Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[Vezelay]

Socialism is the ownership of the means of production, by the state. Israel has socialism, 61% of businesses are owned by the state. I don’t remember the church criticizing Israel. There is nothing ungodly about Israel.I don’t even remember the pope criticizing the socialistic programs of Italy. China is mostly socialistic but capitalism is growing slowly. It’s to their advantage. Sweden is 95% capitalistic, only 5% socialistic. But it has a strong social welfare state, which is what many confuse with socialism. Even the US, largely capitalistic has some socialism, TVA which many feared would lead us to socialism. That didn’t happen. The US does have some social welfare although not as much as most modern industrial nations. We have schools, libraries, police and fire workers, nat’l park workers, Medicaid workers all financed by the government. We still have some public assistance programs for the poor. The Social Security system is gov’t run as is Medicare which republicans fought in 1965 and refused to vote fo. Now they defend it and would never eliminate it. These programs are the most loved by the American people. They are social welfare. Millions of poor elderly were rescued by having a minimum insurance for old age. Millions who had no hospitalizatin now have health care. In our system we are completely dependent on other countries, some of which are socialistic, for our providers. 25% of our doctors are immigrants. We do not educate enough doctors. Other nations educate their physicians the way we educate our military leaders with the best institutions. Our doctors pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their MD and then must charge high fees to pay their loans. And so we rely on those from India, the Philiippines, China and other countries where medical education is financed better. Notice that doctors from Norway, France, Japan and the other industrialized nations are not clamoring to come here. Some of them hold in horror our weird system of care (I have lived in France and know this is the case). Many of the Canadians who come to the US, the premature births for instance, have their US medical bills paid for by the Canadian gov’t. Canada uses the US for spillover needs rather than overbuilding specialty facilities. I was in China in March and I was delighted to see Catholic churches. The big problem is reconciling the bishops appointed by the gov’t and those approved by the Vatican but they are working on it … There are also protestant churches, and even Jewish and Muslin community. Buddhism is still the most popular religion but the point is the gov’t no longer discourages religion. All the Chinese we talked to are critical of the Mao era, finding it a mistake. Most of our guides own their own condominiums so clearly one is allowed to own private property. We are dependent on socialistic nations in many ways. US businesses outsource their factories to socialistic countries, including and especially China, because they can pay their workers so little. US workers are left unemployed and the companies don’t have to pay so much in taxes. Harley Davidson is going to leave Milwaukee for a socialistic country. Henry Ford increased the wages of his workers so that they could buy his cars. The Milwaukee unemployed will no longer be able to buy motorcycles. But workers in China will make their one dollar an hour giving great profits to Harley Davidson company. We may criticize socialism but US businesses are dependent on it for making lots of money. Germany, so much smalle, is the second largest exporter, just after China. It had been first until the rise of China. The things we might export are now made abroad in China and other socialistic countries so we can’t export them. Germany does not outsource its work and it pays its workers at least as high as US workers. We are also dependent on China for everything we do. China buys more US Treasury notes than Americans do. They lend us money to do things so that we don’t have to tax people. US taxes are the lowest of all the industrialized nations. We are a tax haven. When it comes to health care the US ranks from 37 to 33 on the various measures, including longevity, infant mortality, etc. Japan provides health care for all, many more MRIs and CATs per capita, and they do it for half the cost… Doctors in Japan probably should be paid more but I don’t notice any influx of Japanese doctorshere. They must be content. George Bush took over AIG and instituted TARP but I don’t recall anybody calling him a socialist. The temporary takeover of companies is often necessary when the companies are failing. The gov’t relinquishes control once the company has recovered. Where’s the socialism? The Bush administration regretted not coming to the aid of Lehman Brothers. They weren’t temporary socialists in enough cases in their own opinion. Let’s stop demonizing the way things are throughout the world and look around. The disappearance of Catholicism in Ireland has nothing to do with its economic system, it has to do with the criminality in the church.The church is more responsible for the loss of faith than any social system. Everybody should relax and appreciate what is good in capitalism, socialism, social welfare programs, and most of all in the mix of all these. There is nothing ungodly about the Norwegian gov’t owning their oil industry. It just means that there is no poverty in the country which is more than we can say. Cheer up, some of you sound desperately hateful. Peace.

