Socialist Ideologies

[DJ B.K.]

The Catholic economic expert PeterPaul speaks!

 

[PeterPaul]

No, I'm not an expert. But thanks POD!

When I read and reread (because I was flabbergasted) the encyclicals, I fell in love. Once again, the Church was right and not me! I love it when She does that!

 

[PeterPaul]

BTW: I'm doing some transition personally this week, but I hope to have a "Distributist Apologetics" page on my blog compiled within the next week or so.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

PeterPaul made an excellent post, and I am in agreement Capitalism provides us with freedom, but we need to be responsible with that freedom and work for the betterment of all mankind.
Unrestricted capitalism leads to predatory business practices, such as bulk pricing, that favor large companies, and enslave the greater portion of the population. What was meant to bring freedom, would actually enslave greater numbers instead. This is not Catholic.
Socialism and Capitalism are extremes. Like you said, PP, they both have some truth and each has a dark side. I am very glad that you made your post PP, and I would like to hear more about this distributist economic plan

 

[InnerPhyre]

Well according to the Bible, the first Christian communities lived together with no personal property, but sharing everything in common. Socialism works great in small groups of like-minded people. On a national scale though, it can be a disaster.

 

[PeterPaul]

BWAP, I'd be happy to. In the meantime, go to my blog and view some of the links I provided.

I would, in the future, be happy to discuss distributism, as long as I didn't get the old rhetoric of "it's not going to happen" nonsense I get from some, as if I could not debate the realism of abstinence and chastity programs, blah blah. As Catholics, we are to live the ideal and share it. We can' envison a St. Patrick overcome by so many snakes, he decides to leave Ireland, or a St. John the Baptist, lonely voice in the wilderness, a fool for speaking by himself in today's world. On the contrary, as Catholics, we need feed ourselves by the Church's milk, even when the grain is against her.

Interestingly, distributism is so good and true, that even some Jews and atheists support it. Just goes to show, when the Church speaks, truth opens minds.

Will it take work? Yes. Will it happen before Christ's Second Coming? Dunno. Will we one day have to start over due to war or environmental upheavel? Possibly.

The best thing when discussing the Church is reading what she has to say.

 

[PeterPaul]

Well according to the Bible, the first Christian communities lived together with no personal property, but sharing everything in common. Socialism works great in small groups of like-minded people. On a national scale though, it can be a disaster.

Inner, they were also in hiding. As you know, the Church guides us, and the OT as well as the papal encyclicals ensure us the right to posessions.

 

[Dream]

Unrestricted capitalism leads to predatory business practices, such as bulk pricing, that favor large companies, and enslave the greater portion of the population. What was meant to bring freedom, would actually enslave greater numbers instead. This is not Catholic.
Socialism and Capitalism are extremes. Like you said, PP, they both have some truth and each has a dark side. I am very glad that you made your post PP, and I would like to hear more about this distributist economic plan

Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[Veritas]

In answer to the second part, for those who believe there is injustice in the way things are structured in this world, there are things that can be done, in a personal way, in supporting agencies such as CAFOD (a uk example), buying Fairtrade products which ensure a fair price is paid to those who produce the goods.
http://www.cafod.org.uk/get_involved/campaigning/make_poverty_history
But in doing so we should remember the great poverty that Mother Theresa picked up on in our society- of older people who die alone and remain undiscovered for weeks, of children killed before they are born and look to see what we (rather than our goverments) should do to help. She was very emphatic that her co-workers in countries around the world should not just raise money for the poor "out there," in distant lands but care for the poor that they had with them, on their doorsteps, not just poor in monetry terms but in spiritual terms.

Communism and Socialism seek to achieve the impossible and if we look for them to create the kingdom of God here and now we will be sadly disappointed.

If only you'd let us rep you!

 

[Veritas]

