Why do so many Catholics see a conflict between Socialism and Catholicism?

[QuidVeritasEst]

Can you name for me one society that was both a fully-functioning democracy with a high human index and had an entirely planned, state-controlled economy that flourished?

I know of only one democratic state that attempted to create a Marxist economy, 1960s India. The Communist Party was democratically elected in the states of Kerala and later West Bengal. Their victory was followed by complete economic stagnation, widespread famine and near governmental collapse that left the country disillusioned with state socialism (in the real Marxist sense of the term). And so in the 1980s and 1990s, India’s government systematically privatised the economy and attracted extensive foreign investment.

Now, India’s economy in 2015 is outstripping even China’s - which introduced market reforms at the same time to its own state socialist system:

bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-10-16/why-india-s-economy-is-outperforming-china-s

There is not one country which has experimented with state ownership of the means of production that has not ultimately come to the conclusion it doesn’t work or deliver the egalitarian ideals promised.

One should note that India still claims to be a “socialist state”, as does China - they just don’t mean by it what they used too. The Constitution of India, which came into effect on 26 January 1950, states in its preamble that India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. This hasn’t been repealed or amended, precisely because “socialism” is such a vague term with a wide-ranging meaning.

A market economy is not the same as “liberal capitalism”.

Whilst the Soviet Union was monstrous under Stalin, it rapidly grew under his successors from an economy which was relatively highly concentrated, aristocracy owned to one which allowed universal education and healthcare, massive defence spending and scientific excellence, without resorting to extorting colonies or peoples. The only reason it stagnated was because of the success of the 5-year plans growing the economy beyond the governments ability to control. Had Gorbachev succeeded in instituting a more market-socialist economy, it likely would have resumed growth.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

Whilst the Soviet Union was monstrous under Stalin, it rapidly grew under his successors from an economy which was relatively highly concentrated, aristocracy owned to one which allowed universal education and healthcare, massive defence spending and scientific excellence, without resorting to extorting colonies or peoples.

I all the East European countries (especially the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians), Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, Azerians, Kazakhs, the Baltic States and Mongolians would categorically reject the last part of your statement.

 

[dmar198]

I think [socialism] means state ownership of the means of production.

That sounds more like the definition I am familiar with. I think one of the Church’s main beefs with socialism from this perspective is if the State tries to undermine private business owners. If Mr. Jones starts a bakery and the State starts a bakery next door, I don’t think anyone would mind unless the State told everyone not to go to Mr. Jones, or worse, put an eviction notice on Mr. Jones’ doors. Surely you can see why such a procedure would be awful. Mr. Jones didn’t do anything wrong, why should he be shut out of a business just because the government wants all the money? (I’m not saying you’re in favor of that, but I do wonder: in your understanding of socialism, is there room for private business ownership? Would Mr. Jones have to stop selling bread?)

What I haven’t been able to glean thus far is exactly why people beleive the state, a democratic entity, in some cases directly so, is somehow distinct from the people, and therefore immoral.

I don’t think anyone here thinks the State is immoral. In Catholic theology, government is good.

As for why people believe the State is distinct from the people, a number of thoughts come to mind. First, the government is made up of people, so it is not distinct from all people. Second, no government is made up of all the people, except in a few town hall meetings. Even a democratically elected representative government is only a subset of the people, and that subset only reflects some of the interested parties and not others. Having a democracy is no guarantee against tyranny, because the majority can tyrannize the minority.

Anyway, you’re right, someone does have to pay for it, and that person is the tax-payer.

I think it’s fine to pay for services through taxes, but not all services. Should birthday cakes be subsidized? I don’t think so, I think that would be silly when people can just pay for them as needed. What are your thoughts?

To me, it seems patently immoral that some Catholics in the U.S. Oppose Obamacare, for instance,purely because it denies a charitable individual the ability to provide charity to a sick person suffering from and arbitrary disease or affliction that, obviously, affects the virtuous and the virtueless in equal ensure.