 

[sedonaman]

… I don’t remember the church criticizing Israel. There is nothing ungodly about Israel.I don’t even remember the pope criticizing the socialistic programs of Italy. …

You won’t hear the pope criticize individual countries; he criticizes/condemns systems.
See the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS (On Socialism)

ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13APOST.HTM

It explains why socialism is condemned.

P.S. You might organize your posts into smaller paragraphs, each one covering a point. You might also include some references so we can check out your claims, which were so many your post sounded like rambling.

 

[Vezelay]

That’s a very very oooolllllldddd encyclical. Socialism today bears very little resemblance to what was thought of as socialism way back then. I don’t suppose they ever thought there would be Christian socialists. Much of what was thought as the result of socialism has not, in fact, come to pass. None of the socialistic western European countries frown on religion. There seems to be nothing godless about them. Many of them (France for one) even finance religious schools. People in those countries seem generous and caring and don’t seem to have been negatively affected by the economic system of their respective nations. Danish people I have met in Copenhagen actually feel sorry for us. They are appalled at conditions in the US and find us wanting in our concern for the poor and those with no health insurance. They are very happy people and wouldn’t consider living anywhere else. Standards of living in those countries are higher on many scales than those here. “Materialism” has harmed them a lot less than it has harmed Americans.
If the pope criticizes systems rather than countries, just which systems does he criticize and where on earth would these systems be found? Do “systems” exist apart from actual countries like Israel and Italy? What is the point of criticizing systems if one cannot decipher where those systems are??? How would one know where to find “bad” systems? How would one know which economic systems of which countries the pope does not approve of? In other words, how or why does it matter if the church disapproves of socialism if we can’t know where or when such socialism exists? It seems the issue barely exists. The church disapproves of some abstract theory but it doesn’t disapprove of any enactment of that theory. Everybody loves Israel, that fine socialistic, social welfare state.
Sorry I am too difficult for you to follow. Stream of consciousness takes me over and I just run on and on. You can go on the internet and google all sorts of issues to find out about them. Or you could watch PBS specials that examine health systems throughout the world (that’s where I learned that Japanese doctors really ought to be paid more). Or you could just read good magazines and papers. Of course a lot of my experience is direct, being in China, Denmark, living in France and meeting Canadians.

 

[sedonaman]

That’s a very very oooolllllldddd encyclical. Socialism today bears very little resemblance to what was thought of as socialism way back then. I don’t suppose they ever thought there would be Christian socialists. Much of what was thought as the result of socialism has not, in fact, come to pass. None of the socialistic western European countries frown on religion. There seems to be nothing godless about them. Many of them (France for one) even finance religious schools. People in those countries seem generous and caring and don’t seem to have been negatively affected by the economic system of their respective nations. Danish people I have met in Copenhagen actually feel sorry for us. They are appalled at conditions in the US and find us wanting in our concern for the poor and those with no health insurance. They are very happy people and wouldn’t consider living anywhere else. Standards of living in those countries are higher on many scales than those here. “Materialism” has harmed them a lot less than it has harmed Americans.
If the pope criticizes systems rather than countries, just which systems does he criticize and where on earth would these systems be found? Do “systems” exist apart from actual countries like Israel and Italy? What is the point of criticizing systems if one cannot decipher where those systems are??? How would one know where to find “bad” systems? How would one know which economic systems of which countries the pope does not approve of? In other words, how or why does it matter if the church disapproves of socialism if we can’t know where or when such socialism exists? It seems the issue barely exists. The church disapproves of some abstract theory but it doesn’t disapprove of any enactment of that theory. Everybody loves Israel, that fine socialistic, social welfare state.
Sorry I am too difficult for you to follow. Stream of consciousness takes me over and I just run on and on. You can go on the internet and google all sorts of issues to find out about them. Or you could watch PBS specials that examine health systems throughout the world (that’s where I learned that Japanese doctors really ought to be paid more). Or you could just read good magazines and papers. Of course a lot of my experience is direct, being in China, Denmark, living in France and meeting Canadians.

