Which is better for society: Capitalism or Communism?

[Pius_IX]

Maybe if we as a nation would show as much interest in creating livable wage jobs,feeding the hungry,free health insurance,etc as we do in building up our war machine we would have money for the good of the poor and working class,the money spent on illegal wars and killing machinery is sickening to me as an American and Christian. In Chrst

First off, the idea of ‘creating’ living wage jobs is not something a ‘nation’ does, it is something a business does. And non-market ‘public works’ programs do not count.

I always wonder who these hungry area that those on the left seemed so concerned about. Other than maybe some homeless folks, there is no reason for anyone in the US to be going hungry. Even the poorest in the US are able to afford computers, televisions, and other luxury goods. This is one of the most visible and wonderful things about the US. The United States was for a long time, the paragon of capitalism and the free market. While it is not as free as it was, it is still relatively free compared to much of the rest of the world.

Socialists, while they might have lofty intentions, dont realize the chaos their policies wreck on a country. The ‘living wage’ is a good example (if you care for an explanation, I will give you one). I wont even touch the ‘free’ health care.

I do agree with your comments on the war machine though.

 

[rmcbride77]

Pope Pius XI: “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist” (Quadragesimo Anno).

exactly, I am not a true socialist But I do see the good in having some socialist structures to care for people.

 

[PoliSciProf]

In a way, this is a false dichotomy. Economic approaches are only part of what a good society requires. Other posters have already mentioned that a mixed regime is the best in practice and I concur. The problem with capitalism is that it must say NO to some profits. The failure to do this along with a tendency to look at the short term and the prioritize the private is what makes capitalism undeserving of three cheers as Irving Kristol (Bill’s dad) wrote many years ago. In other words, some sort of virtue or moral sense of the whole is needed. (By the way, it gets two cheers because it is connected with democracy and the fact that markets rather than planning works best in a complex society and supports growth with helps the least advantaged.Socialism fails in practice (but not totally) but it appeals to higher sensibilities. There is a deep yearning for community that make it appealing. Yet it produces inefficiencies and perhaps even hubris. What is probably the best is some sort of regulated capitalism that respects free markets and creates safety nets for those who are victims of the creative destruction of capitalism. Sounds like the New Deal to me. Or, if you prefer, it is akin to polity, Aristotle’s most practical good regime. As the Stagirite put it. a regime that respects the rule of law and in which both the rich and the poor feel that it favors them is the most practical regime. In more modern terms, the middle class is to be encouraged. This requires a statesmanship that is not ideological but pragmatic. False dichotomies just make understanding the political more difficult.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I think most of us have been complementary of the Amish in the comunity aspects of their society such as barn raising where all members of the community contribute labor. The great part of what they do is that they do it with out a controlling central government.

I like the way the Amish take care of each other, and I wish my parish would do the same. I am sure there are poor members of our community who would benefit from our help. We Catholics should do more to help each other in our times of need. My parish donates a lot of money to the Third World, and although I think this is great, I wish a percentage of that money could be retained and shared among the poor of our parish.

Maybe if we as a nation would show as much interest in creating livable wage jobs,feeding the hungry,free health insurance,etc as we do in building up our war machine we would have money for the good of the poor and working class,the money spent on illegal wars and killing machinery is sickening to me as an American and Christian. In Chrst

Unfortunately, a strong millitary is needed in today’s world. Terrorists would attack us from every angle were it not for our strong military. The “war machine” is a necessary evil because it enables us to defend freedom and democracy.

I am with you on this one

I try to vote for the candidate or party that takes care of the worker, the poor, the middle class and has policies that take care of the disabled and all those that fall through the cracks.
My wife and I both call ourselves socialists, though I don’t think we are pure socialists. I think we, like the UK, think that having some socialist programs and policies makes a better form of government. I think socialism more closely follows the teachings of Christ and His Church

thanks for posting this

Ron

You’re welcome.

