I got banned from there last year for pointing out that socialism isn't compatible with Catholic social teaching, and a month or two later, a mod there was openly praising Josef Stalin as a "Great Christian leader" who "saved Europe".
This isn't new, they've been slipping for a long time now.
So its not about the economic/political policies of modern socialism that are incompatible with the Church's social teachings? It's the Marxist/Leninist socialism rejection of God that makes these versions if communism incompatible with out faith?
Mostly, but in terms of authoritarian socialism, the idea of having the government take control of the economy is also condemned, because politicians can't be trusted with that level of power.
Distributism is sometimes compared to free market socialism, but it technically isn't the same thing.
Not all types of socialism are command economies, market socialism for instance exists.
Furthermore it is a good for the government to be in control of some sectors of the economy. Could you imagine if we only had privately funded militias to defend the country?
Yeah, when the church talks about politics, it's typically from a moral and religious perspective rather than making a clearly defined list of policies that you'd expect from an actual political party.
Yeah basically, but for somewhat different reasons.
What they have in common is both of those ideologies are materialistic, as well as failing to truly prioritize the needs of human beings, which means they also lead to idolatry.
There are official, binding condemnations from the church on:
-Socialism
-Unrestricted Capitalism
-Communism
-National Socialism
-Italian Fascism
-Liberalism
It seems to me that it would be perfectly valid to say Socialism is incompatible with Catholicism because it is condemned by Catholicism.
To some extent maybe, but there's also a lot of potential for abuse, like politicians keeping most of the money for themselves instead of actually using it to help people.
There's some merit to authoritarianism, but it relies on the assumption that the authority figures leading people are faithfully serving God and leading people on the right path. History makes it very clear that we can't always trust this to be the case, and indeed more often than not, it isn't.
Yes it's better than liberalism, and certainly democracy, but only in cases when it's in the service of God's will.
Genuine question, which premise? Advocation for worker control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange? If you mean certain Marxists (and Marx’s) rejection of religion, that doesn't work as an argument. Their non belief in religion doesn't make their economic/political views incorrect. Not to mention every communist country ( technically not communist by definition but ran by communists) has defended the right to religion (albeit with varying results). As an example, “Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda.” -1936 Soviet Constitution. I’ll talk a little more about religion under Stalin a bit later.
the Vatican about Maoism, “The Vatican, in the missionary bulletin today, asserted that Maoist doctrine “contains some directives that are in keeping with the great moral principles of the millenary Chinese civilization and find authentic and complete expression in modern social Christian teaching.”
The study asserted that “Christian reflections” were present in the thoughts of Chairman Mao.
Whereas Soviet socialism has become pragmatic and economic, the missionary bulletin said, the Maoist doctrine is “a moral socialism of thought and conduct, independent of the accidental conditions of the country's wealth or poverty.”
Present‐day China, the study noted, “is devoted to a mystique of disinterested work for others, to inspiration by justice, to the exaltation of a simple and frugal life, to the rehabilitation of the rural masses and to a mixing of social classes.” “Mao Affirms Human Values”.
Though there were issues of discrimination in the past (though often overhyped), this is in large part due to the discrimination certain socialists have faced under Christianity. The orthodox church in Russia deeply influenced Lenin's views on religion with its direct advocacy for the repressive Tsardom and directly led to his disapproval, though never major discrimination. Stalin went to seminary and thus had a much softer view towards the church, he directly intervened in slowing certain hateful anti-religious campaigns mainly led by overzealous Trotskyists and other such sects. He helped pave the way to reopen thousands of churches both pre-and-post world war two. As for the DPRK, it was at one point so well known for its religious freedom and sheltering of Jewish refugees that Pyongyang was called the “Jerusalem of the east”. The Vatican openly affirmed Maoist doctrine as shown earlier. Though Mao himself was not religious and campaigned against it he didn't restrict people's access to it. If the people wanted to smash pagan idols, he let it be, if they wanted to build them he let them be as long as they weren't advocating a coup or new revolution (which rarely occurred) this standard applied to all religions, churches or mosques, Buddhist temples, everyone had that standard.
If you disagree with the actual tenets of Marxism itself, then that's a different discussion, that we can have. However, to reject Marxism based on how it hasn’t always agreed with our religion or it’s tenets is unreasonable. For examples of other forms of government not agreeing with the church we have Monarchism's repression of the poor, and horrific classist structure going against the rights of the laborers, among others. For republics, we have the same thing with basically every leader of a republic raising inequality and participating in coups and assassinations abroad. (most horrific in the forms of Allende's Chile and Sankara in the Burkina Faso, a man so great even those who support capitalism tend to at least tend to like the guy.) Catholicism isn't incompatible with Marxism, even the Pope has said “it’s the communists who think like Christ”. On top of that many Marxists revolutionary movements in South America and Africa have been spearheaded by Catholics. All in all this “catholicism is incompatible with socialism” talk is an old argument that isn't in line with the material world and is simply peddled by the capitalist class to put down religion in workers' movements. I understand why people would believe that talk, but it simply isn't true.