You obviously didn’t read the encyclical.

PBS went hard left about 10-12 years ago.

 

[Black_Rose]

No rich person who is sane would work hard to get the government to take away more of his money. They want socialism so they can be in charge of the rest of us; and, of course, like the pigs in Animal Farm, they will still have their wealth while controlling ours. That’s why we have people like Noam Chomsky who is actually a poster child for capitalism tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=1019055 .

There is nothing inherently contradictory when on simultaneously condemns an economic system, but enriches themselves under it. Since most people will exploit the system for their personal benefit when the opportunity presents itself is not surprising. Does anyone realistic expect people just to renounce their self-interests, especially under a system that extols the pursuit of financial self-interest with the (relatively free) labor and financial markets, and selflessly pursue “the common good”? Socialism is a critique of the capitalist system; it primarily condemns capitalism and its advocates (since from the socialist perspective, they promote an “unjust” economic system) as immoral, not capitalists themselves since as market participants merely act in their amoral self interest. The aggregation of amoral individuals participating in market transactions can collectively result in an immoral, oppressive economic system that can lead to complacency and tolerance for the suffering of others.

But what about the moral justification of the current economic regime, which admittedly is not a “free market” although the elites do say (but probably not believe) that the “free market” is the ideal? Are the rich, the financially successful people in the current economic regime, morally upright people or advanced the interests of the nation/world through technological progress and innovation? Regarding the latter, the wealthy have no qualms about reneging on their promises to pay for mortgages when they have the ability to pay it off. They just strategically default when it is in their best interests.

 

[sedonaman]

There is nothing inherently contradictory when on simultaneously condemns an economic system, but enriches themselves under it.

Whaaaat ???

A person uses an economic system and enriches himself under it, but in essence, advocates that the rest of us not to do the same, and you see nothing contradictory?

This is a fraud exposed by the fact that they themselves do not live according to their professed ideologies that they would force on the rest of us and should be proof-positive to the most causal observer and dimmest Doubting Thomas, with only the least of their wits about them, that it is a fraud, for if it were not, they would be living it. [Note: this is the same criticism that is made of Catholics who profess one thing but don’t practice it.]

Since most people will exploit the system for their personal benefit when the opportunity presents itself is not surprising. Does anyone realistic expect people just to renounce their self-interests, especially under a system that extols the pursuit of financial self-interest with the (relatively free) labor and financial markets, and selflessly pursue “the common good”?

Of course not, and that’s why socialism won’t work. You might be interested in reading “The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp” by R.A. Radford, which illustrates that people naturally engage in free trade when left alone. In this scenario, POWs start out equal at the beginning of the month with the distribution of “care” packages, but through free trade among themselves, they are able to exchange items they don’t want for more of those they do. As a result, the well-being of the whole camp was raised. A socialist injected into this picture would bemoan the inequality of a POW having two chocolate bars instead of one and another having two packs of cigarettes instead of one. He would immediately demand a more “just” redistribution by making everyone equally miserable.

… The aggregation of amoral individuals participating in market transactions can collectively result in an immoral, oppressive economic system that can lead to complacency and tolerance for the suffering of others.

Some people are amoral; some are even immoral; but you can’t make them moral by mandating it. The individuals participating in socialism do result in an immoral, oppressive economic system that does lead to the suffering of others, and on a much grander scale.

