Why are we so averse to socialism?

[EthanBenjamin]

Hello again!
I have another question, and I know you people are great with you answers, so I am convinced I came to the right place!
I would describe myself as a socialist. I believe that the government should have a strong safety net for those people who are so unfortunate as to not be able to support themselves. I believe that if one desires and looks for work, they are entitled to an income substantial for themselves and any of their dependents. I believe that the rich generally will not be as benevolent as they could be with their incomes, and I do not think that exuberant spending beyond what provides basic comforts is needed. So a nice phone and maybe some new furniture is okay, but a mansion the size of a city block for a family of two is not okay. I think taxes should be increased for corporations which do not directly benefit the wellbeing of the whole, and the same goes for wealthy individuals. I believe in the right of workers in the private sector to unionize. However, I am not the kind of liberal socialist that the term socialist carries as a connotation; I remain pretty socially conservative. I am firmly against all abortion, I of course support the church wholeheartedly, I think a constitutional republic like that of the USA is necessary to protecting everyone’s rights, etc etc.

I have been caught in situations with some Catholic friends and family where it works out in the conversation that I mention that I am a socialist, and there seems to be some disapproval amongst those people. One friend directed me to one of the Pope’s encyclicals (Rerum novarum, was it?), but I simply do not have time to go through a 20-page document to find my answers. Could anyone succinctly explain to me why my concept of socialism is contrary to the Catholic church’s teachings? I myself feel that the plan I outlined would even be more in-line with the beatitudes and works of mercy than unbridled capitalism, though I am frequently inorrect about a lot of things.

Thank you so much!

 

[anon67074017]

Socialism is a materialistic ideology. Materialism is incompatible with the Church. Socialism generally rejects God. God is replaced with the state. By the way, are you a Stalinist? One of the few socially conservative socialists I know of was Joseph Stalin.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It doesn’t seem like you are really a socialist, but rather a social democrat/welfare capitalist. Socialism is an entirely separate mode of production to capitalism, involving social ownership of the means of production and an end to private property.

 

[1ke]

I would describe myself as a socialist.

What you have described is not socialism.

 

[EveningSkye111]

‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’

Margaret Thatcher

 

[jediliz]

Jesus said we were to care for the poor. I don’t trust the government to care for the poor…look what some states did in the 1930s… they STERILIZED people they found unfit to reproduce.

I don’t want that to happen again.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Hello again!
I have another question, and I know you people are great with you answers, so I am convinced I came to the right place!
I would describe myself as a socialist. I believe that the government should have a strong safety net for those people who are so unfortunate as to not be able to support themselves. I believe that if one desires and looks for work, they are entitled to an income substantial for themselves and any of their dependents. I believe that the rich generally will not be as benevolent as they could be with their incomes, and I do not think that exuberant spending beyond what provides basic comforts is needed. So a nice phone and maybe some new furniture is okay, but a mansion the size of a city block for a family of two is not okay. I think taxes should be increased for corporations which do not directly benefit the wellbeing of the whole, and the same goes for wealthy individuals. I believe in the right of workers in the private sector to unionize. However, I am not the kind of liberal socialist that the term socialist carries as a connotation; I remain pretty socially conservative. I am firmly against all abortion, I of course support the church wholeheartedly, I think a constitutional republic like that of the USA is necessary to protecting everyone’s rights, etc etc.

I have been caught in situations with some Catholic friends and family where it works out in the conversation that I mention that I am a socialist, and there seems to be some disapproval amongst those people. One friend directed me to one of the Pope’s encyclicals (Rerum novarum, was it?), but I simply do not have time to go through a 20-page document to find my answers. Could anyone succinctly explain to me why my concept of socialism is contrary to the Catholic church’s teachings? I myself feel that the plan I outlined would even be more in-line with the beatitudes and works of mercy than unbridled capitalism, though I am frequently inorrect about a lot of things.

Thank you so much!

I appreciate your stance on social issues.

But wen it comes to socialism, the Catholic Church has a very dim view on central planning and calls out socialism and communism in particular, and indicates that crony capitalism is unacceptable as well.

Since you asked about socialism: the end-all, be-all of socialism is that the state takes the place of God.

It’s also a bad system because it doesn’t incentivize anyone to work hard. If everyone effectively gets paid the same (though I doubt this happened in the USSR or Red china), where is the incentive for anyone to advance or do hard or dangerous work?

So what happens in a system like that is not only do you control everyone’s pay, you end having to tell them where to work, and by some miracle, every one is just supposed to be happy with that.