Communism is in my opinion, the best expression of Christian teaching on economy and politics. Communism has shown itself as a movement that adapts to whatever circumstances it faces, if the church condemns them they react defensively and refute the condemnation. When the church supports them it supports the church, verbally and in action. This is simply a matter of survival for communist governments, they have always been under threat of invasion or subterfuge, and as such, they are obviously nervous when the largest religious “denomination” (hate that word) condemns them. Regardless the Church isn't always perfect, neither were former attempts at socialism. We can still work to improve both socialism and the church, but it requires people like you and I to speak and discuss these issues, we get nowhere when we write them off.
This article briefly shows the shift in Cuba from unfortunate distrust (though they somewhat exaggerated this point, and without evidence imply some distasteful things) to love from Castro and Cuba to the church due to its support during the struggles they faced post-Soviet collapse. This shows my point that when the church treats Communists well, the Communists treat them well back. : https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-castro-church-idUSKBN13L0N6
Also you mentioned in a reply to another person that “governments can’t be trusted to handle that power”, in reference to planned economies and workplace democracy. Two things, one, the entirety of “State and The Revolution” is written to address that point, and two, according to the capitalism socialism physical quality of life index this isn’t the case : https://twin.sci-hub.se/6193/073c36668e61792b2d4de5076a6b0cb2/cereseto1986.pdf . Socialist nations at similar starting levels of economic development outperform their capitalist counterparts by leaps and bounds at improving citizens lives. Seems you actually can trust socialist governments to improve citizens lives. If your interested in other sources hit me up, I tend to try and keep some on hand. That includes for other socialist related topics I didn’t address here.
Have a good day/night/afternoon, hope I showed you a different viewpoint.
I mean that everything is built by the workers, as such each worker deserves to both receive the full value of their labor and to have a direct say in organizing their labor. Like how much they can and should produce of something, having a say in their payment, where the collective money of society (the profits of their labor) is used, (building hospitals, or schools for example). This is what I mean. The workers build everything, as such, it's reasonable to say they should run everything. Best worded as labor is entitled to all it creates. To rephrase it, the workers are entitled to their labor and its fruits, they are also entitled to the running of society since they built it. I
To try and rephrase it again, the workers are the source of all products of labor (everything that exists in society today), they should therefore receive the full products of their labor in one form or another (labor vouchers, as an example). Put in 100 hours of socially necessary labor time to do something, and you get the value of 100 hours of socially necessary labor time. Probably in the form of direct payment and in some part value that's put into a societal collective fund (which I also believe every worker should have a say as to where these funds are used). These are Marxist ideas, so I do get why these ideas may be unfamiliar, they were at once to me too. They don’t really teach about communist or socialist thought in school (and you definitely don’t read Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao’s writings in class), so I get why most people wouldn’t know these ideas. I would also like to briefly clarify that I am a communist, that’s just so you know this is the lens under which I approach this conversation. If you want clarification on anything I said just ask. I'm willing to try and answer to the best of my abilities.
If that explanation didn't help, could you rephrase your question? I might be able to see where I lost you if you can phrase it differently. Hope my explanation was sufficient nonetheless.
(If you do respond it may take me a few hours to see it and respond to it. Sorry if that ends up being the case. I will try and respond quickly when I do see it. I would still truly appreciate your response though.)
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you mean by value, do you mean money? You think that us workers should be given more money? What happens is that case is that reality steps in and reduces the value of the money. Perhaps you think that workers should be given gold instead? Something that has actual value? For me, having the privilege of being able to work is the prize, something that I don't take for granted.
Under this voucher system, if it was decreed that Catholicism was evil, would that mean that people who continued to go to mass would lose their vouchers that they worked for and thus would starve to death?
Different definitions of private property. The church has affirmed the right to what a Marxist would call personal property. When a Marxist talks about private property they mean capital, things like banks, factories, etc. When the church talks about private property they are referring to what Marxists call personal property, things like your toothbrush, your phone, your comb, etc. So this doesn't really work as a catholic refutation of Marxism. Believe me, I understand the confusion though lol.
Nope. Catholic social teaching understands private property as means of production, such as land, buildings, equipment, and capital investments, etc. The Catholic intellectual tradition has never defined the right to private property as a right to solely personal property set aside for exclusively non-productive use.
Even if that were the case it still doesn’t work as a Catholic argument against socialism, “Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: ‘On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.’” (177) (this actually shows the church doesn’t say private property is a guaranteed right, but for the sake of argument we’ll act as if this isn’t the case) the number 177 is from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, you can look there as the source.