I think that is a silly reason to oppose Obamacare too. A better reason is because Obamacare contains immoral provisions such as the birth control mandate and abortion coverage. But in regard to being charitable, I personally would count charity as a good quality if I saw it in Obamacare, or anywhere else. I wouldn’t be greedy about charity – if the government wants to be charitable, more power to them. As for paying for charitable services through taxation, I suppose the worthiness of such a policy depends on the charitable service provided. If the government raises taxes to pay for a soup kitchen because no one in the slums will start one, good for them. But if they are upgrading everyone to HD tv for free and need to raise taxes for that, I think that’s silly. What are your thoughts?

I personally do not think people have a right to surplus capital if that can be used to [improve] the life of another, or for a social purpose. The difference is, I won’t wait for the person to overcome the failings of humanity to fund that social purpose.

That reminds me of a comment from Rerum Novarum 22: "[No] one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, ‘for no one ought to live other than becomingly.’ [citing St. Thomas Aquinas] But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. ‘Of that which remaineth, give alms [citing Luke 11:41].’ "

On a purely practical level, as you’ll learn from macro-economics, to achieve a socially-useful purpose, large capital investments, and targeted ones, are preferable to the ran charity of individuals, as valuable as this is.

I suppose that would depend on the charity. It’s probably uncommon to find a private charity that invests large amounts of money into targeted areas on a level comparable to government agencies, but I think it does happen. Catholic Charities comes to mind. Anyway I’m all for charitable giving, even by the government – and when there is not a charity doing a necessary work like running a soup kitchen, I’m all for the government starting one and paying for it through taxes, if necessary. But hopefully a church or something would offer to take over the project eventually. At least that would be my hope. What about you?

[A] socialist would argue that you have no right to hoard resources, especially if you’re a business owner, since it’s not built off of your own hard-endeavour but arbitrary invest,net of capital. It’s the product of the workers in your employ. Nor, in socialist theory, do you have the right to keep resources for yourself when they could be used for a social purpose.

By “hoard” I think you mean “keep more resources than you need.” Is that right? Would that include something like an HD tv? I would count that as something that no one needs, and yet I don’t think it’s wrong for at least some people to buy one. What are your thoughts? Would buying a tv for $1000 count as hoarding wealth? What if they just put the money in a bank and let it grow interest?

 

[dmar198]

Do you think [the possibility of obtaining freedom for serfs] justifies [serfdom]?

No.

Said person could never rise on merit to a position of authority, especially not to head-of-state.

If a serf became a free commoner, it would theoretically be possible to go on to become a noble through merit. Ennoblement of commoners based on merit was a real thing.

 

[marymary1975]

Great post and very true. There is an American national preference, on account of your nation’s history of “rights” and “popular sovereignty”, for ‘individualism’ in the economic sphere with minimal state interference.

While in and of itself this “tendency” isn’t necessarily problematic as far as Catholic Social Doctrine is concerned, since people and countries are entitled to have their own economic preferences, it becomes a serious problem if the logic of liberal individualism in economics is taken to an “extreme”.

It also becomes a problem if “American exceptionalism” leads US citizens, especially Catholics (who have a greater responsibility as children of the Church first and nationals of their own state second), to erroneously hold up the particular variant of liberal capitalism practised in the US as the “perfect”, God-given system - which it most definitely is not - and as an exemplar for other countries, for example the social-democratic ones in Europe that you refer too.

One sometimes finds this to be the case, particularly, among so-called ‘Traditionalist’ Catholics in the US - the irony of course being that there is nothing ‘traditional’ about capitalism, an economic system pioneered by secular theorists that has never been endorsed by the church in principle - although ‘variants’ of it, such as the social market economy, have been adapted under the influence of Catholic teaching and are therefore acceptable (even, perhaps desirable at present).

