Why As Catholics We Ought To Reject Capitialism

[Virgil the Roman]

No, because distributionism is taking of one person's wealth and distributing it among the rest against their will....

You have no clue, what it is you are talking about, do you? That is Socialism, you are referring to---which is a form of Communism that, according to Marxian theory, has not not been brought into the fruition of a classless, "communist" society.

 

[Antisock]

Subsidiarity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Subsidiarity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kudos. Reps to you.

 

[MoonlessNight]

No, because distributionism is taking of one person's wealth and distributing it among the rest against their will. This isn't what happened.

I know this has already been mentioned, but this isn't even close to what distributionism is about. It does express a preference for having property distributed in some sense. But it does this from a standpoint of affirming personal property. The idea is that you should never have to make your living using property that you have no share in, so that if your company fires you you have no means of providing for yourself. Nowhere in this equation does taking property from anyone come into play.

The distribution comes from, for instance, promoting jobs where a handyman owns his own tools rather than loaning them from a company. Or providing credit through a credit union owned by its members, rather than by a bank which has no loyalty or need to answer those who invest in it.

 

[fated]

Or, giving people fair raises, giving local people employment, compensating people with at least enough to meet their basic needs. You could say the distributionism begins at home.

You might be able to raise the upper income level taxes to how they were before Reagan grew the economy and Fed tax income by lowering them (they were like 90 percent???). It would be kind of a hatchet job, they you'd have to work some other mojo to keep owners (shareholders) from being over compensated as well. And then maybe some other stuff to keep labor in the states. I don't think the fed could find the will to do so, much less do so in an effective way, but, possibly, and possibly think of a much better method that I have.

It is too bad when people become so immoral that the government has to increase. Also, too bad this could be construed as radical socialism.

 

[SolomonVII]

......

It is too bad when people become so immoral that the government has to increase. Also, too bad this could be construed as radical socialism.

As if government of the people would be any more moral than the peopel themselves

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes, one must never capitialize.

Especially not to make the left into the Left.
Hell hath no fury like what happens in OBOB when that happens.
I suppose you had to be there...

 

[SolomonVII]

Actually what Scripture speaks about concerning the Early Christians, was pure communism.


Jim

If people were willing to sell off their property to fill the common pool, they were welcome to. No scripture was every written where this was a requirement of anyone.
Literal lightning bolts from heaven were used to strike down anyone who said they were part of that system, when they really had no intention of doing so.

It was very much private charity in the NT, purely voluntary, and the concept of private property was fully honored.
This shares a lot with a free enterprise economic system actually (except for getting zapped with the lightning bolts), and very little with any of the corporatist or socialist alternatives that exist to what is called capitalism today.

 

[Eucharisted]

To Participants in Capitalism and Ethics Colloquium, John Paul II, 14 January 1992
Leo XIII - Rerum Novarum
Laborem exercens - Ioannes Paulus PP. II - Encyclical Letter (1981.09.14)
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

Don't forget to listen to your Mother and Teacher the Church.

 

[ebia]

Don't forget to listen to your Mother and Teacher the Church.

Don't yer just luv those Cafeteria Catholic

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Don't yer just luv those Cafeteria Catholic

Cafeteria's closed.

 

[Simon_Templar]

It seems to me that people don't really understand capitalism and communism (at least if this conversation is anything to go by).

Capitalism and Communism are both generally described in terms of high level ecnomics and talk about "the means of production".

In capitalism, for example, the "means of production" are individually privately owned.

In communism, on the other hand, the "means of production" are owned by the collective.

Now, when people think of "the means of production" they generally think of factories, mines, etc. Those things are, of course, means of production, but again at a high level.

When you get down to the most basic level, the means of production are two things, property and labor.

In a capitalist view, property and labor belong to the individual to do with as he sees fit.

In the communist view, property and labor belong to the collective and not to any individual.


In short, capitalism is freedom and communism is slavery. Thats not just rhetoric, it is the fundamental truth of both systems. In one you are free to dispose of yourself and yours as you see fit. In the other you belong to the collective, and not to yourself.