But what about the moral justification of the current economic regime, which admittedly is not a “free market” although the elites do say (but probably not believe) that the “free market” is the ideal? Are the rich, the financially successful people in the current economic regime, morally upright people or advanced the interests of the nation/world through technological progress and innovation? Regarding the latter, the wealthy have no qualms about reneging on their promises to pay for mortgages when they have the ability to pay it off. They just strategically default when it is in their best interests.

That is not the fault of capitalism; it’s the failure to enforce the laws and regulations across the board. If I were to default, my credit would tank, and so should the rich man’s.

The main thrust of your post is to justify socialism by criticizing what you think is capitalism. The onus is on the advocate of change to prove what he advocates is justified logically, and not by just tearing down the existing status quo.

In any event, the Church has condemned socialism and has not retracted that condemnation. For all its faults, capitalism has delivered a much better human condition than any other system, and you can’t deny it.

 

[Vezelay]

You obviously didn’t read the encyclical.

PBS went hard left about 10-12 years ago.

So I went upstairs and looked for the encyclical. It had indeed been many long years since I had read it. The 1878 turgid prose was pretty hardgoing. It was difficult to decipher what the heck he was trying to get at. Of course there were no socialistic countries. He was thinking of theories written about but which had never been put into practice. As far as I could determine there was nothing in there pertinent to socialism that exists today in most of the industrialized nations in part. Even China is turning toward some capitalism. I don’t know about Cuba but all nations are a mix of capitalism and socialism. The good thing about my foray into the encyclicals last night was that I came upon “Mater et Magistra” Christianity and Social Progress, a handsome little green booklet with a study guide in the back no less. The great thing about this more contemporary ('60’s) work is that it starts with a summary of all the encyclicals that have dealt with social justice, including Leo’s Quod apostolici muneris, Rerum novarum, Pius XII’s Pentecost address in which “he taught that the basic material benefits of life should be distributed according to norms of equity and charity, helped by a juridical order established supranationally as well as nationally.” In his Summi pontificatus he dealt with function of the State in the modern world and, holy cow, I was wowed by the embrace of what they call “distributionism” This from Pius XI "“it is today advisable as our predecessor clearly pointed out, that work agreements be temperred in certain respects with partnership arrangements, so that workers and officials become participants in ownership, or management or share in some manner in profits.”
“Pius XI was not unaware that in the 40 yrs that had elapsed since the appearance of LeoXIII’s Letter, historical conditions had prodoundly altered. In fact, unrestricted competion,because of its own inherent tendencies, had ended by almost destroying itself. It had c aused a great accumulation of wealth and a corresponding concentration of power in the hands of a few who are frequently not the owners, but only the t rustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure… finally, on a world wide scale, governments should seek the economics good of all peoples… both within individual countries and among nations there be established a juridical order, with appropriate pulic and private institutions, in spired by social justice, so that those who are involved in economic activities arre enable to carry out their tasks in conformity with the common good.”
And on and on it goes. I was overwhelmed by the constant references to the “national wealth” and the “common good.” Do go back and read M&M and you will have a primer on all the encyclicals dealing with social justice. I think you will find there is reason that the church does not criticize western European mixes of capitalism and socialism and the creation of welfare states everywhere.
Happy informed reading…

 

[sedonaman]

… The 1878 turgid prose was pretty hardgoing. It was difficult to decipher what the heck he was trying to get at.

ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13APOST.HTM is not a difficult read.

Of course there were no socialistic countries. He was thinking of theories written about but which had never been put into practice.

So? Are you one of those who have to experience life in order to understand it?

As far as I could determine there was nothing in there pertinent to socialism that exists today in most of the industrialized nations in part.

I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but the above link disagrees with you.

I don’t know about Cuba but all nations are a mix of capitalism and socialism.

Castro’s motto is, “Socialism or Death!”

