Catholic Social Thought

[PeterPaul]

I have been asking this on other fora. I was wondering what OBOBers think the best economic system for man is.

I'll include these dictionary definitions.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

 

[ZooMom]

Theoretically? Or in actual practice?


And it's good to see you. We've missed you.

 

[St. Amadeus II]

If you compare the way the Church should operate to those systems, it's very much Communist/Socialist. We are supposed to give up everything for the common good, and share everything amongst each other, and we are all considered equals.

 

[ps139]

Hey PP!!!!!!

Good question! I'm not sure how to answer....
I really do not know. The Early Church described in Acts seems somewhat "communist," without the atheistic and other negative connotations that word implies.
Capitalism would be great if there were enough philanthropists with good consciences.
So I really don't know, I'm interested in others' opinions.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Socialism is great in small groups of like minded people. Early Christians shared everything in common. Unfortunately, on a large scale, you factor in a bit of human greed and ambition, and suddenly everyone on the top is filthy rich and the rest are destitute. Captialism is nice....but you factor in that same greed and ambition and suddenly you have workers being treated like animals, oil companies ruining the rain forest and killing its human inhabitants in south and central America, and other such atrocities. I chose "other." What other? God knows

 

[gzt]

anybody familiar with g.k. chesterton's distributivism?

 

[PeterPaul]

Yes, gzt. I've been reading him and Belloc for the past two months and find distributists extremely appealing.

 

[thereselittleflower]

LOL

You know, neither of the two choices seem right, neither fits the Church . .

So as I read down, I see that G K Chesterton advocates distributivism . .


Anything G K Chseterton says is good stuff, so this must be good too and very Catholic!

I vote for distributivism!

(now to learn what it is!!



Actually, a theocratic benevolent monarchy is the governmental system that best fits Catholicism . . so an economic system that fits this governmental model would be most appropriate. (Probably what GK Chesterton is advocating ? ? ? )




Peace in Him!

 

[PeterPaul]

Theoretically? Or in actual practice?

I would say in practice, because theoretically, I can claim an apple can feed a million people. The only ideal is the ideal which leads to perfection (Christianity), and since economics can never be perfected, it must be that which bases itself on God's moral code.

 

[PeterPaul]

LOL

You know, neither of the two choices seem right, neither fits the Church . .

So as I read down, I see that G K Chesterton advocates distributivism . .


Anything G K Chseterton says is good stuff, so this must be good too and very Catholic!

I vote for distributivism!

(now to learn what it is!!



Actually, a theocratic benevolent monarchy is the governmental system that best fits Catholicism . . so an economic system that fits this governmental model would be most appropriate. (Probably what GK Chesterton is advocating ? ? ? )




Peace in Him!

The ChesterBelloc theory is one where property is evenly distributed (not redistribution of wealth) and that which encourages ownership, both of property and ownership of (small) business. It promotes competition (though not targeted to destroy it), and limited government.

Belloc believed one was either a wage slave (employee) or a State slave (socialism) and he and Chesterton believed distributism broke both molds by ensuring that neither unbridled capitalism nor State controlled property and egalitarianism (both which do not reflect humanity or God's moral law) were the law of the land.

In today's economy man is raised to have liquid expectations and not property. What we have is an unchecked market which we shrug off as fair, as though it were neutral and mechanical. Yet, an economy must yield to the desire man has to own rather than work for. It is so mechanical in fact, that it leads to materialism (Belloc and Chesterton's premise is that capitalism and socialism are not so distant as we would like to believe. Both reduce man instead of elevating them). They theorised that eventually, in a capitalist system, the consumer would not have the financial ability to keep up, and there would be none left to consume. They prophecised that eventually large entities would take the place of small ones (Home Depot gobbling up the local hardware store for instance, or the destruction of the bookstore by one company eating up another and another eventually leaving only a few competitors just as large).

Chesterton's famous quote: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists"

Another one: "Our society is so abnormal that the normal man never dreams of having the normal occupation of looking after his own property. When he chooses a trade, he chooses one of the ten thousand trades that involve looking after other people's property"

For further reading, you can buy books at www.ihspress.com

or read http://www.medaille.com/dist_intro.htm

 

[Highway of Life]

Hey PP!!!!!!

Good question! I'm not sure how to answer....
I really do not know. The Early Church described in Acts seems somewhat "communist," without the atheistic and other negative connotations that word implies.
Capitalism would be great if there were enough philanthropists with good consciences.
So I really don't know, I'm interested in others' opinions.

Oh, yes, very true.

However, if you are talking about the Church itself that is one thing, if you apply it to non-Christians as well, you would have to do something different.

I don't really know myself.
Highway

 

[bigsierra]

Although it's not a perfect system, I picked Capitalism. distributivism would be great, but if it's not something that we see as an option now. The economy we see here on earth will always be imperfect. We don't have he true capitalist economy in the US. The amount of social programs we have seem appropriate.

