Why are we so averse to socialism?

[Tomdstone]

The difference between socialism and communism is a very fine line.

I don’t think so. Under communism, as it was practiced in some countries, private businesses are not allowed. So even your local bakery and your local restaurant are run by the government. Under socialism, it is only the larger industries such as the airlines, the trains, the post office, the military establishment, the auto manufacturing, the hospitals, the public utilities, which are run under government control. Some other large enterprises may have government regulations regarding salaries of CEOs compared with those of the workers, but would be allowed to remain private. Your local restaurants, local bakeries, etc., would remain private.

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

Under the central planning of communism, no one is forced to change her major to engineering. It works this way: There are a certain number of slots available for admission to certain subject areas. Once the numerical limitation has been filled, no one else is admitted to study in that area. No one is forced to apply to a certain subject. Everyone is guaranteed a choice of a number of jobs upon graduation, with those who have received the highest grades getting the first choice. Actually, in the American university, they also have numerical limitations on the number of students who can apply in a given area, depending on how many faculty they have, etc. The difference is that under communism, they pay your tuition, your room and board, and besides, you are given a small stipend to spend as you wish. Further, your medical care is free. And when you graduate, you are guaranteed a job. The downside, is that you may not like the jobs which they offer you. And that it is more difficult to get admitted to the university and study of your choice.

 

[phil19034]

I don’t think so. Under communism, as it was practiced in some countries, private businesses are not allowed. So even your local bakery and your local restaurant are run by the government. Under socialism, it is only the larger industries such as the airlines, the trains, the post office, the military establishment, the auto manufacturing, the hospitals, the public utilities, which are run under government control. Some other large enterprises may have government regulations regarding salaries of CEOs compared with those of the workers, but would be allowed to remain private. Your local restaurants, local bakeries, etc., would remain private.

Hence, I said a “fine line”

At what size does a company or industry become before the public sector takes it over? Or at what size does the government come in a start regulating the income of the business owners?

That’s where the fine line is.

 

[phil19034]

Under the central planning of communism, no one is forced to change her major to engineering. It works this way: There are a certain number of slots available for admission to certain subject areas. Once the numerical limitation has been filled, no one else is admitted to study in that area. No one is forced to apply to a certain subject. Everyone is guaranteed a choice of a number of jobs upon graduation, with those who have received the highest grades getting the first choice. Actually, in the American university, they also have numerical limitations on the number of students who can apply in a given area, depending on how many faculty they have, etc. The difference is that under communism, they pay your tuition, your room and board, and besides, you are given a small stipend to spend as you wish. Further, your medical care is free. And when you graduate, you are guaranteed a job. The downside, is that you may not like the jobs which they offer you. And that it is more difficult to get admitted to the university and study of your choice.

Also, if they choose not to treat your medical condition you could die.

 

[Tomdstone]

Also, if they choose not to treat your medical condition you could die.

People die every day waiting in the Emergency Room of an American hospital. A friend of mine checked in to an ER a while ago and said she had to wait 6 hours before she was seen. And she had to pay a rather large bill.

 

[phil19034]

People die every day waiting in the Emergency Room of an American hospital. A friend of mine checked in to an ER a while ago and said she had to wait 6 hours before she was seen. And she had to pay a rather large bill.

No one said the system was perfect. But in the American system (at least for now) you don’t have a government panel deciding whether you will receive treatment or not.

 

[Tomdstone]

No one said the system was perfect. But in the American system (at least for now) you don’t have a government panel deciding whether you will receive treatment or not.

I think a two tiered system or a mixed system is best. In such a scenario, you have some private enterprises, and some public enterprises. For example, in the American universities, you have some government run public universities and some universities which are privately run. To deliver mail, you have the public post office, but you also have privately run FedEx, DHL, etc. I think you could have the same with health care and a few other services.

 

[Entwhistler]

Socialism is fine…as long as it is voluntary. As long you don’t force anyone to join. I don’t know, maybe socialism/semi-communism can work in limited forms or small societies (think monastery). Of course full-on Communism can never work at least the kind Marx envisions. He had some weird ideas. One of the worst being taking children from their parents to be educated by the state (Oh, wait, that’s what happens here…Thank God for homeschooling).

No government is perfect. I believe Plato laid out the three good forms of government: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Polity with the three bad forms of government as Dictatorship, Oligarchy and Democracy. As long as the government is voluntary and understands the nature of human beings it should be good.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Check this out:

What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism

Anyone who examines the ideology of socialism will see the contrast between the socialist doctrine and the doctrine of the Church.

All the same, it is not out of place to review the condemnation of the popes starting with Pius IX and ending with Benedict XVI. Thus, we present what the popes have to say about socialism as they condemn the socialist doctrine thoroughly and entirely. This is not a comprehensive compilation, but just some samples.

tfp.org/tfp-home/catholic-perspective/what-the-popes-have-to-say-about-socialism.html

 

[Belshazzar]

Distributism is the answer.

 

[Tomdstone]

Check this out:

What the Popes Have to Say About Socialisml

How exactly was socialism defined in such a context?

 

[po18guy]

If anyone still cares about the original question, here is what the Church actually teaches:

**THE PERSON AND SOCIETY

I. THE COMMUNAL CHARACTER OF THE HUMAN VOCATION
**
1878 All men are called to the same end: God himself. There is a certain resemblance between the unity of the divine persons and the fraternity that men are to establish among themselves in truth and love.1 Love of neighbor is inseparable from love for God.

1879 The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.2

1880 A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is established as an “heir” and receives certain “talents” that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop.3 He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good.

1881 Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but "the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions."4

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

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

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

 

[Regular_Atheist]

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.

