I
Ian_Ward
Guest
Its not perfect, but serves its purpose for its time.
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.
D
damian_clarke
Guest
Give me a break.I never thought of Jesus as stealing money; but if you say He was a socialist. so be it.
I never thought of Jesus being envious; but if you say He was a socialist, so be it.
I never thought of Jesus as a tyrant; but if you say He was a socialist, so be it.
I never thouhgt of Jesus as taking one’s free will; but if you say He was a socialist, so be it.
I never thought of Jesus as choosing the economic winners and the loosers; but if you say He was a socialist, so be it.
Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple.
He preached the beatitudes.
He would not have supported the blatant greed of huge multi national corporations as we see it in the world today.
Try and not be naive.
D
damian_clarke
Guest
ANother thing could you please not use a large font when replying to me.I never thought of Jesus as stealing money; but if you say He was a socialist. so be it.
I never thought of Jesus being envious; but if you say He was a socialist, so be it.
I never thought of Jesus as a tyrant; but if you say He was a socialist, so be it.
I never thouhgt of Jesus as taking one’s free will; but if you say He was a socialist, so be it.
I never thought of Jesus as choosing the economic winners and the loosers; but if you say He was a socialist, so be it.
My eyesight is fine thank you very much.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
But Jesus did not give up His pickup truck WWJD ]*Give me a break.
Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple.
He preached the beatitudes.
He would not have supported the blatant greed of huge multi national corporations as we see it in the world today.
Try and not be naive.
And St. Peter did not give up his fishing boat.
- What Would Jesus Drive?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Quote:
Distributism (also known as distributionism, distributivism) is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic social teaching articulated by the Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum[1] and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno[2]
According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”[3]
Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of wealth). While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers’ control), distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Belloc stated, the distributive state (the state which has implemented distributism) contains “an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production.”[4] This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.[5] …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
AND that’s where you get into trouble with distributism … “the distribution of property”.
In other words, you take from the middle class and give to other middle class people.
Jesus loses His carpentry shop and Peter loses his fishing boat … distributed to other people who have been deemed to be more worthy.
I mean, like, Jesus was a villain: He INHERITED property … tools from St. Joseph.
The whole theory of distributism ignored how capital is “accumulated” … as in “if you have $250,000 we are going to take it and redistribute it.”
What’s the difference between seizing someone’s savings from working at ****** jobs in the hope of investing it in some productive asset … maybe opening a woodworking or carpentry shop or buying a fishing boat or a farm or a hydroponic greenhouse or a taxicab or an airplane so I can offer an air taxi service in the bush by flying in wild Alaska.
The whole “theory” of socialism and communism and distributism ASSUMES that the acquisition of assets is somehow fraudulent …
Distributism seems to assume that some kind of magic is involved in acquiring productive assets.
Distributism (also known as distributionism, distributivism) is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic social teaching articulated by the Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum[1] and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno[2]
According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”[3]
Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of wealth). While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers’ control), distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Belloc stated, the distributive state (the state which has implemented distributism) contains “an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production.”[4] This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.[5] …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
AND that’s where you get into trouble with distributism … “the distribution of property”.
In other words, you take from the middle class and give to other middle class people.
Jesus loses His carpentry shop and Peter loses his fishing boat … distributed to other people who have been deemed to be more worthy.
I mean, like, Jesus was a villain: He INHERITED property … tools from St. Joseph.
The whole theory of distributism ignored how capital is “accumulated” … as in “if you have $250,000 we are going to take it and redistribute it.”
What’s the difference between seizing someone’s savings from working at ****** jobs in the hope of investing it in some productive asset … maybe opening a woodworking or carpentry shop or buying a fishing boat or a farm or a hydroponic greenhouse or a taxicab or an airplane so I can offer an air taxi service in the bush by flying in wild Alaska.
The whole “theory” of socialism and communism and distributism ASSUMES that the acquisition of assets is somehow fraudulent …
Distributism seems to assume that some kind of magic is involved in acquiring productive assets.