A faculty member I knew came from China and wanted to be biological engineer. But the government said he had to be a mechanical engineer, because they though they knew best.

Could you imagine telling an American student studying diversity counseling or African-American or GLBTQ studies that they have to quit school and go to a community college to be a mechanic, cause we need more of them?

So socialism has always had to appeal to a nationalisitic spirit that really wears off with time. “Mother Russia” slogans didn’t save the USSR. In the end, it went bankrupt.

As far as the mansion example goes, who you are to say where people cannot live? Maybe the people who own the mansion hire a staff of 20 people to help take care of the place and host youth group and other Catholic retreats?

The way to make the rich benevolent is to incentivize them to invest their wealth.

Take your mansion example .In addition to hiring 20 people to run and clean the place, what if they wanted a boat? What if we had a lot of rich people around who wanted boats and other nice things because they had money to spend that wasn’t going to the government?

As Friedman would say “they would need to have factories to build the boats, and planes and yachts, and then the factories would need to hire workers, managers ect”.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Catholic Encyclopedia on Socialism:

newadvent.org/cathen/14062a.htm

on Communism:

newadvent.org/cathen/04179a.htm

On Christian Democracy:

newadvent.org/cathen/04179a.htm

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I believe that the government should have a strong safety net for those people who are so unfortunate as to not be able to support themselves.

How should the government obtain the huge sums needed for such safety nets?

I believe that if one desires and looks for work, they are entitled to an income substantial for themselves and any of their dependents.

Who provides such jobs and good incomes? What about those who do not desire to work?

I think taxes should be increased for corporations which do not directly benefit the wellbeing of the whole, and the same goes for wealthy individuals.

Even if such tax increases damage the economy and bring in less revenue than lower taxes?

 

[Tomdstone]

A faculty member I knew came from China and wanted to be biological engineer. But the government said he had to be a mechanical engineer, because they though they knew best.

Under communism, you are more or less guaranteed a job. The central planners know that they need a certain number of people as biological engineers and a certain number of people as mechanical engineers. They would not be able to guarantee you a job after you got your degree if there were too many biological engineers to place for employment. therefore they have quotas or numerical limitations on majors. Also, under communism, you are paid to go to school and to get a university degree. Both tuition and room and board are free and you get a small pay besides. Health care is free. This contrasts with the USA, where university fees at private schools can be as high as 50K per year and people who need care for cancer or kidney failure have gone bankrupt with the high cost of health care.

 

[phil19034]

I believe that the government should have a strong safety net for those people who are so unfortunate as to not be able to support themselves. I believe that if one desires and looks for work, they are entitled to an income substantial for themselves and any of their dependents.

This isn’t the role of government. This is the role of society. There is a theory in civics that states the “Public Sector’s job is to perform the roles the Private sector can’t.” If the private sector can do it, it should. The public sector should be doing things to enable the private sector. CChurches, non-profits, etc can handle this much better than the government. If the government wants to provide these organizations some grants, funding, etc; fine. But local communities (aka the Churches, non-profits, etc) are much better at this and can actually do the job.

Socialism flips this. Socialism takes things away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector in order to place controls on the people.

I believe that the rich generally will not be as benevolent as they could be with their incomes, and I do not think that exuberant spending beyond what provides basic comforts is needed. So a nice phone and maybe some new furniture is okay, but a mansion the size of a city block for a family of two is not okay. I think taxes should be increased for corporations which do not directly benefit the wellbeing of the whole, and the same goes for wealthy individuals.

You would be surprised how much money is donated by “old money” to charities. The entitlement generation, no because they want to keep their money and have someone else pay. My parish is receiving a massive check (from one rich man) to build a new rectory and convert the exsisting one into a parish center.

Church attending millionaires are VERY generous. I have personally met several of them. There are also many non-Church attending millionaires who are generous too.

In all honesty, a million dollar check to the right charity goes a lot further than a million dollar check to the government. Non-profits know how to stretch a dollar. Bureaucracies do not.

Also, as someone who worked at a corporation for years, I know that many large corporations can be ineffective like the government. However, ones that continually fail disappear. The problem isn’t corporations. The problem is CEO comp plans which bonus CEOs on strictly profit & loss instead of having major bonuses for growth. However, when there are favorable market conditions and business friendly laws, it allows small start ups to challenge the large corporations, because small businesses and small corporatations can often beat ineffective large corporations. Same as non-profits can do a better job than the government in charity work.

