   
   I hope you will now concede that I am not making it up.

1. 
   Hi
   In your first point, you give a good argument that democracy is more in line with the sections of the catechism we’ve looked at. However you claimed earlier that the chuch has stated that all governments have to get their power from the people:
   

   The Church makes no statement to which economic system is superior or just. It is left to the prudential judgment of each political entity **so long as that political entity recieves its powers from the people **and it is excercised with proper respect for the dignity of individuals

   …but the church hasn’t said that. In fact it says that the power of government comes from God. Also the church hasn’t condemned other systems such as oligarchy, unless their behaviour was not in the interest of the people. Another point to consider is that the church teaches that government should not follow the will of the majority on questions like abortion and pornography.
   
   I disagree with you that monarchy is the same as collectivism. There was private property in the European monarchies of the middle ages, not just personal property, but even the land was divided up among noblemen. In Rerum Novarum the church actually defends systems where the land is owned by the few, but worked by the many.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Neil Anthony: Hi
In your first point, you give a good argument that democracy is more in line with the sections of the catechism we’ve looked at. However you claimed earlier that the chuch has stated that all governments have to get their power from the people:

…but the church hasn’t said that. In fact it says that the power of government comes from God. Also the church hasn’t condemned other systems such as oligarchy, unless their behaviour was not in the interest of the people.

You are correct that I have made an inference. My point is that in today’s world, as a practical matter, it is virtually impossible to center power on political and economic matters in the hands of a monarchy without having inherent illicit invasions on the principle of subsidiarity (“a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions”).

From Neil Anthony: Another point to consider is that the church teaches that government should not follow the will of the majority on questions like abortion and pornography.

Well, not exactly. The Church teaches that with regards to abortion that it is inherently outside the legitimate authority of government or citizenry to allow abortion. Pornography is a more complex issue beyond the scope of this thread.

From Neil Anthony: I disagree with you that monarchy is the same as collectivism. There was private property in the European monarchies of the middle ages, not just personal property, but even the land was divided up among noblemen. In Rerum Novarum the church actually defends systems where the land is owned by the few, but worked by the many.

You are correct that a monarchy that has certain checks (ala Magna Carta) that allows private ownership, civil rights and political rights in concept is allowed. My point is that the modern era of information flow and general education of the citizenry remove the original justifications of denying expanded democratic rights to the point that historical monarchial powers bestowed on the king are no longer legitimate making him essentially a figurehead. But I agree in concept it is possible. I just don’t agree it is practically possible in today’s world (with the exception of the Vatican which is unique in so many ways).

 

[vern_humphrey]

I define absolute capitalism to means opposition to regulation on business that equalize the power relationship between business and labor…

A thing is worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller will accept. In a capitalist system (private ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution for profit in a competitive system) the free market addresses the “power relationship” between business and labor. just as it addresses the “power relationship” between business and consumers, just as it addresses the “power relationship” between labor and consumers."

 

[MiddleBear]

Please grab a dictionary, encyclopedia or something…

Marxism see the Modern Catholic Dictionary

MARXISM. The social philosophy of Karl Marx (1818-83) as developed with his collaborator Friedrich Engels (1820-95) and later embodied in world Communism. There are five essential elements to Marxism, namely dialectical materialism, economic determinism, surplus value, progressive pauperization, and the Revolution.

Marx combined the dialectical method of Hegel with the materialism of Feuerbach. According to Marxism, nothing really exists but matter, which contains within itself the principle of its own development. Man is the spearhead of this necessary evolution.

Economic determinism holds that the underlying motive in all human history is economic. As the economy, so the civilization.

The workman, according to Marx, creates more value than he is paid for, and this surplus value goes to the employer, who exploits the worker to that extent. The employer puts this surplus value back into his business, and this constitutes capital. The lower the wages, the more capital for the capitalist.

As part of his theory of economic determinism, Marx held that the rich necessarily get richer and the poor poorer. Financial crises, inseparable from the capitalist system, accentuate the degrading process.

All the foregoing are preliminary to the Marxist hope of a classless society. Capitalism must inevitably collapse; the masses will revolt, seize the means of production, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. After a phase of state socialism there will emerge the Communist utopia where no struggles exist because all classes of society will have disappeared.