Again the analysis of Blessed Pope Paul VI is very illuminating:

Immediately following his section on socialism and the various levels of commitment possible for Catholics, Pope Paul has two sections entitled, “Marxism” and the “Liberal Ideology” in which he makes it clear that a Catholic cannot be a Marxian collectivist or a Liberal capitalist. His view of “socialism” is cautious but nuanced in comparison, based upon the fact that it is such a generalized term.

A little earlier on in the Apostolic Letter he notes:

Where some Americans might fall by the wayside is that “liberalism” for the Catholic Church refers to the “classical” liberalism of laissez-faire style economics and modern libertarianism, as one can see from his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio:

Earlier on in the encyclical he explicitly attacks the ideology of liberal capitalism:

Elsewhere in the encyclical he defines this “liberal” economic and philosophical theory again:

Section 33# of the encyclical:

 

[Richca]

Probably because to many of them think of it in the context of Godless Communism, which is not really the same thing. Note the following New Testament examples.

***Acts 2: [44] And all who believed were together and had all things in common; [45] and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. [46] And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, [47] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 4:[32] Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. [33] And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. [34] There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold [35] and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. [36] Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, [37] sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

So there is indeed a scriptural precedent for Christian socialism, but it somewhat flies in the face of capitalism as most of the West sees it. ***

Yes, these are good examples and we find the same sort of thing in catholic religious communities and monasteries where the religious vow poverty, chastity, and obedience. My thought is though that the first christians did what they did voluntarily and not forcefully. Voluntary poverty is a counsel of Jesus Christ and not a commandment. So we find Peter saying to Ananias "While you still owned the land wasn’t it yours to keep, and after you had sold it wasn’t the money yours to do with as you liked? " (Acts 5: 4). I think there is a big difference between voluntarily selling your possessions, giving to the poor, and having everything in common and being forced to do so by the State.

 

[NovusFidem]

Anyway, you’re right, someone does have to pay for it, and that person is the tax-payer. To me, it seems patently immoral that some Catholics in the U.S. Oppose Obamacare, for instance,purely because it denies a charitable individual the ability to provide charity to a sick person suffering from and arbitrary disease or affliction that, obviously, affects the virtuous and the virtueless in equal ensure

I am not sure, but I think that what you don’t understand is that most people confuse ideologies.

What you want to defend is what we have here in Brazil (mostly), called Social Liberalism - it seeks to balance an individual’s right to property, for example, and social justice. It is the mix of “give health care and education, but let us decide what to do with the fruits of our labor”. Taxes go mostly towards -]corrupt politician’s pockets/-] infrastructure: public schools, public hospitals, security, the army. Anything and all that is in everyone’s interest.

However, we still have rich and poor. Everyone has a right to their own property.

Socialism, in the proper sense, would change that part in bold. It would take every single penny from the rich AND the poor, and then redistribute it. Your work is not yours anymore, it is the State’s property to deal with.

From what we from South America understand of USA problems, is that most North-Americans see Obamacare as a step closer towards Socialism (which it is; doesn’t mean you HAVE to take the next step, though). Same in England with the NHS. It is a fear that needs to be discussed, but that instead politicians exploit in order to gather votes. Leftists want it in hope of future Socialism, Rightists despise it for fear of future Socialism. No one sees that you can try for a balanced situation

We have poor people still. However, they receive money for food, have access to free healthcare and free education. Any problems we have with infrastructure is due to our terrible management (our politicians keep using social programs to gather votes, it’s ridiculous), and not because Capitalism is a bad economic system.