I believe in the right of workers in the private sector to unionize.

unions have a place, but not when they use mob-type intimidation methods and threaten family members of management. Unions also don’t have the right to force a company into bankruptcy

However, I am not the kind of liberal socialist that the term socialist carries as a connotation; I remain pretty socially conservative. I am firmly against all abortion, I of course support the church wholeheartedly, I think a constitutional republic like that of the USA is necessary to protecting everyone’s rights, etc etc.

I have been caught in situations with some Catholic friends and family where it works out in the conversation that I mention that I am a socialist, and there seems to be some disapproval amongst those people. One friend directed me to one of the Pope’s encyclicals (Rerum novarum, was it?), but I simply do not have time to go through a 20-page document to find my answers. Could anyone succinctly explain to me why my concept of socialism is contrary to the Catholic church’s teachings? I myself feel that the plan I outlined would even be more in-line with the beatitudes and works of mercy than unbridled capitalism, though I am frequently inorrect about a lot of things.

Thank you so much!

The difference between socialism and communism is a very fine line. Both of which believe that it takes a village (aka society) to raise a child instead of a family. This concept is against Christian belief, as we believe that the family is the bedrock of society, not the other way around. Both socialism and communism believe that the role of parents should be deminished. The only difference between them is that socialism believes in moral/sociatial libertarianism while communism believes in moral/sociatial conservatism (but an atheistic conservativism). But fiscally, they are both for governmental and public sector control of the economy.

Both are anti-family and anti-individual.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Under communism, you are more or less guaranteed a job. The central planners know that they need a certain number of people as biological engineers and a certain number of people as mechanical engineers. They would not be able to guarantee you a job after you got your degree if there were too many biological engineers to place for employment. therefore they have quotas or numerical limitations on majors. Also, under communism, you are paid to go to school and to get a university degree. Both tuition and room and board are free and you get a small pay besides. Health care is free. This contrasts with the USA, where university fees at private schools can be as high as 50K per year and people who need care for cancer or kidney failure have gone bankrupt with the high cost of health care.

My friend, none of this stuff is “free”. As Jason Lewis notes "government is a zero-sum game. All it can do to generate money is

1. Raise taxes, which just de-incentivizes labor
2. Print money, which just means our money is worth less and
3. Borrow, which has to be paid back with interest".

As far as American health care goes, the problem is too much government intervention. I have lived and stayed in places were there is universal health care. Believe me, you don’t want that if you’re worried about people dying.

See, what I find interesting is that even though healthcare is “free” in places like Canada, they’ll still pay thousands to be treated in America.

In Canada, for instance, a public hospital can refuse you emergency service. That can’t happen in America, even if you’re there illegally. In Canada, all bets are off.

In the UK, I also heard about a girl who went in over a period of 4-5 years to get a pap smear. She was rejected the first three times and the fourth time was diagnosed with stage four cancer and died.

As far as education goes, ask an American student studying the arts and humanities to instead go for an engineering or a community college degree. You’ll find that even paying them to do it won’t work, because they don’t like math/science, and being a mechanic or painter is so uncool, even if the state needs it.

For Americans, socialism isn’t really socialism. Just tell any Millennial that socialism means the Congress, Supreme Court and White House run Facebook, Pinterest, Apple, Itunes, IBM and Android and see if they still want it.

It’s really just an excuse for college kids to yell, rebel, protest, eat pizza and go to left-wing political rallies to show how different and tolerant they are.

 

[Isca]

We don’t see socialism the same way in the UK. Socialists (like myself) are very much in favour of compassionate social welfare policies, ethical business practices, good free state education and a free-at-the-point-of-care health service.

We all contribute to these via our National Insurance contributions and taxes. When you need care or a helping hand, it should be available. We pay for ourselves and for others. I have paid a lot in over the years, as I had a good salary. Others will pay next-to-nothing, as they have very little.

Where healthcare is concerned, you can choose to go to a private hospital if you have enough money. But the vast majority of people don’t do that, as our top specialists work in the public sector, too.

 

[oliver927]

One friend directed me to one of the Pope’s encyclicals (Rerum novarum, was it?), but I simply do not have time to go through a 20-page document to find my answers.

Really?! 20 pages is not a long document. You quite obviously are not interested in finding any answers if you cant even be bothered to read 20 pages worth of material.

 

[Neofight]

People who are averse to socialism are often like people who are averse to Catholicism…they are not averse to what socialism or Catholicism is, they are averse to what they believe social and Catholicism is.

