Why As Catholics We Ought To Reject Capitialism

[Nagato]

Capitalism, as it is nowadays, anarcho-liberism and anarcho-capitalism, is against everything Christianity stands for.

 

[SolomonVII]

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.

Yea, that's what I meant to say.
They got zapped (somehow) for pretending that they were commies when they were really still hard core greedy capitalists, or worse —capitialists— at heart.
The moral of the story I guess is to stop pretending we are something that we are not. If we are going to advocate giving all our wealth the community, then we really ought to do it.

 

[SolomonVII]

But if OBOB does finally give it all away and pool our resources, can I be the the treasurer?

< my house has lightning rods>























.

 

[ScottBot]

Capitalism, as it is nowadays, anarcho-liberism and anarcho-capitalism, is against everything Christianity stands for.

We do not have anarcho-capitalism. We have fascism plain and simple, and I agree, it is against everything that christianity stands for.

 

[Fantine]

One of the reasons why distributism can't work on a large scale, nationwide, or global basis is that the Biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply" has been far too successful.

What works in small agrarian communities (the Amish perhaps) where neighbors are close and economically self-sufficient within their community is not viable today.

You see that very clearly in Mexico and Central America, where the youngest and strongest men make the dangerous journey up to the US, and where the money they are able to send home, even if it's only $100 a month, supports the rest of the needy family.

(In a sense, this mirrors my own grandparents' experience coming from Europe when the children would immigrate here, one at a time, and save for the next one down the line's passage....except that Emma Lazarus' poem on the Statue of Liberty has been forgotten.)

I have never been to any of the teeming Asian and South American cities of 20 million or more, but I was born in NYC. And while private charities and utopian communities may be tiny points of light in the darkness, they will never be more than that in the new world order.

 

[benedictaoo]

The reason why distributism can't work is becuase man is greedy.

 

[ScottBot]

The reason why distributism can't work is becuase man is greedy.

That is the same reason why ALL economic systems fail. Every single one. With capitalism, people become drunk on money. In communism, people become drunk on power.

 

[benedictaoo]

If they all fail then, let's go with the system that resembles Christian charity as much as possible. You sell the hammer and I'll sell the nails. Works for me but it's all about greed and power.

FWIW, I firmly believe with all of my heart and soul Jesus was referring to the government, bankers and capitalism when he spoke about the evil doers. I believe these people are the evil doers that walk among us and it is becuase of the evil doers it would not work, and that is the only reason it wouldn't.

 

[ScottBot]

If they all fail then, let's go with the system that resembles Christian charity as much as possible. You sell the hammer and I'll sell the nails. Works for me but it's all about greed and power.

FWIW, I firmly believe with all of my heart and soul Jesus was referring to the government, bankers and capitalism when he spoke about the evil doers. I believe these people are the evil doers that walk among us and it is becuase of the evil doers it would not work, and that is the only reason it wouldn't.

The system you described is generally considered distributism.

 

[benedictaoo]

yeah, and it allows everyone to have his piece of the pie and the evil doers who, we all know, the love of money is the root of them, will never have that and the power hungry politicians will pander to them for power.

It's a broken system and we try in vain... the only correcting it is for ppl to all be converted to Christ. I laugh at folks who actually think politicians and politics can fix anything- they are in it for them, for power. How dense is anyone who thinks they will fix it.

anyway, I digress. Just know who it was who Jesus ran out of the temple, the evil doers, those who turned God's house into a den of thieves... the money changers- who are they today? the banks.

and that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Sphinx777]

Royal Absolutism...







​

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is laughable. Early Christendom was more akin to primitive monasticism and communalism. Communism, it never was. To think it was akin to such is absolute naïveté at least and supremely credulous at worst.

Monasticism is communism.

As I pointed out before.

They lived in common, which is what the word communism means.

They didn't live in Marxist or Mao's communism which socialistic communism where everyone is forced to live for the common good of the state.

Jim

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Continued:
The Distributist Review » Blog Archive » The Outline of Sanity

I believe modified capitalism is an obvious success. That being said, I agree with those that state; unbridled, unchecked capitalism is bad for society.

The US government is one of checks and balances. That is why we have the the three branches of government; the Legislative, Executive and Judicial; as well as two branches of the legislative; comprised of the Congress and Senate.

The same can be said of Capitalism and Socialism. They are a check on each other. But both tend to ebb and flow depending on who is in power.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

communiwm &#8211;noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. Acts 4:32

The verse shows that the Early Christians in fact lived under pure communism, just as monks and nuns in monasteries do.