Edit: plus, abortion. Here in Brazil it is of little concern, as abortion is still (thankfully) a big taboo. Our public hospitals do not engage in those practices (with rare exceptions), so our money isn’t being used on anything our conscience would go against. In the USA, though? Taking MY money to use on things I am decidedly against? No go. You can take my money to give to others; I wouldn’t complain in a Socialist society (give unto Caesar…), but the moment they used MY work to subside sin, I’d rebel (and probably go to prison in the process, not that familiar with rebellion )

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

That sounds more like the definition I am familiar with. I think one of the Church’s main beefs with socialism from this perspective is if the State tries to undermine private business owners. If Mr. Jones starts a bakery and the State starts a bakery next door, I don’t think anyone would mind unless the State told everyone not to go to Mr. Jones, or worse, put an eviction notice on Mr. Jones’ doors. Surely you can see why such a procedure would be awful.

But private property is rarely in the hands of Mr Jones. What would Mr Jones say when TESCO (sorry, I don’t know any U.S Supermarkets) opens a Superstore with a bakery which can easily undercut his production costs, and spend 1000x more than the worth of his business advertising the new shop?

The purpose of Socialism is, in part, to curb the influence of monopolies. Rerum Novarum justifies private property in that each person is able to sustain themselves from the land according to need - in capitalist systems, this untenable. To each according to need is the mandate of the socialist.

Anyway, you’re now thinking of an extreme form of socialism. Most of us are on Mr Jones’ side.

As for why people believe the State is distinct from the people, a number of thoughts come to mind. First, the government is made up of people, so it is not distinct from all people. Second, no government is made up of all the people, except in a few town hall meetings. Even a democratically elected representative government is only a subset of the people, and that subset only reflects some of the interested parties and not others. Having a democracy is no guarantee against tyranny, because the majority can tyrannize the minority. I think it’s fine to pay for services through taxes, but not all services. Should birthday cakes be subsidized? I don’t think so, I think that would be silly when people can just pay for them as needed. What are your thoughts?

Well, to me, this is where the Church and its mission to “remake humans in order to remake laws” can come into play. Morality is not subjective, and we all agree society should be governed by a set of absolute moral values (i.e. Sanctity of life). In reverence to this, together we should be able to discern a moral course. The minority seeking independent sovereignty is counter intuitive to this.

As for “birthday cake subsidies”, I’m not sure that’s relevant. A socialist economy makes production accountable by absorbing or into the state - you still are given currency based on employment.

I think that is a silly reason to oppose Obamacare too. A better reason is because Obamacare contains immoral provisions such as the birth control mandate and abortion coverage. But in regard to being charitable, I personally would count charity as a good quality if I saw it in Obamacare, or anywhere else.

(Snip)

Well, I’m glad you agree. Personally, I wouldn’t sacrifice universal healthcare because of abortion policy - nor would I make abortion, as horrible as it is, illegal. I say this because without a proper society able to support its children, parents who cannot afford the upkeep of the child will seek other ways for abortion, other, much more dangerous and life threatening ways.

I would rather use public investments like Obamacare to expand child-support and adoption, to improve natal care, and to ensure no child goes hungry or is unnecessarily separated from a family, than to just ban abortion. It solves nothing. Anyway, that’s another debate entirely.

As for the HDTV thing, again, in socialist governments, the state merely takes control of certain key industries to make them accountable and affordable. The individual still has capital to spend on their tv.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

That reminds me of a comment from Rerum Novarum 22: "[No] one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, ‘for no one ought to live other than becomingly.’ [citing St. Thomas Aquinas] But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. ‘Of that which remaineth, give alms [citing Luke 11:41].’ "

Well, that’s beautiful, and very socialist.

I suppose that would depend on the charity. It’s probably uncommon to find a private charity that invests large amounts of money into targeted areas on a level comparable to government agencies, but I think it does happen. Catholic Charities comes to mind. Anyway I’m all for charitable giving, even by the government – and when there is not a charity doing a necessary work like running a soup kitchen, I’m all for the government starting one and paying for it through taxes, if necessary. But hopefully a church or something would offer to take over the project eventually. At least that would be my hope. What about you?

I think that, on a practical level, devolving charity to a Church or secular charity is desirable, however, government funding of these is the only way to keep them accountable, and the only way to ensure that a steady, necessary flow of surplus capital reaches them.

