Which is better for society: Capitalism or Communism?

[Dempsey1919]

Royal Archer is right about consumer activism.

As Catholics, we can and should boycott corporations who engage in immoral business practices. By refusing to purchase their products, we can force them to change the way they operate. They will change because profitability is all that matters to them. They will do anything to please the consumer, and they will practice fair trade if that’s what the consumers want. Once their profits drop, they’ll do whatever is needed to make more money.

you are not trying to equate shopping judgement with a person’s voting choices are you??

No. She is stating that we can change society by standing united and voting according to our consciences. We can change our government by choosing to support the other party, and we can force immoral companies to change by supporting their competitors. The immoral corporations won’t change if we keep buying their products; they’ll only change once they notice that profits are down, and that they have lost market share. In the same way, political parties don’t change their policies until the public begin complaining, or supporting the opposition. As Catholics, we can force change by standing together and boycotting companies, and voting for political parties which support Christian morals. Together we stand, divided we fall.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I’ve just been thinking about socialism and capitalism. Although I think socialism more closely represents my Christian beliefs in that socialist policies care for the poor and the vulnerable, I am starting to wonder if socialism helps to create lazy, needy people who have an ‘entitlement’ mentality? What do you think? Does socialism cause people to become lazy and reliant on others for help? Without any socialist policies, the poor would be forced to work harder, and would be encouraged to use their intelligence in order to discover ways to make money.

Also, socialist policies and nationalised industries are funded by taxes and the rich of society are forced to pay more than the rest. In a way, the rich are being punished for working harder and using their intelligence to accumulate wealth. I can see why people frown upon taxation, because taxes punish those who produce in order to reward those who don’t.

I’m finding it hard to decide what I believe because both political ideologies make sense in some ways. I am enjoying this thread because it is really causing me to rethink my beliefs and question my views on a lot of things.

 

[chevalier]

Economically, I think communism wasn’t as bad for crowds of people as 19th century capitalism was. I certainly prefer Sweden socialism to 19th century capitalism. The bad thing with most kinds of socialism in practise has been the thought dictatorship they’ve been trying to accomplish. Capitalism generally doesn’t care what you think. However, the notion to take from each according to his ability and to give to each according to his needs is closer to me than some capitalist ideals that nothing else than free economy (as they see it) matters.

People should give according to their ability, but this shouldn’t be legally mandated. People should receive according to their needs, but those who receive according to their needs should still give according to their ability. People need some freedom. People need to understand that you need to work to live. You need somehow to reconcile all of these truths and the outcome seems to be found partly in socialism and partly in capitalism.

Now please note, which actually almost escaped me now, that communism is not the same as capitalism. Communism is collectivism - mandatory participation, mandatory sharing, uniformity… Not my flavour. Yes, the first Christians shared all and live in communes, but I haven’t seen a modern communist society similar to the first Christians yet. I think community ties shouldn’t be legally mandated.

Now, if you see communism vs capitalism as in USSR vs USA in the cold war, I’m decidedly on the capitalist side. Heh, I even prefer the Tzarist Russia to the USSR. But the ideals were generally different. I don’t think the philosophers on both sides enjoyed the notions of mental slavery and bloodshed on the one side and huge income disparities with starvation for the poor and lavish partying for the rich on other side.

All in all, perhaps a democracy without legalised attachment to any particular social or economical order is the best thing we could have? Apart from a benevolent monarchy, that is, but we aren’t getting the latter, sadly, any more.

 

[BamaRider]

I don’t even know why this is a discussion. The results speak for themselves. The U.S.A. with its captialist system in just 200 years and 250 million people, have built the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen. We are but a small pittance in terms of world population, but represent 25% of its wealth.

You can be anything you wanna be in this country, that doesn’t happen anywhere else, and that is the result of pure economic freedom.

The Chinese can’t do it, despite a 2,000 year headstart, and 2 *billion *people, their soicialist system is too inefficent and devalues hard work.