The classic position of the Catholic Church on Marxism is the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, published in 1937.

 

[Peregrino]

Marxism see the Modern Catholic Dictionary

MARXISM. The social philosophy of Karl Marx (1818-83) as developed with his collaborator Friedrich Engels (1820-95) and later embodied in world Communism. There are five essential elements to Marxism, namely dialectical materialism, economic determinism, surplus value, progressive pauperization, and the Revolution.

Marx combined the dialectical method of Hegel with the materialism of Feuerbach. According to Marxism, nothing really exists but matter, which contains within itself the principle of its own development. Man is the spearhead of this necessary evolution.

Economic determinism holds that the underlying motive in all human history is economic. As the economy, so the civilization.

The workman, according to Marx, creates more value than he is paid for, and this surplus value goes to the employer, who exploits the worker to that extent. The employer puts this surplus value back into his business, and this constitutes capital. The lower the wages, the more capital for the capitalist.

As part of his theory of economic determinism, Marx held that the rich necessarily get richer and the poor poorer. Financial crises, inseparable from the capitalist system, accentuate the degrading process.

All the foregoing are preliminary to the Marxist hope of a classless society. Capitalism must inevitably collapse; the masses will revolt, seize the means of production, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. After a phase of state socialism there will emerge the Communist utopia where no struggles exist because all classes of society will have disappeared.

The classic position of the Catholic Church on Marxism is the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, published in 1937.

Marxism is not the automatic equivalent of socialism as you first post stated. There exist many strains of socialism that are theistic. Some might easily argue that Jesus was a socialist. At the very least he was no Adam Smith…

 

[MiddleBear]

Yes socialism is a form of marxism.
See the following for more details

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term “socialism” was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution where the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.
…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[LCMS_No_More]

A thing is worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller will accept. In a capitalist system (private ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution for profit in a competitive system) the free market addresses the “power relationship” between business and labor. just as it addresses the “power relationship” between business and consumers, just as it addresses the “power relationship” between labor and consumers."

I guess I’m just some ignorant fool or something and can’t determine what part of the following is infallible and which is “prudential.” Maybe some bolding and italics may help:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”** She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.*** Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds;*** regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.**

In order for what you said to be true, the part in bold is prudential and can be tossed aside because it’s inconvenient to Republicanism and the rest must be adhered to vigorously because it’s in line with Republicanism.

Seems to me that the cafeteria door on the right is still open.

 

[paradoxy]

Marxism is not the automatic equivalent of socialism as you first post stated. There exist many strains of socialism that are theistic. Some might easily argue that Jesus was a socialist. At the very least he was no Adam Smith…

Exactly. Human solidarity existed much before Marx and the community of the early Church (as described in the Acts, where Ananias and Sapphira drop dead on the spot for retaining some private property) sounds much more radically Communist than anything anyone here is labeling as ‘socialism.’ Perhaps we need a new term?

All I personally am saying is my ideal government system is one where I don’t have to worry about the absolute fundamentals for myself, my children, or anyone else, IF the need arises. It leaves plenty of room for charity and helping your fellow man.

I live in a country where something like this exists, (it’s impoverished at the moment so almost EVERYONE has to worry about money ) and I’m very grateful to know that at least there will never be a single child denied medical care or a decent education just because his parents happen to be poor, or an elderly person who will starve because he finds himself unable to work. I don’t mind contributing towards that (we don’t have income tax, but there is a sales tax and a part of everyone’s salary goes directly into different funds, so we don’t even notice it )

 

[mlchance]

You mean they way we are slashing taxes on the wealthy…

I thought this thread was about socialism, not about ridiculous Democratic Party bumper stickers. What I mean is this: When my taxes were cut under the Bush Administration, I was amazed to discover that I, a Catholic school teacher, was wealthy.

Here’s the unavoidable fact: The Church has unequivocally condemned socialism. Socialism is a ideology that posits the state is the supreme authority in society, and that the state has the legitimate power to control any and all aspects of society deemed necessary in order to benefit the state’s definition of the common good.

This sort of ideology cannot be made compatible with Christianity without changing either the ideology until it is no longer socialist or changing Christianity until it is no longer of Christ.

– Mark L. Chance.