However, charity can only work as palliative care. Provision of education and housing and enduring enfranchisement through these is what alleviates the need for charity. If charity is well funded enough to provide these, more power (and tax money) to them.

By “hoard” I think you mean “keep more resources than you need.” Is that right? Would that include something like an HD tv? I would count that as something that no one needs, and yet I don’t think it’s wrong for at least some people to buy one. What are your thoughts?

I generally consider a poorly taxed incom above the GDP Per Capita “hoarding”. I generally apply this to the G7 countries, too. £45,000 net per person is enough for those luxuries, and as the Church teaches us, explicit goods are acceptable when taken with implicit goods.

Massive incomes on the level of banker-bonuses, for instance, is unacceptable. That surplus capital could do so much good for people’s lives, and for our role as stewards of this planet.

Anyway, thanks for your objective reply. It’s nice that we can treat this as an it electrical discussion.

EDIT : Intellectual Discussion. I’ll leave that morale there to lighten the mood

 

[Vouthon]

EDIT : Intellectual Discussion. I’ll leave that morale there to lighten the mood

I must admit, you had me flummoxed and intrigued for a moment there over what an “electrical” discussion might entail.

 

[yppop]

It’s still a weak argument - why tolerate a system which enables and puts the world in the hands of those who refuse to be reformed?

It may be weak but is still the Christian argument. Too bad you don’t recognize that.
I prefer giving my money to Catholic Charities rather than to the government. Socialism in my opinion is a rationalization for avoiding personnel charity. We all know where Socialism has led countries, the rich got marginally poorer, the poor trade a meager increase in economic security for the loose of freedom. The only people that make out are the elitist intellectuals that acquire power and higher salaries thru the public sector, the advantages they are incapable of achieving in the competition of the private sector.IMHO
Yppop…

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

I am not sure, but I think that what you don’t understand is that most people confuse ideologies.

What you want to defend is what we have here in Brazil (mostly), called Social Liberalism - it seeks to balance an individual’s right to property, for example, and social justice. It is the mix of “give health care and education, but let us decide what to do with the fruits of our labor”. Taxes go mostly towards -]corrupt politician’s pockets/-] infrastructure: public schools, public hospitals, security, the army. Anything and all that is in everyone’s interest.

My personal politics are a little left of social-democracy. I would seek to nationalize certain industries that are considered key infrastructure, institute closer arbitration of allocation of land to businesses, and increase regulation of the means of production to avoid environmental damage and worker-exploration. I do, however, see no reason not to operate a mixed economy.

However, we still have rich and poor. Everyone has a right to their own property.

Socialism, in the proper sense, would change that part in bold. It would take every single penny from the rich AND the poor, and then redistribute it. Your work is not yours anymore, it is the State’s property to deal with.

That last sentence in bold is more the unfortunate product of the quota-model pioneered in the GDR. Socialism acts as a check to ensure members of society work toward a social useful purpose, not to deny them basic commodities, or the liberty to spend what capital is afforded them through pay however they choose.

From what we from South America understand of USA problems, is that most North-Americans see Obamacare as a step closer towards Socialism (which it is; doesn’t mean you HAVE to take the next step, though). Same in England with the NHS. It is a fear that needs to be discussed, but that instead politicians exploit in order to gather votes. Leftists want it in hope of future Socialism, Rightists despise it for fear of future Socialism. No one sees that you can try for a balanced situation

I am British - the NHS is one of the most popular institutions in the UK, and parties have often won or lost based on their ability to protect it. It is also perfectly socially acceptable, in this country, to refer to yourself as a socialist. It is generally the same throughout Europe, though less so in the east. The Labour Party generally at least claims to be socialist, and two of the most popular newspapers are overtly left leaning, though partisan televised news is illegal.