It really isn’t. Most socialists seek an end to the existence of nation-states, in fact.

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).

If fascism allows private property, than it isn’t socialism. It’s capitalism. Socialism and capitalism cannot coexist. Socialism is the negation of capitalism, the end of private property, and involves common ownership of the means of production. You also never addressed your misunderstanding of communism. Communist societies do not have a state, so this idea that communism is where everything is controlled by the state is a misconception. Communism is a stateless, classless society. A communist society has never yet existed, although there have been attempts to reach them.

If you truly are a political scientist and are interested in political theory, you should understand real socialist perspectives. I recommend you read some Marxist literature for a start. Even just reading State and Revolution by Lenin will disprove most of what you believe to be the case regarding socialism and communism.

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.

As I said, socialism is an entirely different mode of production to capitalism. It is the negation of capitalism, though there are various forms of socialism, Nazi Germany does not meet any of them. I accept that the political spectrum can be viewed as a compass, but that doesn’t change the fact that your views on communism and socialism are incorrect and do not represent the views of genuine socialists/communists. I can see from the articles you’ve linked that you’re coming from an incredibly narrow right-libertarian perspective.

 

[edwest2]

It really isn’t. Most socialists seek an end to the existence of nation-states, in fact.

If fascism allows private property, than it isn’t socialism. It’s capitalism. Socialism and capitalism cannot coexist. Socialism is the negation of capitalism, the end of private property, and involves common ownership of the means of production. You also never addressed your misunderstanding of communism. Communist societies do not have a state, so this idea that communism is where everything is controlled by the state is a misconception. Communism is a stateless, classless society. A communist society has never yet existed, although there have been attempts to reach them.

If you truly are a political scientist and are interested in political theory, you should understand real socialist perspectives. I recommend you read some Marxist literature for a start. Even just reading State and Revolution by Lenin will disprove most of what you believe to be the case regarding socialism and communism.

As I said, socialism is an entirely different mode of production to capitalism. It is the negation of capitalism, though there are various forms of socialism, Nazi Germany does not meet any of them. I accept that the political spectrum can be viewed as a compass, but that doesn’t change the fact that your views on communism and socialism are incorrect and do not represent the views of genuine socialists/communists. I can see from the articles you’ve linked that you’re coming from an incredibly narrow right-libertarian perspective.

Nation states are very necessary. They define people, unite them in a common heritage and national sovereignty means outside forces/governments or even wealthy entities cannot tell other countries what to do. Each nation state is independent and national sovereignty needs to be respected.

Ed

 

[Genesis315]

The absolute denial of private property and the advocacy of violent class conflict are what make Socialism incompatible with Catholic social doctrine. It’s that simple. The Church even acknowledges that “class struggle” can be carried out the right way and that it can be appropriate for certain kinds of property to be reserved to the state.

This is why Pope Pius XI could say the “moderate Socialists,” who rejected the problematic things, were just advocating what Christians did and therefore had no need to even call themselves Socialists.

113. The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate. It not only professes the rejection of violence but modifies and tempers to some degree, if it does not reject entirely, the class struggle and the abolition of private ownership. One might say that, terrified by its own principles and by the conclusions drawn therefrom by Communism, Socialism inclines toward and in a certain measure approaches the truths which Christian tradition has always held sacred; for it cannot be denied that its demands at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon.

1. For if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice, and if this is not that blessed social peace which we all seek, it can and ought to be the point of departure from which to move forward to the mutual cooperation of the Industries and Professions. So also the war declared on private ownership, more and more abated, is being so restricted that now, finally, not the possession itself of the means of production is attacked but rather a kind of sovereignty over society which ownership has, contrary to all right, seized and usurped. For such sovereignty belongs in reality not to owners but to the public authority. If the foregoing happens, it can come even to the point that imperceptibly these ideas of the more moderate socialism will no longer differ from the desires and demands of those who are striving to remold human society on the basis of Christian principles. For certain kinds of property, it is rightly contended, ought to be reserved to the State since they carry with them a dominating power so great that cannot without danger to the general welfare be entrusted to private individuals.
2. Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to Socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

 

[Viki63]

No one said the system was perfect. But in the American system (at least for now) you don’t have a government panel deciding whether you will receive treatment or not.

No, you have a for-profit health insurance company whose responsibility is to the shareholders, who fulfill that responsibility by refusing care to the participants as often as they can get away with it,
My son lives in Canada, and since he had cancer in the past, won’t come live in the US in case the disease returns. Canada’s system seems to be preferable.

.

 

[JimG]

The linked article is about “Progressivism,” not Socialism, and I’m not sure in what ways the the two are connected, but I found it interesting:

Progressivism’s Dark Side

 

[Theo520]

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.

The NAZI party rode to power with a very socialist platform, .

• appropriate all war profits
• free education & old age pensions
• only income off labor (not investing)
• higher wages for working man
• appropriate land and buildings from the wealthy

I agree that once they seized power, they were not very socialist nor democratic in how they governed. Power corrupts.

 

[anon67074017]

The NAZI party rode to power with a very socialist platform, .

• appropriate all war profits
• free education & old age pensions
• only income off labor (not investing)
• higher wages for working man
• appropriate land and buildings from the wealthy

I agree that once they seized power, they were not very socialist nor democratic in how they governed. Power corrupts.

The Nazi Party hated socialism. They viewed it as a Jewish tool to enslave the Aryan race. National Socialism is not socialism at all. It is really far-right fascism.

 

[Theo520]

The Nazi Party hated socialism. They viewed it as a Jewish tool to enslave the Aryan race. National Socialism is not socialism at all. It is really far-right fascism.

The bullet points I made were from the NAZI party platform.
They thought the Jews were capitalists, not socialists.