 

[faerieevaH]

A combination! Like in the Scandinavian countries, or in Belgium: a moderated capitalism with social aspects. Where individual ownership is encouraged and one can personally get ahead, but where there is also a solidarity and social aspect that is government (or church) regulated to counter the aspect of unlimited greed. Basically: the in between version. Unchecked capitalism leads to horrendous gaps and a striving towards wealth as the only goal for some. (who then trample over the others). Unchecked socialism can lead to laziness and lack of personal and general ambition. So a combination in which both keep the balance of eachother.

 

[Markh]

yes a combination is required.

The main fault of capitalism in my opinion is its tendancy towards individualism in the social sphere. Because you are encourage to be individualist in the washing powder you select and the way you spend your money, this attitude, I think leaks into the social sphere and you have the same attitiude in relationships, sex and pursuit of happiness.

The attitude also leads onto materialism.

Thefore, I think a society with the family as the basis is best- and more policies aimed towards families than individuals as this encourages co-operation.

 

[marc37]

people have to realize that we do not live in a democracy but in a theocracy!!!!!
if they want it or not or if they like it or not,thats why I never vote.
maybe a little of topic but I just wanted to share

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

As someone who has studied how economic systems actually work I would have to say that the Church is going to have trouble with all of them.

The real issue is not the system that is in place but the way it is used (and abused) by individuals to the detrement of others. Given this, it is not the type of economic system that is in place but the collective morality of the society in which it exists that is a issue. A capitialist system that is being used to systematically disenfranshize a large part of the population is probably going to be looked upon with distain by the church. Contract this with a socialist society that is being used to ensure that all people in the society are working and taken care of to some minimum level of human level of decency.

 

[geocajun]

Charlie, what are your thoughts on distributivism?

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Socialism is great in small groups of like minded people. Early Christians shared everything in common. Unfortunately, on a large scale, you factor in a bit of human greed and ambition, and suddenly everyone on the top is filthy rich and the rest are destitute. Captialism is nice....but you factor in that same greed and ambition and suddenly you have workers being treated like animals, oil companies ruining the rain forest and killing its human inhabitants in south and central America, and other such atrocities. I chose "other." What other? God knows

 

[PeterPaul]

Personally I don't see a combination as effective. Both apply Darwinism. One applies the "survival of the fittest" and the other the materialism of man by reducing him to an animal, and sans uniqueness. Both employee labor without ownership.

When we combine them, we find ourselves still as wage slaves (either to the State or to another's property). Both combined or separate lead to materialism.

Belloc said that in both capitalism and socialism we lease our property but never own it. In the case of the latter, the State owns property and claims it is public ownership (yeah right). However who the public is and how many persons reasonably make up the public is never defined. In Capitalist societies no one truly owns his property (unless one were to go Libertarian) because of taxation and because they always work for someone else.

Just to comment, while we may consider distributism to be difficult to acheive, I would argue that the time is ripe. Lately, as some of you know, I've been contemplating a small business. My mother owned a Spanish bookstore in the States for 17 years. After inquiring with her, my thoughts have been confirmed. Today there is no difference (security wise) between owning my own business or remaining an employee of "x" company. There isn't. My friends think I'm nuts, but its true. It used to be that working for a company would guarantee one (with the exception of liquidation) a retirement. Not anymore. Now, if they so choose, the company may pack up and move to Canada (Lufthansa airlines reservations is a great example). And what if you have two years to retire? Well, guess what? You get a two year severance package and that's that (I'm sure Cosmic Charlie isn't shocked at all). One can argue capitalism never intended this, while Chesterton would say this was the inevitability of capitalism.

So what difference is there between owning and working for someone else? None. I have quite a few naysayers of course, who claim I'll have to pay for my own health benefits. But, the way my company works, I'm paying for 2/3 of it anyway (I checked with Oxford and our plan is lousy).

Now some of you may say that we can't legislate society to stop shopping at malls and start going to local shops. Perhaps some of you think a great devastation would have to occur for that to happen. Possibly, if you think this way, you may be right. Or, we can encourage others to learn about distributism, and, as with other subjects like homeschooling, we may start to change our lives in accord with past Popes' and their concepts of economic thought.

I have to thank Markh on this, because his links, on a previous debate on economics led me to reread the encyclicals and eventually led me to read Belloc's (I had read his "The Free Press" and "The Party System") on economics. So thanks Mark.

 

[Maximus]

The trouble with socialism and other schemes for the redistribution of wealth is that they concentrate power in the hands of the central government. That is ALWAYS a mistake and leads to tyranny and oppression.

The government exists to protect human rights, which include equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. When the government gets involved in adjusting inequities of outcome, it always becomes a monster.