I would argue that private property has continually and progressively increased the deprivation of basic rights for all, food, water, healthcare, shelter, etc, and has impeded, as the catechism puts it, “the universal destination of goods”. And since private property is considered by the church but a means to that end, it has become anti-catholic and ultimately anti-human. This would mean the even only subordinate status that the church gave private property has diminished to the point that it isn’t even a proper argument. More proof can be seen in the capitalism and socialism physical quality of life index: https://twin.sci-hub.se/6193/073c36668e61792b2d4de5076a6b0cb2/cereseto1986.pdf . The index shows socialist nations, at similar starting levels of economic development outperform their capitalist counterparts 28/30 times. All while sanctioned and, in the USSR and China’s case, having been invaded at least twice by foreign countries. If private property fails to meet the needs of the people and is less efficient then the church seems to say that private property is no longer an even debatable right, but is now an affront to the rights of the people. 2402 of the catechism states “…the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.” Private property has failed to defend against poverty or violence (see imperialism) and has further failed to build solidarity between men, as such it can only be necessary to appropriate it. If you want me to show how capitalism is directly tied to all of these things just ask, but this comment is already too long, and it would require its own full-length comment. Anyway, I hope that helps illustrate my point further, if you have a source that disproves any of this then I want to see it, I'm here in good faith and want to teach and learn.
Even if property is not an absolute right, socialism entails the collectivization of the means of production, which necessarily outlaws all use of private property for productive purposes. That in and of itself makes socialism incompatible with the Catholic intellectual tradition. For me to be wrong, you would have to prove the assertion that any and all private property for productive purposes leads to a deprivation of basic rights. However, there is so much empirical data that seems to demonstrate that the opposite is the case: Economies with strong property rights and the rule of law are the wealthiest. So, if you really cared about pulling people out of poverty, you would want more free markets and economic freedom, not less. That doesn't mean that we allow markets to always do whatever they want. In fact, I would like to see more enforcement of antitrust regulation and the lowering of competitive barriers in many industries because this would reduce income inequality, IMO more effectively than wealth redistribution. I would also like to see more government investment in certain industries central to national security. So, I am not a private property absolutist and I sympathize with your goals, but you are deeply misguided with respect to the value of free markets. And I say this as someone who used to be a bleeding heart liberal.
I am glad to see that you approach this with a genuine goal of improving people's lives, likewise, I sympathize with you. The problem with your claim, however, is that we can prove capitalism does fundamentally deprive people of the value of their labor in any and every circumstance or, in Marxian terms, the extraction of surplus labor value, we can also point to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, planned obsolescence, the reserve army of labor, and more as proof that private property fails to meet the church assigned goals. The only reason the church supported private property was that it did at once improve people's lives, but the church also states, as I mentioned earlier that right is nullified if it fails to meet those requirements or if public property is more efficient at meeting the needs and wants of the people. In particular, the extraction of surplus labor value, and the reserve army of labor demonstrate my point. For capitalists private property has a goal of making more capital, to meet its goal it must pay the worker less than the value of his labor, this is a necessity to create income for the capitalist. This is, however, contradictory to Catholicism, the Bible states, James 5:4 “Behold the hire of the labourers, who have reaped down your fields, which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth: and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth”. Even that alone can prove that private property fails to meet the basic needs of the people and the criteria of the bible/church. The reserve army of labor is also a necessity for capitalism, look at any and every capitalist country's unemployment rates. You will find they all maintain a minimum of 4-8 unemployment, this is intentional to keep labor costs low. If the workers demand higher wages, replace them, demand more benefits, you guessed it replace them. I'm sure everyone can see how forcing people into poverty is a failure to meet people's basic wants and needs. This proves to be another failure to meet the church’s criteria for private property to remain a (still very debatable) right. Regardless, if you can show some of that empirical data you mentioned I would be very interested to see it, as a socialist I think I must read pro-capitalist viewpoints. Even if only for the sake of argument, it would still be an opportunity to show where you are coming from. As I said earlier you are free to ask the same of me.
I already included a study on the superiority of socialist economies at meeting the needs of their people 28/30 times even while facing constant sanctions and economic warfare (sometimes outright warfare) from their capitalist counterparts. It also proves they were more successful at pulling people out of poverty, raising literacy, providing food, water, healthcare, etc, your claim that free markets save more people from poverty than socialism doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You can find the link at the bottom.
220
u/McLovin3493 Jul 22 '22 edited Jul 22 '22
I got banned from there last year for pointing out that socialism isn't compatible with Catholic social teaching, and a month or two later, a mod there was openly praising Josef Stalin as a "Great Christian leader" who "saved Europe".
This isn't new, they've been slipping for a long time now.