D
damian_clarke
Guest
I am pretty sure Jesus would not support third world debt, vicious austerity programs and brutal dispossession of the land. Yes Peter owned a fishing boat. Jesus was in favor of the peasants and the workers owning the means of their livelihood. Your point is?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Your post and mine seem to be like ships crossing in the night.I am pretty sure Jesus would not support third world debt, vicious austerity programs and brutal dispossession of the land. Yes Peter owned a fishing boat. Jesus was in favor of the peasants and the workers owning the means of their livelihood. Your point is?
No inter-relationship between them at all.
Third World Debt occurs with petty tyrants.
Vicious austerity programs? [What the heck is that?]
Brutal dispossession of the land? [Maybe with local indian tribes?]
No idea what you are talking about.
Sorry.
Please be more clear.
D
damian_clarke
Guest
I am referring to large muti nationla corporations and banks who have not paid their share of taxes, who have despolied the world and olluted it. Shell ruined the coast of FLorida and routinely polluets the mouth of the Niger. Union Carbide happily poisined thousands in India. The IMF regulalry forces thord wolrd countries to accept cheap westenr goods that result in the destruction of local jobs. I think the west has quiet a lot to answer for in terms of impoverishing the developing world. If you think that sort of behaviour is what our Lord had in mind with the beatitudes then I really wonder whether we are reading the same encyclicals. RN is more relevant today than it ever was, and it essentially calls for balance between labor and capital. Like it or not it calls for a living wage. How do we define a living wage I suppose in the same way we define pornography. I cannot define it but I knwo what it is when I see it.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Do you have links for all this stuff?I am referring to large muti nationla corporations and banks who have not paid their share of taxes, who have despolied the world and olluted it. Shell ruined the coast of FLorida and routinely polluets the mouth of the Niger. Union Carbide happily poisined thousands in India. The IMF regulalry forces thord wolrd countries to accept cheap westenr goods that result in the destruction of local jobs. I think the west has quiet a lot to answer for in terms of impoverishing the developing world. If you think that sort of behaviour is what our Lord had in mind with the beatitudes then I really wonder whether we are reading the same encyclicals. RN is more relevant today than it ever was, and it essentially calls for balance between labor and capital. Like it or not it calls for a living wage. How do we define a living wage I suppose in the same way we define pornography. I cannot define it but I knwo what it is when I see it.
Shell / Florida
Shell / Niger river
Union Carbide / “happily”
Maybe some specific paragraphs from Rerum Novarum that seem to you to apply here?
So, why can you not define a living wage?
P
passer_by
Guest
I think if you didn’t defend Capitalism, and instead defended the specific Catholic teachings like free enterprise, private ownership, you will avoid a lot of confusion.The error here is that greed is evil in life and is not only unnecessary for anyone to succeed in free enterprise, but needs to be replaced by prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. There is no room for greed as a virtue.
CCC2536:
“The tenth commandment forbids greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It forbids avarice arising from a passion for riches and their attendant power. It also forbids the desire to commit injustice by harming our neighbor in his temporal goods.”
“It is the capacity to motivate work and the systematic reinvestment of profits that account for the immense productivity of capitalism, just as Weber and Marx pointed out more than a century ago.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 57].
- “Pure capitalism” is not in Rerum Novarum
- Catholic teaching develops and all now know the emphatic affirmation of the free market by Bl John Paul II and Benedict XVI about which only this poster is so confused as to continue to ridicule the Popes and fantasise about others having the same myopia.
Capitalism means different things to different people. For some, including those who engage in it, Capitalism includes free enterprise, private ownership PLUS rejection of ideas like temperance, moderation, sharing etc.
So when you keep repeating how Pope’s affirmed free enterprise, Private ownership, I think very few disagree. What they find puzzling is you then going froward and saying Capitalism is good. Capitalism might be good or bad depending on how it is practiced in a country. Most examples of Capitalism today are actually bad.
On the other hand, free enterprise, moderation, temperance, private ownership, serving the common good, are what is actually good. While Capitalism necessitates free enterprise and private ownership, there is nothing in the system that necessitates moderation, temperance, or serving the common good. You can have Capitalism without those. Hence in most implementations of Capitalism, these other goods are missing.
So I think you are causing confusion and even stating something incorrect when you say that Capitalism is good/not immoral/neutral etc. It would be better to simply emphasize the importance and goodness of each of the elements that the Church has promoted. Only a system that acknowledges and promotes all these goods will truly serve humanity.