The idea that the early Christians were communist is pure twaddle. It is abundantly clear in the New Testament that Christians owned their own property. Further they were not required to give anything, let alone everything to the Church.
See the words of Peter to Ananias and Saphira when they lied to the Holy Spirit 'while you owned the property it was yours to do with as you wished...'
From the mouth of St. Peter himself.

Now, the response I'm sure will be that Christians were encouraged to give, and if anyone was in want, their need was met by the rest of the believers. I agree, and I wish the Church functioned like this today.

However, in order to give, you must first own. In a communist system, no own can give anything because no one owns anything. They can not even give themselves, or their labor.
This effectively also makes Communism the most uncharitable of all economic systems because in a communist system it is impossible for anyone to give.

In a sense, Communism is anti-christ. This is obvious in the practical working out of the philosophy which was from its beginning atheistic. However, at a more fundamental level, it essentially depicts man as owned by 'the collective' the state, the class, the race, whatever... a collective which essentially does not exist in real terms. The individual is completely enslaved to and exists for human society. It is essentially the reverse of Christianity in which each individual belongs to God, and under God, to himself.

Distributivism is interesting in that in a sense it is not a new economic view, or theory but rather is is a modification of capitalism.
Distributivism is at the basic level fundamentally a capitalistic system because it requires individual, private ownership.

In a certain sense, distributivism could be argued to be fundamentally a return to pre-industrial economy. It has elements that are medieval, and so on.

However, distributivism is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed in that it is impossible to maintain.
Distributivism requires the freedom of capitalism. However it also requires the prevention of any one or few people accumulating too much so as to become "industrial".
It also requires a level of cooperative effort which is simply unrealistic given human nature.

In that sense it is a largely idealistic system that has little chance of ever happening, or working in reality.

 

[Fantine]

Until a reputable economist shows how distributism is a workable economic model for technologically advanced countries with large urban/suburban populations, an ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse culture, and a population of hundreds of millions all of this talk is either hot air or (more likely) a diversionary tactic by conservatives to prevent the poor and sick the help they need in any meaningful, effective way.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Until a reputable economist shows how distributism is a workable economic model for technologically advanced countries with large urban/suburban populations, an ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse culture, and a population of hundreds of millions all of this talk is either hot air or (more likely) a diversionary tactic by conservatives to prevent the poor and sick the help they need in any meaningful, effective way.

humorous. The conservatives view distributivism with distrust, seeing it as a likely liberal end around.

The liberals apparently see it as a conservative diversionary tactic.


personally, I'd like to see it... but I also, as previously stated, find it to be unrealistic.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

.... a diversionary tactic by conservatives to prevent the poor and sick the help they need in any meaningful, effective way.

Diversionary tactic? As opposed to the socialist propanganda you want us to imbibe?

 

[Fantine]

Yes, a diversionary tactic.

The Church has seen that in democracies with significant social safety nets (as opposed to socialistic countries) church participation is reduced in lockstep with poverty and disease. Well, of course it's not politically correct to criticize the lack of poverty and disease in Austria or Scandinavia....so it's better to criticize the delivery system.

If only they were distributist societies without poverty and disease instead of "socialist" countries they would be helping the poor the way God wants them to....sigh....

Knowing it would never happen.

My alternative: True, the people in these countries are not living in the misery that is often fertile ground for Christian evangelism of all varieties. But they have needs, perhaps more sophisticated needs than those living in misery. Christianity can give them the deeper meaning to life that they are seeking, but it hasn't yet figured out how. That challenge, rather than trying to stem the tide of "pseudo" socialism in the US or western Europe, is what the Church should address.

 

[ScottBot]

If people were willing to sell off their property to fill the common pool, they were welcome to. No scripture was every written where this was a requirement of anyone.
Literal lightning bolts from heaven were used to strike down anyone who said they were part of that system, when they really had no intention of doing so.