Probably even the typical American is averse to what true democracy is, but what they believe true democracy really is, is the American brand of democracy, which is far from classical democracy.

PEACE AND ALL GOOD!

 

[Brendan]

I think St John Chrysostom stated it best

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm.

Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm.

Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

 

[phil19034]

People who are averse to socialism are often like people who are averse to Catholicism…they are not averse to what socialism or Catholicism is, they are averse to what they believe social and Catholicism is.

Probably even the typical American is averse to what true democracy is, but what they believe true democracy really is, is the American brand of democracy, which is far from classical democracy.

PEACE AND ALL GOOD!

True Socialism is not ok with the Catholic Faith. Social Capitalism is. But true socialism is not.

True socialism is where the public sector is In control of the economy and the government favors society over the individual for fiscal issues.

Communists do the same thing. However when it comes to social issues, socialists are pro individual while communists are still pro society.

The truth is a Christian (not atheist) communism would be better than socialism any day. However, because true communism and true socialism prioritize society over the individual, it will never be accepted by orthodox Christians. Socialist beliefs lead to Nazis experimenting on Jews, socialist beliefs lead to abortion, socialist beliefs lead to euthanizing the old & sick and lead to mass sterilizations.

Nazi Germany was a socialist state. The USSR started as a socialist revolution and then turned into true communism once one party had control. Again, the only difference between socialism and communism is whether the people have libertarian social rights or not.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Nazi Germany was a socialist state. The USSR started as a socialist revolution and then turned into true communism once one party had control. Again, the only difference between socialism and communism is whether the people have libertarian social rights or not.

None of this is true. Nazi Germany was never socialist, it was always capitalist. The USSR was socialist and was aiming towards communism but never achieved it, since communism is a classless, stateless society. Socialism is the transitional state towards this society, though sometimes it is used as an umbrella term for modes of production that involve socialized means of production (it is not social democracy or welfare capitalism, however). Socialism does not necessarily entail some kind of authoritarian state that controls everything, and most socialists advocate for an incredibly democratic society where even the economy is controlled democratically by the workers, instead of by an elite economic class like we currently have.

Socialism is the democratic workers control of the means of production. It does not have anything to do with “libertarian social rights.”

If you want to read about what the USSR was trying to achieve, there is plenty of Marxist literature in publication that is available to you. I don’t understand where people get their ideas regarding socialism and communism from.

 

[phil19034]

None of this is true. Nazi Germany was never socialist, it was always capitalist. The USSR was socialist and was aiming towards communism but never achieved it, since communism is a classless, stateless society. Socialism is the transitional state towards this society, though sometimes it is used as an umbrella term for modes of production that involve socialized means of production (it is not social democracy or welfare capitalism, however). Socialism does not necessarily entail some kind of authoritarian state that controls everything, and most socialists advocate for an incredibly democratic society where even the economy is controlled democratically by the workers, instead of by an elite economic class like we currently have.

Socialism is the democratic workers control of the means of production. It does not have anything to do with “libertarian social rights.”

If you want to read about what the USSR was trying to achieve, there is plenty of Marxist literature in publication that is available to you. I don’t understand where people get their ideas regarding socialism and communism from.

First of all, I’m a political scientist. That’s what I went to school for.

NAZI Germany was socialist. That was part of it’s name and it believed that what was good for Germany took precedence over the individual and over the family. This is ONE of the traits of Socialism.

True socialism deals with economic issues AND social issues.

Socially, Fascism is socialist in that it prioritizes society’s interests over the interests of the family and/or individual. Fiscally, Fascism differs from true socialism and communism because Fascism allows for private ownership AS LONG as that private ownership is not contradicting the goals of the state. It’s kind of like what China is becoming. China is quickly becoming more of a Fascist state instead of a true Communist state (from a fiscal stand point, not a moral standpoint).

The political spectrum isn’t linear. If you believe it’s linear, then yes, you can’t call Nazi Germany socialist. But if it’s an XY axis or even an XYZ axis, then yes, Nazi Germany had some socialist characteristics.

eyapolitics.pbworks.com/f/1350258107/1350258107/nolan.gif

Here are a few good articles: theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/
rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

Point is, the political spectrum is a grid or a compass; not a line.

 

[Tomdstone]

Socialism takes things away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector in order to place controls on the people…

Socialism gives to the public sector in order to promote equality of profits and to do away with the vast inequality we see between the salaries of the CEOs and the working man.