A
Abu
Guest
Until and unless you listen, learn and love you will remain confused.PeterGStanley #210
Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God…. wonder what he meant here?
See Mt 19:16-24 for the counsel of Jesus; also Lk 18:-23.
From post #156:
Christ’s teaching on wealth and property
In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, since), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation. Citing Luke 14:26, where Jesus says, ‘If any man come to Me without hating his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, he cannot be My disciple,’ the Scholastics pointed out that this passage does not enjoin Christians to hate their fathers. Such doctrine would contradict the Fourth Commandment. Thomist and Scholastic interpretations of this passage is that the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven is denied to anyone who values things more than God. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:37), the same passage reads: ‘Anyone who prefers father or mother to Me is not worthy of Me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to Me is not worthy of Me.’ It would be a violation of the natural order to value a created thing above its creator, as did the young ruler who pursued riches as his ultimate goal.”
As is indicated in Luke (12:29-31): “you must not set your heart on things to eat and things to drink; nor must you worry. It is the pagans of this world who set their hearts on all these things. Your father well knows you need them. No; set your hearts on His kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well.” As we’ve seen in post # 130, Dr Chafuen notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times.”
In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Nelson, 1953, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, the explanation on St Matthew affirms: “He speaks, however, not of impossibility, 26, but of difficulty. Nor does He condemn the rich young man but illustrates from his case how riches may grip and even suffocate the heart.”
passer_by #228
To enable all to see the truth, is precisely why you have been shown the reasoning of Christ, the reasoning and affirmations of Popes and the reasoning of great priests who clearly identify free enterprise as enabling the best utilization of mankind’s talents in commerce.I think you are causing confusion and even stating something incorrect when you say that Capitalism is good/not immoral/neutral etc. It would be better to simply emphasize the importance and goodness of each of the elements that the Church has promoted. Only a system that acknowledges and promotes all these goods will truly serve humanity.
Perennially confusing the greatness of free enterprise against the vices of PEOPLE leads to continually denigrating the Catholic Late Scholastics who developed the principles and the Popes who emphatically affirmed those principles – not seeing the wood for the trees.
Pope Benedict XVI clearly affirms: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).
“**These criticisms are directed not so much against an economic system as against an ethical and cultural system.” **[Bl JPII, *Centesimus Annus # 39].
“We can thus affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49].
P
passer_by
Guest
To enable all to see the truth, is precisely why you have been shown the reasoning of Christ, the reasoning and affirmations of Popes and the reasoning of great priests who clearly identify free enterprise as enabling the best utilization of mankind’s talents in commerce.
Perennially confusing the greatness of free enterprise against the vices of PEOPLE leads to continually denigrating the Catholic Late Scholastics who developed the principles and the Popes who emphatically affirmed those principles – not seeing the wood for the trees.
Pope Benedict XVI clearly affirms: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).
“**These criticisms are directed not so much against an economic system as against an ethical and cultural system.” **[Bl JPII, *Centesimus Annus
39].
“We can thus affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49].
I think you are proving my point here exactly. Free Enterprise is the element that is good. Not Capitalism. Capitalism merely necessitates Free Enterprise. In that sense, sure it is relatively better than Communism or Socialism which have anti-goods built in to them.
BUT, this does not mean Capitalism is good or has no faults. All you have shown above is that “Free enterprise is good”. I agree and many others agree. But you make a logical error when you say Capitalism essentially promotes Free-Enterprise so therefore it is good. Capitalism promotes a lot of other things depending on which implementation you talk about.
Now I think you are trying to say “Well if Capitalism incorporates strict individualism, its not Capitalism but the implementers fault”. But what you have to realize is that having “strict individualism” is not against Capitalism either. Nothing in Capitalism is opposed to such a concept of selfishness or individualism. In fact, in a society where such values are in place, Capitalism works quiet well. So for some thinkers, albeit not you, greed, individualism, consumerism seems like an important part of Capitalism.
So for you to go and say “well you are mistaken” or “you are not using reason properly” seems to show more of a fault in you not trying to understand what the other party is saying. What is even more problematic is that it is unnecessary. People don’t need to agree that Capitalism is good/nice/neutral etc. What people need to agree is that Free-Enterprise, Private ownership, Temperance, serving the common good, are GOOD. As long as people agree to that, I think that is all that matters.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
You have a great break: you are living in a country that 30% of the people desire a free market, although we are loosing it quickly.Give me a break.
Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple.
He preached the beatitudes.
He would not have supported the blatant greed of huge multi national corporations as we see it in the world today.
Try and not be naive.
No where in the beautitudes does Our Savior and Lord say take from others in order to be charitable.
He would never had us to judge the “huge multi national corporations” as greedy. He told us not to judge (He ment not to judge another’s charactor; one’s action, yes).
A
Abu
Guest
That is implying denigration of Christ, the Popes and the real thinkers who offer free enterprise as the worthy way of doing business – as being unreasonable.passer_by #230
So for some thinkers, albeit not you, greed, individualism, consumerism seems like an important part of Capitalism.
Divorce and remarriage, abortion, contraception seem like an important part of modern life, don’t they? Just as condoms do nothing evil, but people do evil by using them to contracept, so it is people who do evil by being greedy, cheating, stealing and all the other vices.
Greed is evil in life and is not only unnecessary for anyone to succeed in free enterprise, but the Church teaches prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. There is no room for greed as a virtue.
Real Catholics follow the wise teaching of the Church such as Bl John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’
The idea that “Capitalism essentially promotes Free-Enterprise” is meaningless, since the very term “capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx, and that’s perhaps why Bl John Paul II dislikes it, as he makes clear as he emphatically affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, preferentially substituting instead, and seeing the great worth of, the modern “business economy” and the functioning of the free market, as well as the “market economy or simple free economy.” (#42).
When prejudice, feelings, desires, wants, wishes, opinions are placed above clear papal teaching, which is disregarded, no wonder there is confusion, and dissent as well as other vices.
‘The term “capital” came into use in the fourteenth century to identify funds having the capacity to return income, rather than simply being of consumable value.’ The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 55].
Free enterprise (Marx’s “capitalism”) has nothing to do with a “governmental system” but was developed by Catholic monks from the ninth century and the principles enunciated by the great Catholic Late Scholastics, so both Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have affirmed free enterprise and called on people to act morally.
D
damian_clarke
Guest
You have a great break: you are living in a country that 30% of the people desire a free market, although we are loosing it quickly.
No where in the beautitudes does Our Savior and Lord say take from others in order to be charitable.
He would never had us to judge the “huge multi national corporations” as greedy. He told us not to judge (He ment not to judge another’s charactor; one’s action, yes\QUOTE]
There is plenty of information about the misbehavior of huge corporations in the developed world. Why are you guys so keen to defend huge big organizations over the little person.
So now Our Lord wants us to be cahritable to Shell and BP. Come on.
D
damian_clarke
Guest
This is a good summary of the true Catholic position on this problem.I think if you didn’t defend Capitalism, and instead defended the specific Catholic teachings like free enterprise, private ownership, you will avoid a lot of confusion.
Capitalism means different things to different people. For some, including those who engage in it, Capitalism includes free enterprise, private ownership PLUS rejection of ideas like temperance, moderation, sharing etc.
So when you keep repeating how Pope’s affirmed free enterprise, Private ownership, I think very few disagree. What they find puzzling is you then going froward and saying Capitalism is good. Capitalism might be good or bad depending on how it is practiced in a country. Most examples of Capitalism today are actually bad.
On the other hand, free enterprise, moderation, temperance, private ownership, serving the common good, are what is actually good. While Capitalism necessitates free enterprise and private ownership, there is nothing in the system that necessitates moderation, temperance, or serving the common good. You can have Capitalism without those. Hence in most implementations of Capitalism, these other goods are missing.
So I think you are causing confusion and even stating something incorrect when you say that Capitalism is good/not immoral/neutral etc. It would be better to simply emphasize the importance and goodness of each of the elements that the Church has promoted. Only a system that acknowledges and promotes all these goods will truly serve humanity.