Distributionism is where the wealth of individuals is spread out to those who have less in order to create an equal living condition.

It fails because the incentives for the individual to work are diminished by the mere fact that you'll receive a good living condition, without doing anything to make the conditions better for yourself and others.



Jim

 

[ScottBot]

communiwm &#8211;noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

The verse shows that the Early Christians in fact lived under pure communism, just as monks and nuns in monasteries do.


Distributionism is where the wealth of individuals is spread out to those who have less in order to create an equal living condition.

It fails because the incentives for the individual to work are diminished by the mere fact that you'll receive a good living condition, without doing anything to make the conditions better for yourself and others.

Jim

Communalism (what you've described) only works in small religiously, linguistically, culturally, and ethnically homogenous communities. It will fail in every other instance because of the barriers of multiculturalism.

Distributionism is not the distribution of WEALTH, it is the equitable distribution of PRODUCTION CAPACITY. In essence, each person owns his/her own capacity to support his/her life, rather than the state owning it(socialism/communism), or some big, multinational corporation owning it (crony capitalism/corporatism).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Communalism (what you've described) only works in small religiously, linguistically, culturally, and ethnically homogenous communities. It will fail in every other instance because of the barriers of multiculturalism.

But its true communism, which is my point.

Distributionism is not the distribution of WEALTH, it is the equitable distribution of PRODUCTION CAPACITY. In essence, each person owns his/her own capacity to support his/her life, rather than the state owning it(socialism/communism), or some big, multinational corporation owning it (crony capitalism/corporatism).

In order to achieve the equitable distribution of production, you have to take from those who have more and spread it out equally to others who have less.

In other words, its the redistribution of wealth, however you want to devine that wealth.


Jim

 

[ScottBot]

But its true communism, which is my point.




In order to achieve the equitable distribution of production, you have to take from those who have more and spread it out equally to others who have less.

In other words, its the redistribution of wealth, however you want to devine that wealth.


Jim

Communalism and communism are not the same thing. Communism requires a state entity to effect control of production capacity. Communalism does not. They are similar, but not identical. Communalism is often found in religious communities, communism is by necessity an athiestic structure.

 

[ScottBot]

But its true communism, which is my point.




In order to achieve the equitable distribution of production, you have to take from those who have more and spread it out equally to others who have less.

In other words, its the redistribution of wealth, however you want to devine that wealth.


Jim

Wealth and production capability are two totally different things.

 

[Fantine]

Distributionism is not the distribution of WEALTH, it is the equitable distribution of PRODUCTION CAPACITY. In essence, each person owns his/her own capacity to support his/her life, rather than the state owning it(socialism/communism), or some big, multinational corporation owning it (crony capitalism/corporatism).

And this in an era where workers have become more and more specialized, and educational specialties have become more and more specialized?

If I need to buy an article of clothing, I don't plant the cotton, pick the cotton, spin the cotton fibers into thread, weave the cotton, dye the cotton, and sew it into a garment.

I work in gainful employment in my own area of expertise, and purchase my clothing in a store.

Similarly, when I cook, I don't raise the chicken, slaughter the chicken, pluck the chicken, plant the seeds, harvest the vegetables, plant the wheat, grind the flour, bake the bread. I go to a grocery store and buy these items with the money I have earned from my own employment.

And although I think that there can be personal satisfaction in planting a small garden or sewing, knitting, or crocheting, I am very glad to be able to delegate these tasks most of the time.

As I said, what you describe is not only impractical but impossible in today's society.

 

[ScottBot]

And this in an era where workers have become more and more specialized, and educational specialties have become more and more specialized?

If I need to buy an article of clothing, I don't plant the cotton, pick the cotton, spin the cotton fibers into thread, weave the cotton, dye the cotton, and sew it into a garment.

I work in gainful employment in my own area of expertise, and purchase my clothing in a store.

Similarly, when I cook, I don't raise the chicken, slaughter the chicken, pluck the chicken, plant the seeds, harvest the vegetables, plant the wheat, grind the flour, bake the bread. I go to a grocery store and buy these items with the money I have earned from my own employment.

And although I think that there can be personal satisfaction in planting a small garden or sewing, knitting, or crocheting, I am very glad to be able to delegate these tasks most of the time.

As I said, what you describe is not only impractical but impossible in today's society.

Inconvenient to implement, maybe, and totally an antithesis to the nanny state, but not impossible.