It was very much private charity in the NT, purely voluntary, and the concept of private property was fully honored.
This shares a lot with a free enterprise economic system actually (except for getting zapped with the lightning bolts), and very little with any of the corporatist or socialist alternatives that exist to what is called capitalism today.

I am not sure if I am reading your posts correctly, so forgive me if I am misinterpreting. People didn't get zapped with lightening bolts (that would be Zeus, not Yahweh ) for owning private property, they were struck dead for lying about selling their property when they had not intention of it, and for holding back from fulfilling a promise that they made.

 

[ScottBot]

humorous. The conservatives view distributivism with distrust, seeing it as a likely liberal end around.

The liberals apparently see it as a conservative diversionary tactic.


personally, I'd like to see it... but I also, as previously stated, find it to be unrealistic.

Of course it is unrealistic with the totalitarian government monstrosity we have created over the last 100 years. If people owned their own means of production, then the government has less capacity to control them. Since government is about control, why would they encourage or try implementing a system that gives people the freedom to run their own lives. Distributism could be a means to and end of class warfare, but since politicians use class warfare to get themselves elected, why would they take an arrow out of their quiver?

 

[ScottBot]

It seems to me that people don't really understand capitalism and communism (at least if this conversation is anything to go by).

Capitalism and Communism are both generally described in terms of high level ecnomics and talk about "the means of production".

In capitalism, for example, the "means of production" are individually privately owned.

In communism, on the other hand, the "means of production" are owned by the collective.

Now, when people think of "the means of production" they generally think of factories, mines, etc. Those things are, of course, means of production, but again at a high level.

When you get down to the most basic level, the means of production are two things, property and labor.

In a capitalist view, property and labor belong to the individual to do with as he sees fit.

In the communist view, property and labor belong to the collective and not to any individual.


In short, capitalism is freedom and communism is slavery. Thats not just rhetoric, it is the fundamental truth of both systems. In one you are free to dispose of yourself and yours as you see fit. In the other you belong to the collective, and not to yourself.

The idea that the early Christians were communist is pure twaddle. It is abundantly clear in the New Testament that Christians owned their own property. Further they were not required to give anything, let alone everything to the Church.
See the words of Peter to Ananias and Saphira when they lied to the Holy Spirit 'while you owned the property it was yours to do with as you wished...'
From the mouth of St. Peter himself.

Now, the response I'm sure will be that Christians were encouraged to give, and if anyone was in want, their need was met by the rest of the believers. I agree, and I wish the Church functioned like this today.

However, in order to give, you must first own. In a communist system, no own can give anything because no one owns anything. They can not even give themselves, or their labor.
This effectively also makes Communism the most uncharitable of all economic systems because in a communist system it is impossible for anyone to give.

In a sense, Communism is anti-christ. This is obvious in the practical working out of the philosophy which was from its beginning atheistic. However, at a more fundamental level, it essentially depicts man as owned by 'the collective' the state, the class, the race, whatever... a collective which essentially does not exist in real terms. The individual is completely enslaved to and exists for human society. It is essentially the reverse of Christianity in which each individual belongs to God, and under God, to himself.

Distributivism is interesting in that in a sense it is not a new economic view, or theory but rather is is a modification of capitalism.
Distributivism is at the basic level fundamentally a capitalistic system because it requires individual, private ownership.

In a certain sense, distributivism could be argued to be fundamentally a return to pre-industrial economy. It has elements that are medieval, and so on.

However, distributivism is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed in that it is impossible to maintain.
Distributivism requires the freedom of capitalism. However it also requires the prevention of any one or few people accumulating too much so as to become "industrial".
It also requires a level of cooperative effort which is simply unrealistic given human nature.

In that sense it is a largely idealistic system that has little chance of ever happening, or working in reality.

Excellent post, Simon, reps to you.

 

[_Shannon_]

humorous. The conservatives view distributivism with distrust, seeing it as a likely liberal end around.

The liberals apparently see it as a conservative diversionary tactic.


.

Tis a sure sign that it's probably lock step with Church teaching.