A
Abu
Guest
The falsehood that free enterprise (Marx’s “capitalism”) rejects virtues and the common good is exposed by the fact that the first examples of free enterprise appeared in the great Catholic monasteries, about the ninth century. (John Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, St Martin’s Press1969, I; cf. op. cit (Stark) p xii, 55-58), and the virtue of work, gleaned from St Paul and the esteem in which Jesus held work, were “evident in the sixth century by St Benedict, who wrote in his famous rule: ‘Idleness is the enemy of the soul. Therefore the brothers should have specified periods for manual labour as well as prayerful reading’…” (Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason, Random House, 2005, p 62). It is very much Catholic teaching, therefore, as based on faith and reason.passer_by #228
Capitalism includes free enterprise, private ownership PLUS rejection of ideas like temperance, moderation, sharing etc……there is nothing in the system that necessitates moderation, temperance, or serving the common good. You can have Capitalism without those.
The Catholic tradition is to encourage formation in skills and the virtue of work while helping a society to help themselves. It was the great Catholic Late Scholastics who discovered the principles of free enterprise which shows clearly that it is the ethics of the individual which determines the right or wrong of an action in commerce as St Augustine taught – “wickedness is not inherent in commerce, but that with any occupation it was up to the individual to live righteously.” [John W Baldwin, The *Medieval Theories of the Just Price, The American Philosophical Society, 1959, p 15]
While the Sacred Scriptures condemn greed and wrong use of wealth, commerce or merchants are not condemned. Further proof that the virtues belong to, and are required of, the individual in business.
Rodney Stark has provided his own definition of “capitalism” as “an economic system wherein privately owned, relatively well organized, and stable firms pursue complex commercial activities within a relatively free (unregulated) market, taking a systematic, long-term approach to investing and reinvesting wealth (directly or indirectly) in productive activities involving a hired workforce, and guided by anticipated and actual returns,” claiming that everyone writing on capitalism “accepts that it rests on free markets, secure property rights, and free (uncoerced) labour.”
The fact is that Catholic philosophy and theology, based on reason and faith, enabled the birth of free enterprise. From the great monastic estates in the ninth century, immense increases in agricultural productivity grew from “such significant innovations as the switch to horses, the heavy moldboard plow, and the three-field system” away from subsistence agriculture to specialised crops and products, sold at a profit to initiate a cash economy. “As their incomes continued to mount, this led many monasteries to become banks, lending to the nobility.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 56, 58].
Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].
Finally, Fr Percy debunks passer_by’s “common good” falsehood: in his chapter *Entrepreneurial Work: Scripture and Tradition *by concluding: “The entrepreneur can (and should) work for the development of the common good. This is a consistent feature of the Fathers of the Church, of St Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic theologians. Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 81].
You can have anything goes in anything in life, but that is not part of Catholic developed free enterprise (capitalism), it is instead part of fallen human nature which is why we have laws.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
I think you need to refresh us by providing a definition of capitalism. At least as you understand capitalism.I think you are proving my point here exactly. Free Enterprise is the element that is good. Not Capitalism. Capitalism merely necessitates Free Enterprise. In that sense, sure it is relatively better than Communism or Socialism which have anti-goods built in to them.
BUT, this does not mean Capitalism is good or has no faults. All you have shown above is that “Free enterprise is good”. I agree and many others agree. But you make a logical error when you say Capitalism essentially promotes Free-Enterprise so therefore it is good. Capitalism promotes a lot of other things depending on which implementation you talk about.
Now I think you are trying to say “Well if Capitalism incorporates strict individualism, its not Capitalism but the implementers fault”. But what you have to realize is that having “strict individualism” is not against Capitalism either. Nothing in Capitalism is opposed to such a concept of selfishness or individualism. In fact, in a society where such values are in place, Capitalism works quiet well. So for some thinkers, albeit not you, greed, individualism, consumerism seems like an important part of Capitalism.
So for you to go and say “well you are mistaken” or “you are not using reason properly” seems to show more of a fault in you not trying to understand what the other party is saying. What is even more problematic is that it is unnecessary. People don’t need to agree that Capitalism is good/nice/neutral etc. What people need to agree is that Free-Enterprise, Private ownership, Temperance, serving the common good, are GOOD. As long as people agree to that, I think that is all that matters.
R
Reprobus
Guest
I am changing the title of my reply to “What is wrong with Socialism”, for the simple reason that “Capitalism” is a Socialist idea. Capitalism does not exist outside the false Socialism V Capitalism dichotomy.
#1. It is Idolatry.