US politics, from my understanding, are more inline with your description. The fear of the cold-war has caused socialism to be a dirty word, and it seems, pre-university, it is poorly understood. The U.S. also seems to have a prominent Liberal-Conservative dichotomy in its politics, which doesn’t exist in Europe. In America, opposing abortion and gay-marriage, and actually legislating against gay-people, as in Indiana, is political fair game. Anyone who tried those policies in the UK would be publicly decried, and would be un-electable. Even the centre-right party here, actually called The Conservatives, who are currently in power, are functionally liberal. Even Catholics in this country default to centre-left parties, particularly Labour.

We have poor people still. However, they receive money for food, have access to free healthcare and free education. Any problems we have with infrastructure is due to our terrible management (our politicians keep using social programs to gather votes, it’s ridiculous), and not because Capitalism is a bad economic system.

Edit: plus, abortion. Here in Brazil it is of little concern, as abortion is still (thankfully) a big taboo. Our public hospitals do not engage in those practices (with rare exceptions), so our money isn’t being used on anything our conscience would go against. In the USA, though? Taking MY money to use on things I am decidedly against? No go. You can take my money to give to others; I wouldn’t complain in a Socialist society (give unto Caesar…), but the moment they used MY work to subside sin, I’d rebel (and probably go to prison in the process, not that familiar with rebellion )

My personal feeling on abortion are that, as detestable as it is, it’s better that it is offered in a professional environment, as opposed to the alternatives that people resorted to before it was legalized, and probably do resort to in Brazil. I do not judge parents for doing it. I would rather ensure that our society does not allow the conditions where someone simply cannot afford to keep their child fed. I know, from the lens of someone unaffected, it seems like an deliberate evil act, but abortion is never taken lightly by the parents. Especially in situations where it is out-of-wedlock, and religious families shame the person to the point where they resort to abortion.

I would, however, ban the promotion of abortion, and ban pro-lifers, to allow for a better discussion.

I also find the ‘if I don’t like it, I’ll rebel’ a common theme in Americanist politics (I know you’re not American), instrinsically opposed to gun-control. I do hope that if abortion were to become state-funded in Brazil, you’d try more democratic, peacful methods ofd preventing it. I actually find it funny that many of the people whoa argue against socialism because it stops your being charitable of your own volition, want to forcefully prevent abortion when legalizing it would allow the same.

Again, just want to reiterate, I am against abortion.

 

[marymary1975]

From what we from South America understand of USA problems, is that most North-Americans see Obamacare as a step closer towards Socialism (which it is; doesn’t mean you HAVE to take the next step, though). Same in England with the NHS. It is a fear that needs to be discussed, but that instead politicians exploit in order to gather votes. Leftists want it in hope of future Socialism, Rightists despise it for fear of future Socialism. No one sees that you can try for a balanced situation

We have poor people still. However, they receive money for food, have access to free healthcare and free education. Any problems we have with infrastructure is due to our terrible management (our politicians keep using social programs to gather votes, it’s ridiculous), and not because Capitalism is a bad economic system.

Edit: plus, abortion. Here in Brazil it is of little concern, as abortion is still (thankfully) a big taboo. Our public hospitals do not engage in those practices (with rare exceptions), so our money isn’t being used on anything our conscience would go against. In the USA, though? Taking MY money to use on things I am decidedly against? No go. You can take my money to give to others; I wouldn’t complain in a Socialist society (give unto Caesar…), but the moment they used MY work to subside sin, I’d rebel (and probably go to prison in the process, not that familiar with rebellion )

The issue with politics in the US Novus is that for us (I am from LATAM too) politics range in a huge spectrum, politics in the US run in a very tight spectrum. While ours run in a spectrum from 1 to 50 (for example) in the US politics run in a 4 to 6 spectrum. That is why people here think Obama care is one step away from Communism while we think that Americns are odd. It took me a long time to understand politics here and again, people here are very confused about ideologies because they don’t know them