Europe can’t do it with a 1500 year headstart, despite the same amount of people and resources, too many people on the dole and unproductive.

Poor in China, Europe or India is onething, but in the USA poor is your own home, cable tv, 2 cars. We all know how high the bar is here. If you are poor in this country it is by choice.

Not there are some truly destitute people, that have fallen through cracks, but you gotta look really hard, if the govt would leave me alone, and let me give to the church what they garnish out of my check, She could help these people far more then any govt run agency.

Look, what this boils down to is this, just like the election went. Those that want all this free stuff are not the ones that gotta pay for it, so they voted one way, and those like me (and most of y’all) who have to pay for all this stuff, voted the other way. But each election cycle we are getting fewer and fewer, as more people are swayed by the prospect of cradle to grave to govt. Soon the pyramid is gonna be upside down, with so few having to support so many with taxation to the point all wealth in this country is turned over to the govt.

Obama has promised a tax cut 95% of “working” people. Thing is 45% already don’t pay any taxes. But they’re gonna get a check in the guise of the Earned Income Credit. To pay for that the guys in the upper bracket are gonna get jacked. It’s crazy.

And that’s my :twocents:

 

[royal_archer]

you are not trying to equate shopping judgement with a person’s voting choices are you?? Think about what you are saying in light of all the reasons I gave about consumers earlier

If someone is making bad decisions with their wallet and putting self interest in front of morality, then I believe that that same individual will put self interest ahead of morality at the polls. as such how can politics be any more moral than consumerism?

I think that was more a Secretary of the Treasury plan and the Congress was put over a barrel on that one… so no, I don’t think its fair to say it was Congress’ decision in that sense.

I may use that one against you on the other thread. You seem to be implying that the administration has a lot of power over the congess and congress is forced (over the barrel) to do the will of the secretary of the treasury.

I don’t see that happening in any meaningful way. Can you please give me an example other than Dolphin safe tuna?

McDonalds supporting Gays untill the consumer uprising.

Well, thank the Lord, you can’t imagine how much better that makes me feel. I am not being sarcastic here either. Its good to hear that you don’t hold to that theory. Even though we obviously disagree on politics and economics, and gun control at least we can agree that trickle down is a myth

thanks.

 

[royal_archer]

I’ve just been thinking about socialism and capitalism. Although I think socialism more closely represents my Christian beliefs in that socialist policies care for the poor and the vulnerable, I am starting to wonder if socialism helps to create lazy, needy people who have an ‘entitlement’ mentality? What do you think? Does socialism cause people to become lazy and reliant on others for help? Without any socialist policies, the poor would be forced to work harder, and would be encouraged to use their intelligence in order to discover ways to make money.

Also, socialist policies and nationalised industries are funded by taxes and the rich of society are forced to pay more than the rest. In a way, the rich are being punished for working harder and using their intelligence to accumulate wealth. I can see why people frown upon taxation, because taxes punish those who produce in order to reward those who don’t.

I’m finding it hard to decide what I believe because both political ideologies make sense in some ways. I am enjoying this thread because it is really causing me to rethink my beliefs and question my views on a lot of things.

Socialism is good in theory except for two fatal flaws. First it is based on force and coercion which is inherantly un Christian. Second, while the examples given are benign or benneficial, A socialist government can redistribute wealth in many ways such as bailing out multi billion dollar corporations.

BTW, the “She” in your previous post better not have been refering to me.

 

[rmcbride77]

If someone is making bad decisions with their wallet and putting self interest in front of morality, then I believe that that same individual will put self interest ahead of morality at the polls. as such how can politics be any more moral than consumerism?

well I have a neighbor that buys everything she sees on tv, is in credit card debt, but she still manages to make pretty good choices at the elections. I wasn’t arguing morality here. I was arguing judgement. And I think you are right about consumer activism in these two cases of dolphin safe tuna and gay rights, but I think its because those two examples have large organized groups of advocates. I do concede the point. I was thinking more on a day to day basis that people just go out and buy what they need and don’t think much about the morals of companies behind the product.