I also agree with your political stance. In our societies, nobody should go hungry, everybody should have access to free healthcare, the weak and infirm should be cared for. However, I think everyone should have the right to accumulate wealth and live in prosperity. I think a capitalist society with socialist policies would be the ideal form of government. Like you, I also think socialist-capitalism more closely follows the teachings of Christ and his Church.

Socialists, while they might have lofty intentions, dont realize the chaos their policies wreck on a country. The ‘living wage’ is a good example (if you care for an explanation, I will give you one). I wont even touch the ‘free’ health care.

I don’t think socialist policies reek havoc on a society. I think mild socialist policies are excellent because they provide care and assistance to the poor and vulnerable. Nationalised industries save jobs and provide better working conditions to the worker in many instances.

I think every country should provide free healthcare to all. The National Health Service (UK) was establised in 1948 and is still going strong. Without free healthcare, people would die of easily treatable illnesses solely because they can’t afford the medical costs. My grandmother lived before the NHS was establised, and she told me that a lot of people never went to the doctors because they couldn’t afford it. She said life was very hard without free healthcare, and that many people died because they couldn’t afford medical help. I think this is wrong. Nobody should die because they can’t afford medical care. As Christians, we should ensure that everybody, regardless of class, has access to the best healthcare possible. Saving lives shouldn’t be about profit or making money.

 

[mlchance]

I think every

country should provide free healthcare to all.

There is no such thing as free healthcare. All healthcare is paid for. The only question is who foots the bill.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Dempsey1919]

There is no such thing as free healthcare. All healthcare is paid for. The only question is who foots the bill.

I was referring to publicly funded, nationalised healthcare.

 

[royal_archer]

…I also agree with your political stance. In our societies, nobody should go hungry, everybody should have access to free healthcare, the weak and infirm should be cared for. However, I think everyone should have the right to accumulate wealth and live in prosperity. I think a capitalist society with socialist policies would be the ideal form of government. Like you, I also think socialist-capitalism more closely follows the teachings of Christ and his Church.

I don’t think socialist policies reek havoc on a society. I think mild socialist policies are excellent because they provide care and assistance to the poor and vulnerable. Nationalised industries save jobs and provide better working conditions to the worker in many instances.

I think every country should provide free healthcare to all. The National Health Service (UK) was establised in 1948 and is still going strong. Without free healthcare, people would die of easily treatable illnesses solely because they can’t afford the medical costs. My grandmother lived before the NHS was establised, and she told me that a lot of people never went to the doctors because they couldn’t afford it. She said life was very hard without free healthcare, and that many people died because they couldn’t afford medical help. I think this is wrong. Nobody should die because they can’t afford medical care. As Christians, we should ensure that everybody, regardless of class, has access to the best healthcare possible. Saving lives shouldn’t be about profit or making money.

How about when people refuse to contribute equally to society and as a result become a drain on society preventing others from becoming prosperous?

 

[royal_archer]

I was referring to publicly funded, nationalised healthcare.

So those of us in the middle class who can barely afford our health care and have to make personal cut backs should be forced to pay for the healthcare of others who won’t work as hard?

 

[rmcbride77]

So those of us in the middle class who can barely afford our health care and have to make personal cut backs should be forced to pay for the healthcare of others who won’t work as hard?

As John Lennon said, all through the day… its
my me mine, my me mine all the time

 

[royal_archer]

As John Lennon said, all through the day… its
my me mine, my me mine all the time

That is what so many say about their time. They want to enjoy their free time, they don’t want to spend time working or educating themselves, they don’t want to spend their time looking for opportunities to stand on their own two feet.

It’s funny how the productive class can work hard and earn every nickel they have and even though they are in debt, still find a way to give to charity and they are still called greedy because they can no longer afford to have their money taken away and dare to complain about it. At the same time no one accuses someone of being greedy when they don’t make a full effort to take care of themselves and instead want to take money from others, not by earning it, not at least by asking for it, but by demanding the Government take it from people who eaned it.