… The great thing about this more contemporary ('60’s) work is that it starts with a summary of all the encyclicals that have dealt with social justice, including Leo’s Quod apostolici muneris, Rerum novarum, Pius XII’s Pentecost address in which “he taught that the basic material benefits of life should be distributed according to norms of equity and charity, helped by a juridical order established supranationally as well as nationally.” In his Summi pontificatus he dealt with function of the State in the modern world and, holy cow, I was wowed by the embrace of what they call “distributionism” This from Pius XI "“it is today advisable as our predecessor clearly pointed out, that work agreements be temperred in certain respects with partnership arrangements, so that workers and officials become participants in ownership, or management or share in some manner in profits.”

“Pius XI was not unaware that in the 40 yrs that had elapsed since the appearance of LeoXIII’s Letter, historical conditions had prodoundly altered. In fact, unrestricted competion,because of its own inherent tendencies, had ended by almost destroying itself. It had c aused a great accumulation of wealth and a corresponding concentration of power in the hands of a few who are frequently not the owners, but only the t rustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure… finally, on a world wide scale, governments should seek the economics good of all peoples… both within individual countries and among nations there be established a juridical order, with appropriate pulic and private institutions, in spired by social justice, so that those who are involved in economic activities arre enable to carry out their tasks in conformity with the common good.”

Then I suggest you act according to your professed beliefs and turn over all your income and assets to the government for a more equitable and charitable distribution. It never ceases to amaze me that advocates of socialism place more faith in government bureaucrats and politicians to make a more “just” distribution of wealth than them greedy capitalists, trustees, and directors. The irony of ironies is that conservatives [e.g., Ronald Reagan] who wanted to abolish Social Security and allow workers instead to invest in ownership of companies would have eventually resulted in “workers and officials becoming participants in ownership, or management, [and] share in some manner in profits." But would the socialist politician have any of it? Not on your life; it would make people too free of government. Pius XIII was right: they wish to bring to a head what they have long been planning – the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.

As for reading, I suggest you read Animal Farm by George Orwell. It is a lot easier and only about 125 pages [including pictures]. Salient is the fate of the puppies born to the mother dog.

 

[Monk21]

LOL! Look, everybody, at the above quote from someone who uses Michael Moore as a source!!!

Judging from the other posters, you should take some of your own advice.

I love the way people jump at something and make it out bigger than what it is. I never said I use M. Moore as a source. So let’s keep it honest. All I said that nobody has sued him…And the nonsense that right wingers don’t sue is just tha, nonsense.
I must say though that Michael Moore’s movie Sicko was right on with what we have in Canada. And he used real people who suffered in the states but got no help from the insurance companies even though they paid for it.
How many people here saw Sicko?

 

[estesbob]

I love the way people jump at something and make it out bigger than what it is. I never said I use M. Moore as a source. So let’s keep it honest. All I said that nobody has sued him…And the nonsense that right wingers don’t sue is just tha, nonsense.
I must say though that Michael Moore’s movie Sicko was right on with what we have in Canada. And he used real people who suffered in the states but got no help from the insurance companies even though they paid for it.
How many people here saw Sicko?

So you don’t use Michael Moore as a source but now you’re telling us to watch one of his movies?

 

[jimpres]

So you don’t use Michael Moore as a source but now you’re telling us to watch one of his movies?

As far as I am concerned MM and others who support Castro, Hugo, etc are on my list of do not support. Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Danny Glover won’t pay a dime to see anything they produce.

 

[Monk21]

As far as I am concerned MM and others who support Castro, Hugo, etc are on my list of do not support. Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Danny Glover won’t pay a dime to see anything they produce.

Since when is just agreeing with Cuba’s medical system is that supporting Castro. That is what I mean when people let one thing rule 1000 other things that have no bearing on an issue.

 

[Monk21]

So you don’t use Michael Moore as a source but now you’re telling us to watch one of his movies?

Why would I use M.M for a source when I experience it all here and my relatives experience it all in the states?