Socialism is a form of Platonism, via Hegel. It is a revived form of a 4th century BC pagan theology which grew out of the idolatrous cults of antiquity. After Plato, the old gods themselves were not so important as the Ideas they stood for. Platonists would talk of Wisdom, not Athena, War, not Mars, and so on. Unlike the gods of antiquity the Platonic idols are usually abstractions, like Peace, or Equality, although sometimes they are also physical, such as The Earth or The Environment. Every one of these is a false god, to which great sacrifices are demanded. As Augustine said: value nothing for its own sake except for God.
#2 It is an error in logic
The logic of Socialism is rooted in variations on Platonic reasoning, which is sometimes called the dialectic. This is a method of resolving conflicts between two Ideas, or two false gods. It can be seen in Aeschylus’ old trilogy of plays called The Oresteia. I have sometimes seen it summed up as Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. With Socialism, we have the thesis, in Capitalism, the antithesis. They are a false dichotomy, but the result of this conflict is supposed to be some sort of synthesis. I have seen variations on this method used many many times from old Greek plays to modern Supreme Court rulings. A method of reasoning which relies on a foundation of false gods and idolatry cannot produce anything of value.
#3 It is criminal, and leads us to wars, famines, and a general collapse of civilisation. There are three main causes of this collapse:
a.) The desire for revolution, murder, and robbery
Socialism is a revolutionary cult which grew out of the revived platonism of revolutionary France (1789-99). The first forms of Socialism I am aware of were “conservative” Socialism of the sort promoted by Otto von Bismark in Germany, and adopted from the earliest days of the British Conservative Party which was established in 1834. Socialism begat Communism in 1848, and today the two would be indistinguishable if it were not for the often violent conflicts between the platonic socialists/communists and the more aristotelian objectivists/conservatives/capitalists. In all cases this conflict is rooted in a false dichotomy. It is a conflict between false gods. It is a conflict between different Socialist sects. It is not Christian, and we do ourselves no favours by picking sides in that fight.
One of the first acts of the revolutionaries in France was the seizure of all Church lands, the revenues from which had been used to maintain hospitals, monasteries, and other means of support for the poor. After violating the first commandment by adopting platonism, the revolutionaries very quickly moved on to #6 and #8, murder and theft respectively. The only notable products of the revolutions in France and elsewhere are endless variations on The Terror. In France, these crimes were committed as sacrifices to the three false gods of that revolution: Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. Far from abhoring bloody revolutions, Socialists plot to make them happen, and eagerly anticipate them.
#1. It is Idolatry.
Socialism is a form of Platonism, via Hegel. It is a revived form of a 4th century BC pagan theology which grew out of the idolatrous cults of antiquity. After Plato, the old gods themselves were not so important as the Ideas they stood for. Platonists would talk of Wisdom, not Athena, War, not Mars, and so on. Unlike the gods of antiquity the Platonic idols are usually abstractions, like Peace, or Equality, although sometimes they are also physical, such as The Earth or The Environment. Every one of these is a false god, to which great sacrifices are demanded. As Augustine said: value nothing for its own sake except for God.
#2 It is an error in logic
The logic of Socialism is rooted in variations on Platonic reasoning, which is sometimes called the dialectic. This is a method of resolving conflicts between two Ideas, or two false gods. It can be seen in Aeschylus’ old trilogy of plays called The Oresteia. I have sometimes seen it summed up as Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. With Socialism, we have the thesis, in Capitalism, the antithesis. They are a false dichotomy, but the result of this conflict is supposed to be some sort of synthesis. I have seen variations on this method used many many times from old Greek plays to modern Supreme Court rulings. A method of reasoning which relies on a foundation of false gods and idolatry cannot produce anything of value.
#3 It is criminal, and leads us to wars, famines, and a general collapse of civilisation. There are three main causes of this collapse:
a.) The desire for revolution, murder, and robbery
Socialism is a revolutionary cult which grew out of the revived platonism of revolutionary France (1789-99). The first forms of Socialism I am aware of were “conservative” Socialism of the sort promoted by Otto von Bismark in Germany, and adopted from the earliest days of the British Conservative Party which was established in 1834. Socialism begat Communism in 1848, and today the two would be indistinguishable if it were not for the often violent conflicts between the platonic socialists/communists and the more aristotelian objectivists/conservatives/capitalists. In all cases this conflict is rooted in a false dichotomy. It is a conflict between false gods. It is a conflict between different Socialist sects. It is not Christian, and we do ourselves no favours by picking sides in that fight.