You have a lot of talk Mark, but very little real world knowledge. You say that there are no opportunities in a free market, unless one is born into them?
People that say those things are only making excuses for the enforcement of tyranny. One person starts to do good, then that must be bad, not everyone is able to do that; its mean to be good . That is what socialism teaches.
Let's see what happened to me. Bad gene pool? check, no one in my family line for four generations had graduated college. Bad family upbringing? check, my father was not very helpful, and my mother was over bearing. They were completely clueless and inept in helping the children make it in the real world, so much so that my brother is now incarcerated and in year 6 of a 10-20yr sentence. Where I was born in society? Low level? check, members of my family were frequently outcast and scorned, not known as having great social status.
My parents did one good thing. They sent me to Catholic school, but I squandered that opportunity. I was almost expelled from high school, but managed to graduate. Tried to go to college, but dropped out twice. Tried the armed services, but couldn't make it there either. I was pretty much adrift at age 21, began to hang out with drug addicts and ex-cons. I was a horrible person. You would think that my life was over, and I would never amount to anything, but I decided to look for opportunity. It would be a long road, but it had to start somewhere.
I had a job washing dishes, it wasn't much, but it was something. I could have quit and complained that the job was beneath me or that the government was unfair cause I did not have a better job, but I decided to put my hands into the muck, in order to claw my way out; I kept that job for six years. I came home smelling like filth and garbage.
While I had that job, I tried going to school at one of those two year quick job community college programs. I got a job as a lab tech, but was almost fired from that job, so I looked for more opportunity. I quit my day job, and moved to the night shift, midnight to 8Am. This was a much better fit, and it allowed me to complete my education. I enrolled in college full time durng the day. I worked full time 40+ hrs per week at night, and went to school full time in the day. I slept in the afternoon and evening. You could say that it was rough, but I completed my bachelor's degree in 2yrs. I then applied to med school and got in, completed my residency training, got a job in practice and now I am a partner. It was 13yrs ago that I started med school, and it was over 20yrs that I went from no hope loser to anesthesiologist.
In a socialist society, I probably would not have done what I did. Socialism would have had my life prepared for me, and I would not have to put in the effort. Life would be mundane and preprogramed. It would not inspire great accom;ishments, because it punishes accomplishment. God does not want this, or He would have put it in the ten commandments. There is no commandment that says all property belongs to the state. There is no commandment that says accomplishment is bad, but socialism does say that by its confiscatory taxation standards.
Capitalism requires alot of hard work, but it offers great reward. I did what I did for freedom, and so I could share the joy of that freedom with others. You can't tell me that capitalism does not offer opportunity, people just have to be willing to take it. Sometimes the opportunity involves taking menial jobs in order to get to something else, or it could involve sacrifice of time. People are only bound by their willingness to take the opportunity, even if it is against all odds. I should know because I did it. I heard this song as a teenager, it brings me a special joy today:

So what you're saying is your pass gas? You took a long circuitious route to get there!

 

[PeterPaul]

Mark I do want to respond to your post. I did not become a redistributionist, but rather a distributist. A redistributionist wants to redistribute the wealth of some to all. I do not agree with this. Like it or not, if it is not theft, then we are saying that wealth belonged to all in the first place, and like a plow, someone or some people stole it and we are taking it back. I would disagree with that. Wealth assumes that some have accumulated not by force but by coaxing (buying my product for example).

Distributism notes that all have a right to private property and that land should be distributed to all, not by taking someone's existing property and dividing it, but by allowing private property to be cheap and accessible as security is man's right, not priveldge. In fact, before consumption even begins, man must have security.

In today's society, it is the opposite. Man views income and consumer goods as greater than real estate. Real estate must not be the casino of today. It must be a good affordable to all men, thus allowing them to begin businesses and cultivation of their own lands as first, and luxurious goods as second.

Greed will always exist, as it is a sin, however man must have stability. Ask all the minorities if they like renting in NYC and if their desperate clinging to employment will give them security in their living space. Most would say no. They would say they are working just to pay the rent. If, however, they could afford housing (not the State's "Affordable Housing" but neither the market dictating housing) they would. In fact, less would probably be involved in desperate measures if they had at least this security.

What's more is the State as Landlord, where even when your property is paid, they continue to excise taxation on the property. This is theft. Because let's face it, Socialist or Capitalist state leases property. So, an end to this is what distributists argue. Man must have security, and taxation with the penalty of possibility of loss (property) is unjust. It is wrong for the IRS to jump in your house and seize your possessions because property must never belong to the State.

I would add that the State, when infringing on a public good (say telephones) must not tax for its own benefit, which it does today, where taxation in NY for the use of a home phone is nearly 20%. This then, serves the State's interest and not the public. As the State would argue that tax is meant to serve those who do not have it, yet realistically it may serve 1% of the population which does not. This then has become a part of the State's profit, not serving the public.

Unlike most capitalists or socialists, distributists do not see the current State as pater or mater or public advocate until I see it reflect eternal law, which it presently does not. We will continue to advocate Catholic teaching in business and laws, even while some of the very Catholics oppose such interference. But even when it does serve as advocate of the eternal law, it must be limited and left best to local guilds for pricing to the needs of the community, not an anonymous State or the majority of some other land, but the realities of a specific group of people. What is best in this land, may not be best in another. This may be wine country, and that one over there wheat.

Mark, you have done a good service in the regards of telling others their economy can not be overly individualistic, because you recognise that while we are individuals with our own attributes we are a society, and that what makes the individual is society, not just our own ends. What some fail to realise is that freedom is not anarchic. That we can do something does not mean we must do something, and that liberty, in order to be true, is not chaotic. There is a social obligation even when others do not see it. We must have a State which reflects the needs of the poor as economic realities are not mechanical, nor a science, but an art.