 

[jimpres]

Since when is just agreeing with Cuba’s medical system is that supporting Castro. That is what I mean when people let one thing rule 1000 other things that have no bearing on an issue.

I never said one thing about “medical” only that those mentioned support the socialist system that has never worked throughout history. Sure mention China, then mention the human rights practiced there.

 

[Monk21]

Apparently, you didn’t read “Why Conspiracy Theories Persist” tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B

How abt an article on the truth…that is a good one?

 

[Monk21]

I never said one thing about “medical” only that those mentioned support the socialist system that has never worked throughout history. Sure mention China, then mention the human rights practiced there.

I don’t know of any other way that M.M. supports Castro. He does like his medical system though.

 

[sedonaman]

How abt an article on the truth…that is a good one?

popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

 

[ERose]

I don’t know of any other way that M.M. supports Castro. He does like his medical system though.

Where does M.M go to get medical attention I wonder?

 

[ERose]

There is nothing inherently contradictory when on simultaneously condemns an economic system, but enriches themselves under it. Since most people will exploit the system for their personal benefit when the opportunity presents itself is not surprising. Does anyone realistic expect people just to renounce their self-interests, especially under a system that extols the pursuit of financial self-interest with the (relatively free) labor and financial markets, and selflessly pursue “the common good”? Socialism is a critique of the capitalist system; it primarily condemns capitalism and its advocates (since from the socialist perspective, they promote an “unjust” economic system) as immoral, not capitalists themselves since as market participants merely act in their amoral self interest. The aggregation of amoral individuals participating in market transactions can collectively result in an immoral, oppressive economic system that can lead to complacency and tolerance for the suffering of others.

But what about the moral justification of the current economic regime, which admittedly is not a “free market” although the elites do say (but probably not believe) that the “free market” is the ideal? Are the rich, the financially successful people in the current economic regime, morally upright people or advanced the interests of the nation/world through technological progress and innovation? Regarding the latter, the wealthy have no qualms about reneging on their promises to pay for mortgages when they have the ability to pay it off. They just strategically default when it is in their best interests.

Tell me if I am wrong here. Liberals by and large are big advocates for socialism where conservatives are advocates of captialism. The big statements on the left is that liberals are more compassionate and more loving than those evil conservatives who only care for themselves and to h*** with everybody else. Let me know if I said anything wrong yet.

Anyway here is an interesting point that I discovered. Liberals on average make about 6% more in income than conservatives, yet conservatives give on average 30% more of their money and time to charity. How can that be Black Rose? What is wrong here?

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Here is something else I find very interesting as well:

Here is a quote concerning the Obama family’s charitable donations over the years: “Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama’s family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations – about 1 percent of their annual earnings. In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent).” The link is below:
huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-tax-returns-low-on-_n_93353.html

Here is another one concerning the evil Cheney and his charity donations during 2005: Adjusted Gross Income of 8.82 million (the evil rich); Charitable donations of 6.87 million (what?!?!, must be a typo). This came from MSNBC of all places. Here is the link below:

msnbc.msn.com/id/12318056/

Bush during his presidency gave more than 10% of his income to charity that is 4% more than Obama’s best year when he was running for the presidency.

Biden averages a wopping $369.00/year in charitable donations as can be seen here:

usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

Here is another link for you:

tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/charity-donations-and-liberal-hypocricy/

Here is what these links show that by and large liberals are hypocrites. They call conservatives evil capitalists with no heart, yet it is these evil people that do more for their fellow man than the loving and gentle and compassionate liberals.

Hopefully this opens the eyes of some of you out there.

 

[ERose]

Here is one more sign of the hypocrisy of the left. Back during the healthcare debate in the House and the single payer was still part of the bill, my representative, John Fleming, proposed an ammendment to the bill that would force all federal government politians to participate in the single payer system with the rest of America. If was voted down, by who? The Democrats. Hypocrites. They were more than willing to force us to live under a system that they themselves refuse to apply to themselves. Hypocrites.