One of the first acts of the revolutionaries in France was the seizure of all Church lands, the revenues from which had been used to maintain hospitals, monasteries, and other means of support for the poor. After violating the first commandment by adopting platonism, the revolutionaries very quickly moved on to #6 and #8, murder and theft respectively. The only notable products of the revolutions in France and elsewhere are endless variations on The Terror. In France, these crimes were committed as sacrifices to the three false gods of that revolution: Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. Far from abhoring bloody revolutions, Socialists plot to make them happen, and eagerly anticipate them.
R
Reprobus
Guest
b.) An economic system designed to collapse
Socialist doctrine requires the use of paper money. I have mentioned above that Socialism grew out of the revived platonism of revolutionary France. After a series of hard winters, the collapse in the value of French paper money made food imports prohibitively expensive. People were starving. This general economic collapse was one of the main triggers for revolution, and it is one which the Communists wish to recreate. The establishment of central banks with a monopoly on credit, and the use of a paper money system designed to collapse, is given in The Communist Manifesto as a means of creating the conditions for revolution. In the USA this system was established in 1913, and now exists in most countries around the world. Those “capitalist” banks everyone is complaining about are Socialist creations through and through and have been used for years to finance the Socialist project. They were designed to fail, and they will. Their failure is intended to spark yet another bloody revolution, and may yet do so. Socialists are forever presenting Socialism as the answer to problems they themselves have created.
Paper money is cheap money, both in that its value is forever decreasing, and in that it may be easily and cheaply obtained through the now ubiquitous practice of usury. Cheap money leads to over-production. This results in occasional gluts such as the housing collapse, and also leads to the rapid depletion of finite resources. Fewer cars would be made (for instance) if we had to pay for them up front and in hard currency. Our devastated fisheries would be in better shape if the mile-long factory ships which have cleaned them out had been paid for up front, and not financed from an endless pool of imaginary “credit”. With the environment, as with banking, Socialism is the problem, but will always be presented by Socialists as the solution.
Socialist governments care about production, production, production. They do not care about the goods produced, or the profits to be made from them. They only care about the jobs and incomes to be given out. As a result, the value of many goods has become less than the cost of the (name removed by moderator)uts (materials, equipment, labour) used to produce them. This is happening despite a rapid decline in the quality of goods produced. This steady loss can take a long time to bring a Socialist Economy to the point of collapse, but it does make that collapse inevitable.
c.) Moral collapse
Shortly after the revolution in Hungary, the newly installed Communist government of 1918 found itself with a problem: they were a Communist government in control of a predominantly Christian place. The published goals of the Communists, which include the abolition of marriage and the destruction of our families, were not likely to be supported except through trickery and violence. Their solution to this problem was provided by an Italian named Antonio Gramsci. It is called “the sexual revolution”. It added “sexual ed” to the mandatory curriculum in the mandatory state-run indoctrination centers called “schools”, created and developed new forms of pornography, and encouraged polygamy in the form of rapid divorce and remarriage. Parents and priests who objected were taken out and shot. These methods were taken up by the Frankfurt School in Germany in the 1930s. From there it was imported to the UK and USA after the members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany during the war, and is now the norm after heavy financing and promotion by the KGB and Communist Chinese. The only notable difference between the Hungarian method and the British and American method, is that parents who object are no longer shot. Instead, their children are taken from them, and they are ruined financially by various means. Free abortions were promoted as a Socalist solution to the ruinous problem of having children without the support of a family.
When Socialism collapsed in the Soviet Union, the moral collapse made the economic collapse much worse than it needed to be. Living under a political system built on a foundation of murder, fraud, and robbery made these things seem normal. The rules of life after a Socialist collapse look very much like the rules of life in a present-day western prison. Whatever you can get away with is ok. Women are not wives, but possessions. Prison bitches. Life expectancy in post-Soviet Russia plummeted to 50-something years. In contrast, life expectancy in the Central African Republic (one of the poorest places on earth) is over 70 years. There is a Russian joke I heard recently: “After Socialism, comes Alcoholism.”