I may use that one against you on the other thread. You seem to be implying that the administration has a lot of power over the congess and congress is forced (over the barrel) to do the will of the secretary of the treasury.

No I don’t believe that in quite that way.
I was remembering before the election how McCain and Obama went to DC and met with the President and the Cabinet and the consensus was that like or not we had to bail out these bozos or he economy would collapse. I think Congress went with it for that reason. Does anyone remember that?

 

[rmcbride77]

Socialism is good in theory except for two fatal flaws. First it is based on force and coercion which is inherantly un Christian. Second, while the examples given are benign or benneficial, A socialist government can redistribute wealth in many ways such as bailing out multi billion dollar corporations.

BTW, the “She” in your previous post better not have been refering to me.

I don’t think it socialism is a good system all by itself but I do think our system would function better with some socialist type programs. Like I said earlier, everyone has a police and fire department. Why not have free education and health care? It wouldn’t have to be by force but by wiser fiscal policies. I think we could better spend our money and take care of the people that fall through the cracks of society. I agree that we should not just give some capable people a free ride but there are some out there that are truly needy. There is some country out there I read about that has this very wise and very wealthy ruler. He gives his people free health care and free education. Granted, I think this was a small country and I will try to find this again and post where this place is. My point is that instead of the wasting money on less important things, we could be using that money to take care of people that really need it.

 

[rmcbride77]

Wasn’t it a socialist type program that FDR used to get us out of the depression? I just think pure capitalism is very harsh and leaves people behind. I think the country needs a mix of economic systems. Marxism doesn’t work and it is an evil that was pretty much exposed…I don’t know much about Sweden and Norway but don’t they do pretty good with a more socialist type of government? I haven’t heard of any Swedish death camps or gulags…

 

[royal_archer]

well I have a neighbor that buys everything she sees on tv, is in credit card debt, but she still manages to make pretty good choices at the elections. I wasn’t arguing morality here. I was arguing judgement. And I think you are right about consumer activism in these two cases of dolphin safe tuna and gay rights, but I think its because those two examples have large organized groups of advocates. I do concede the point. I was thinking more on a day to day basis that people just go out and buy what they need and don’t think much about the morals of companies behind the product.

This is an area where we have a great deal of opportunity. I think that the effort to try to mandate morality and charity should be redirected to encouraging people to support companies that support morality and charity.

No I don’t believe that in quite that way.
I was remembering before the election how McCain and Obama went to DC and met with the President and the Cabinet and the consensus was that like or not we had to bail out these bozos or he economy would collapse. I think Congress went with it for that reason. Does anyone remember that?

Yes and I was having flash backs to the start of the Iraq war. Those in congress who have been ranting about how they were “tricked” by Bush to go into the war but then bought the whole ecconomic sky is falling routine hook line and sinker. The senate was intended to be slower and hold more deliberations and they jumped as fast as the rest. Where are the checks and balances?

 

[royal_archer]

Wasn’t it a socialist type program that FDR used to get us out of the depression? I just think pure capitalism is very harsh and leaves people behind. I think the country needs a mix of economic systems. Marxism doesn’t work and it is an evil that was pretty much exposed…I don’t know much about Sweden and Norway but don’t they do pretty good with a more socialist type of government? I haven’t heard of any Swedish death camps or gulags…

Depressions and recessions do tend to run their course and are cyclic. Many of the “new deal” policies masked the symptoms of the depression and may have prolonged it. The exception would be the work programs. I have no problem paying the people in need for a honnest days work on something that is needed by society as a whole.