BTW Productive class= those who, through their own efforts and contributions to society and the resulting compensation, earn more than what they need to live and do not have to rely on external assistance. This includes those who are retired and living off of income saved from previous work or from retirement income derived from just compensation.

 

[Pius_IX]

I was referring to publicly funded, nationalised healthcare.

Well somebody is fronting the bill. mlchance’s point (which I concur) is still valid. I hope you like inefficient services, no choices, long lines, shortages, and not to mention the state choosing who lives and who dies - because that is what you’ll get with ‘free’ health care. No such thing as a free lunch.

 

[estesbob]

Well somebody is fronting the bill. mlchance’s point (which I concur) is still valid. I hope you like inefficient services, no choices, long lines, shortages, and not to mention the state choosing who lives and who dies - because that is what you’ll get with ‘free’ health care. No such thing as a free lunch.

As the saying goes"If you think healthcare is expensive just wait until its* free"*

 

[Dempsey1919]

How about when people refuse to contribute equally to society and as a result become a drain on society preventing others from becoming prosperous?

We have this problem in the United Kingdom. Traditionally, there was the aristrocratic or upper class, the middle class, and the working class. These days, there is an additional group below the working class referred to as the “underclass.” These people are unemployed and rely solely on state welfare. I personally know many people who have never worked, not because they can’t, but because they won’t. They would rather be a “drain on society” and sit around until they recieve their welfare cheque.

So those of us in the middle class who can barely afford our health care and have to make personal cut backs should be forced to pay for the healthcare of others who won’t work as hard?

You already have to pay for your own healthcare insurance. If the USA had nationalised healthcare, nobody would have to pay health insurance and would pay a little extra in taxes instead. You may say that you don’t want to pay for others, but it works both ways. There may be a time when you are down on your luck and you need an operation. What if you couldn’t afford the operation or you didn’t have health insurance? You’d probably die of an illness that is easily treatable. However, if the USA had nationalised healthcare, you would be able to have the operation because the rest of society has paid for you. In effect, the society has saved your life. They have donated their own money to help you, and others who wouldn’t be able to afford healthcare.

Nationalised healthcare is a great thing! I can’t understand why any Christian would be opposed to free healthcare for everyone. Why would a Catholic be opposed to free healthcare when it protects the poor and vulnerable? Free nationalised healthcare should be a policy all Christians vote for.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I hope you like inefficient services, no choices, long lines, shortages, and not to mention the state choosing who lives and who dies - because that is what you’ll get with ‘free’ health care. No such thing as a free lunch.

Better to have some inefficient services than none at all. I would have died when I was a baby if not for the National Health Service (NHS). My parents could not have afforded health insurance, and they could not have paid the expensive medical bills. In all likelihood, I would have perished a few hours after my birth.

Although the NHS has it’s problems, it isn’t as bad as you would think. They provide an efficient and modern service to all regardless of class, race, creed or colour.

 

[Peccavi]

So the poor aren’t going to inherit the earth since they can’t afford healthcare as Catholics we aint gonna let 'em !!!
I thought as Catholics it is our duty to do as Jesus taught us - to give what we have to the poor.
The British NHS is an example of how this can be done. Few in the UK resent paying for it. Most of us have benefitted from it. Same with state pensions, state education and social security. It may not be perfect but its better than Pharasaic handouts.

 

[ribozyme]

We have this problem in the United Kingdom. Traditionally, there was the aristrocratic or upper class, the middle class, and the working class. These days, there is an additional group below the working class referred to as the “underclass.” These people are unemployed and rely solely on state welfare. I personally know many people who have never worked, not because they can’t, but because they won’t. They would rather be a “drain on society” and sit around until they recieve their welfare cheque.

There are ways you could deal with that… one way is to put them in programs such as “AMS-åtgärder” (“labor market political activities” or “labor market board measures”) which is described here and here. Do you think this is a nice way of dealing with those people.