Despair is a killer. Despair over the failure of false gods is no less real than any other despair, and is a very real danger. This can only be healed by the Church, and the abandonment of false idols. Even without a collapse of civilisation, I am already surrounded here by Socialists on anti-depressants.
In short, Socialism and Capitalism are effectively one and the same. They are a form of idolatry, and because we Christians have allowed them, we are now looking at some very hard times ahead.
Socialist doctrine requires the use of paper money. I have mentioned above that Socialism grew out of the revived platonism of revolutionary France. After a series of hard winters, the collapse in the value of French paper money made food imports prohibitively expensive. People were starving. This general economic collapse was one of the main triggers for revolution, and it is one which the Communists wish to recreate. The establishment of central banks with a monopoly on credit, and the use of a paper money system designed to collapse, is given in The Communist Manifesto as a means of creating the conditions for revolution. In the USA this system was established in 1913, and now exists in most countries around the world. Those “capitalist” banks everyone is complaining about are Socialist creations through and through and have been used for years to finance the Socialist project. They were designed to fail, and they will. Their failure is intended to spark yet another bloody revolution, and may yet do so. Socialists are forever presenting Socialism as the answer to problems they themselves have created.
Paper money is cheap money, both in that its value is forever decreasing, and in that it may be easily and cheaply obtained through the now ubiquitous practice of usury. Cheap money leads to over-production. This results in occasional gluts such as the housing collapse, and also leads to the rapid depletion of finite resources. Fewer cars would be made (for instance) if we had to pay for them up front and in hard currency. Our devastated fisheries would be in better shape if the mile-long factory ships which have cleaned them out had been paid for up front, and not financed from an endless pool of imaginary “credit”. With the environment, as with banking, Socialism is the problem, but will always be presented by Socialists as the solution.
Socialist governments care about production, production, production. They do not care about the goods produced, or the profits to be made from them. They only care about the jobs and incomes to be given out. As a result, the value of many goods has become less than the cost of the (name removed by moderator)uts (materials, equipment, labour) used to produce them. This is happening despite a rapid decline in the quality of goods produced. This steady loss can take a long time to bring a Socialist Economy to the point of collapse, but it does make that collapse inevitable.
c.) Moral collapse
Shortly after the revolution in Hungary, the newly installed Communist government of 1918 found itself with a problem: they were a Communist government in control of a predominantly Christian place. The published goals of the Communists, which include the abolition of marriage and the destruction of our families, were not likely to be supported except through trickery and violence. Their solution to this problem was provided by an Italian named Antonio Gramsci. It is called “the sexual revolution”. It added “sexual ed” to the mandatory curriculum in the mandatory state-run indoctrination centers called “schools”, created and developed new forms of pornography, and encouraged polygamy in the form of rapid divorce and remarriage. Parents and priests who objected were taken out and shot. These methods were taken up by the Frankfurt School in Germany in the 1930s. From there it was imported to the UK and USA after the members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany during the war, and is now the norm after heavy financing and promotion by the KGB and Communist Chinese. The only notable difference between the Hungarian method and the British and American method, is that parents who object are no longer shot. Instead, their children are taken from them, and they are ruined financially by various means. Free abortions were promoted as a Socalist solution to the ruinous problem of having children without the support of a family.
When Socialism collapsed in the Soviet Union, the moral collapse made the economic collapse much worse than it needed to be. Living under a political system built on a foundation of murder, fraud, and robbery made these things seem normal. The rules of life after a Socialist collapse look very much like the rules of life in a present-day western prison. Whatever you can get away with is ok. Women are not wives, but possessions. Prison bitches. Life expectancy in post-Soviet Russia plummeted to 50-something years. In contrast, life expectancy in the Central African Republic (one of the poorest places on earth) is over 70 years. There is a Russian joke I heard recently: “After Socialism, comes Alcoholism.”
Despair is a killer. Despair over the failure of false gods is no less real than any other despair, and is a very real danger. This can only be healed by the Church, and the abandonment of false idols. Even without a collapse of civilisation, I am already surrounded here by Socialists on anti-depressants.
In short, Socialism and Capitalism are effectively one and the same. They are a form of idolatry, and because we Christians have allowed them, we are now looking at some very hard times ahead.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.