Thomas Storck but it best when he said that ethics are not subject to business, but vice versa. Something you made me realise. I just ask that you keep an open mind that we both may have been at the extremes of social/economic thought, and that as I have reconsidered some things, you may as well.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I can't help but think of the quote from Spiderman:

With great freedom (power) comes great responsibility, or the Biblical quote:

To whom much is given, much will be required.

 

[PeterPaul]

Here are the encylicals, for anyone who would like to read them.

http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/cst.htm

 

[PeterPaul]

One last thing. A good article "Neither Statism nor Individualism"

http://soli.inav.net/~jfischer/jun99/thomasstorck.html

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I just thought of two instances in the Bible where Christ rebukes both extreme capitalism and extreme socialism.

He rebuked extreme capitalists when He threw the moneycahngers out of the temple, as they had corrupted it with greed.

He rebuked extreme socialism when He rebuked Judas Iscariot for complaining that too much money was spent on perfume. You will have poor with you always, and you can do good to them anytime that you wish. Look at the good things that you have got; you will not have Me with you always.

I like the direction that this thread has taken, just thought that I would mention the bibllical themes

 

[PeterPaul]

The Ayn Rand Institute makes the point for what I am trying to convey about the extreme Capitalist (and I could quote Marx for the opposite effect). Read the logic used to discredit Christianity and how it truly is incompatible.

The Ten Commandments vs. America
Friday, August 29, 2003
By: Harry Binswanger

Can a nation of freedom, individualism and the pursuit of happiness be based on the Ten Commandments?

In all the discussion about displaying the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, has anyone asked the fundamental question: what are the Ten Commandments? What is their philosophic meaning and what kind of society do they imply?

Religious conservatives claim that the Ten Commandments supplied the moral grounding for the establishment of America. But is that even possible? Let's put aside the historical question of what sources the Founding Fathers, mostly Deists, drew upon. The deeper question is: can a nation of freedom, individualism and the pursuit of happiness be based on the Ten Commandments?

Let's look at the commandments. The wording differs among the Catholic, Protestant and Hebrew versions, but the content is the same.

The first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God."

As first, it is the fundamental. Its point is the assertion that the individual is not an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in effect, "I own you; you must obey me."

Could America be based on this? Is such a servile idea even consistent with what America represents: the land of the free, independent, sovereign individual who exists for his own sake? The question is rhetorical.

The second commandment is an elaboration of the above, with material about not serving any other god and not worshipping "graven images" (idols). The Hebrew and Protestant versions threaten heretics with reprisals against their descendants--inherited sin--"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation . . ."

This primitive conception of law and morality flatly contradicts American values. Inherited guilt is an impossible and degrading concept. How can you be guilty for something you didn't do? In philosophic terms, it represents the doctrine of determinism, the idea that your choices count for nothing, that factors beyond your control govern your "destiny." This is the denial of free will and therefore of self-responsibility.

The nation of the self-made man cannot be squared with the ugly notion that you are to be punished for the "sin" of your great-grandfather.

The numbering differs among the various versions, but the next two or three commandments proscribe taking the Lord's name "in vain" and spending a special day, the Sabbath, in propitiating Him.

In sum, the first set of commandments orders you to bow, fawn, grovel and obey. This is impossible to reconcile with the American concept of a self-reliant, self-owning individual.

The middle commandment, "Honor thy father and mother," is manifestly unjust. Justice demands that you honor those who deserve honor, who have earned it by their choices and actions. Your particular father and mother may or may not deserve your honor--that is for you to judge on the basis of how they have treated you and of a rational evaluation of their moral character.

To demand that Stalin's daughter honor Stalin is not only obscene, but also demonstrates the demand for mindlessness implicit in the first set of commandments. You are commanded not to think or judge, but to jettison your reason and simply obey.

The second set of commandments is unobjectionable but is common to virtually every organized society--the commandments against murder, theft, perjury and the like. But what is objectionable is the notion that there is no rational, earthly basis for refraining from criminal behavior, that it is only the not-to-be-questioned decree of a supernatural Punisher that makes acts like theft and murder wrong.

The basic philosophy of the Ten Commandments is the polar opposite of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society. Freedom requires:
-- a metaphysics of the natural, not the supernatural; of free will, not determinism; of the primary reality of the individual, not the tribe or the family;
-- an epistemology of individual thought, applying strict logic, based on individual perception of reality, not obedience and dogma;
-- an ethics of rational self-interest, to achieve chosen values, for the purpose of individual happiness on this earth, not fearful, dutiful appeasement of "a jealous God" who issues "commandments."

Rather than the Ten Commandments, the actual grounding for American values is that captured by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged:

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."