 

[rmcbride77]

Depressions and recessions do tend to run their course and are cyclic. Many of the “new deal” policies masked the symptoms of the depression and may have prolonged it. The exception would be the work programs. I have no problem paying the people in need for a honnest days work on something that is needed by society as a whole.

then we agree

 

[Peccavi]

I am curious why we as Christians tend to avoid what Jesus said about wealth and its distribution. I hear all the excuses out there ie. welfare feeds the lazy, clothes the work-shy etc. but where does Jesus tell us blessed are the poor unless they’re work-shy and take all you have and give it to the poor unless the poor are lazy ? And when did Jesus ever say, follow me and I’ll make you rich ? I’m not really interested in what non-Christian economics claims. My duty as a Christian is to follow Jesus teachings and his example. All else is an irrelevance.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Peccavi, why don’t you tell us about your own political beliefs? How do you vote, and why do you think this closely matches the teachings of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ?

 

[estesbob]

I am curious why we as Christians tend to avoid what Jesus said about wealth and its distribution. I hear all the excuses out there ie. welfare feeds the lazy, clothes the work-shy etc. but where does Jesus tell us blessed are the poor unless they’re work-shy and take all you have and give it to the poor unless the poor are lazy ? And when did Jesus ever say, follow me and I’ll make you rich ? I’m not really interested in what non-Christian economics claims. My duty as a Christian is to follow Jesus teachings and his example. All else is an irrelevance.

So why havent you sold your computer and given the money the poor.?

The way i look at it the more money i make the more I can give.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

The government isn’t God, they can not collect a little bit of money and magically make problems go away. Instead the opposite usually happens less is distributed than existed in the first place.

This is along the lines of the reply I was going to post.

The left has made it perfectly clear that they want no part of religion in governent…(and I’m not saying it should…that’s not what this is about)…so why would a left-leaning, social thinking person want or expect the government to be concerned with the will of God as Jesus was. It was only by the power and will of God that Jesus was able to perform this miracle.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Strange, I’ve always seen fascism presented as right wing in school and on diagrams of the political spectrum.

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the terms liberal/conservative and right/left do not mean the same things in modern day America as they once did here and around the world.

So traditionally speaking, it would be correct to call Fascism right wing. It would not, however, be correct to equate this form of right wing with the right wing of today’s United States.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

I am curious why we as Christians tend to avoid what Jesus said about wealth and its distribution. I hear all the excuses out there ie. welfare feeds the lazy, clothes the work-shy etc. but where does Jesus tell us blessed are the poor unless they’re work-shy and take all you have and give it to the poor unless the poor are lazy ? And when did Jesus ever say, follow me and I’ll make you rich ? I’m not really interested in what non-Christian economics claims. My duty as a Christian is to follow Jesus teachings and his example. All else is an irrelevance.

Our duty to Christ is to voluntarily to the poor. We are not obeying Christ if the government makes us give.

In addition, we cannot force our Christian principles down the throats of non-Christians…our Constitution does not allow it (nor should it).

 

[sarah_anne_628]

I am curious why we as Christians tend to avoid what Jesus said about wealth and its distribution. I hear all the excuses out there ie. welfare feeds the lazy, clothes the work-shy etc. but where does Jesus tell us blessed are the poor unless they’re work-shy and take all you have and give it to the poor unless the poor are lazy ? And when did Jesus ever say, follow me and I’ll make you rich ? I’m not really interested in what non-Christian economics claims. My duty as a Christian is to follow Jesus teachings and his example. All else is an irrelevance.

With my above comments said…you are right…we as Christians do tend to avoid what Jesus said about wealth and its distribution. So even if the government forces us to give, we need to give above and beyond that…it is our Christian duty.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

The way i look at it the more money i make the more I can give.

This is true…but how many of us actually DO give more.

As capitalist-friendly people, we must be careful that our political views on redistribution of wealth does not bleed over to our personal lives and make us stingy…we may oppose government distribution of wealth, but as Christians and as Catholics, we are obligated to redistribute our own wealth to the poor, as Jesus commanded.

Please note…this is not directed at you personally, estesbob, it is simply a reminder to all christians…it is a trap that i fall into and i assume I am not the only one.