 

[royal_archer]

We have this problem in the United Kingdom. Traditionally, there was the aristrocratic or upper class, the middle class, and the working class. These days, there is an additional group below the working class referred to as the “underclass.” These people are unemployed and rely solely on state welfare. I personally know many people who have never worked, not because they can’t, but because they won’t. They would rather be a “drain on society” and sit around until they recieve their welfare cheque.

You already have to pay for your own healthcare insurance. If the USA had nationalised healthcare, nobody would have to pay health insurance and would pay a little extra in taxes instead. You may say that you don’t want to pay for others, but it works both ways. There may be a time when you are down on your luck and you need an operation. What if you couldn’t afford the operation or you didn’t have health insurance? You’d probably die of an illness that is easily treatable. However, if the USA had nationalised healthcare, you would be able to have the operation because the rest of society has paid for you. In effect, the society has saved your life. They have donated their own money to help you, and others who wouldn’t be able to afford healthcare.

Nationalised healthcare is a great thing! I can’t understand why any Christian would be opposed to free healthcare for everyone. Why would a Catholic be opposed to free healthcare when it protects the poor and vulnerable? Free nationalised healthcare should be a policy all Christians vote for.

That is all good in theory I also have no problem with tying healthcare costs to unemployment insurance. Providing a bridge to the next job is logical and can be paid for by the person receiving the service. The problem comes when people do not have to pay for the service. Medicine has come a long way in the last few years and very few of the advances actually reduce the cost of healthcare. On the contrary the advances significantly drive up the cost of health care. But medical research companies know that if they come up with a new cure, people will pay for it regardless of the cost. Where is the incentive to say, “you know I’ve lived a good life and if God is calling I am ready” With society in general flipping the bill, people will want all sorts of heroic measures that will drive the costs through the roof. So what will soon have to happen is governments with socialist health systems will have to ration health care, From what I hear Canada is doing something similar already. With a free market people would be able to make decisions as to how much of their income to put toward health and how much to put toward life.

 

[royal_archer]

Better to have some inefficient services than none at all. I would have died when I was a baby if not for the National Health Service (NHS). My parents could not have afforded health insurance, and they could not have paid the expensive medical bills. In all likelihood, I would have perished a few hours after my birth.

Although the NHS has it’s problems, it isn’t as bad as you would think. They provide an efficient and modern service to all regardless of class, race, creed or colour.

Actually the system in the US does not descriminate on account of class, race, creed or color either.

 

[royal_archer]

So the poor aren’t going to inherit the earth since they can’t afford healthcare as Catholics we aint gonna let 'em !!!
I thought as Catholics it is our duty to do as Jesus taught us - to give what we have to the poor.
The British NHS is an example of how this can be done. Few in the UK resent paying for it. Most of us have benefitted from it. Same with state pensions, state education and social security. It may not be perfect but its better than Pharasaic handouts.

No one here has said they have a problem with giving to the poor or helping out others, only that it should not be done at gunpoint. Nor do we have the right to take from one to give to another. Also The poor also have a moral obligation to earn what they get.

If we had a country where everyone worked together, put in their fair share of effort, etc. There would not be any issue and in such a closed society a shared risk program of common health insurance would be a good thing.

 

[ribozyme]

No one here has said they have a problem with giving to the poor or helping out others, only that it should not be done at gunpoint. Nor do we have the right to take from one to give to another. Also The poor also have a moral obligation to earn what they get.

If we had a country where everyone worked together, put in their fair share of effort, etc. There would not be any issue and in such a closed society a shared risk program of common health insurance would be a good thing.

So do you think any welfare program is done “at gunpoint?” Gee… you make it seem like that everyone who pays for these programs are working at a 7-11 when a robber shows up at their store. I find your comparison absolutely risible. I do not think people who are paying taxes are in any mortal danger from the government. Do you have any evidence that they are in mortal danger?

Sure force, persuasion, and coercion are involved… but one could provide examples where force, persuasion, and coercion are used ubiquitously.