Which Is Christianity More Favourable To: Socialism, Libertarianism, O

[Totus Tuus]

I have been having this discussion about Libertarian v. Conservatism with some friends.

Important thing to remember: There is NO PERFECT government on earth. We aren't supposed to get comfortable here and forget about heaven.

My opinion -- Christianity is more in line with conservatism because it's more balanced. BUT I do think Libertarianism works without the extreme anarchy side. I have heard a lot of theories (mainly at a Austrian Economics conference I went to this summer) about how we need anarchy and theories about how it could work, but in my limited perception of the matter, there's no way to make total anarchy work and still have a society that is AS just as a democratic republic. Not to mention, most of the motivations (if not all) for wanting total anarchy are selfish and do not acknowledge the dignity of the human person as a deciding factor in government. (needless to say, it's a very frustrating topic for me).

And I'm not coming back to this thread for debate because I don't have time!!

Edited December 10, 2010 by Totus Tuus

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1291845701' post='2191639']
[img]http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n129/corsetti3/wargames.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Gold.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Micah' timestamp='1291959381' post='2191910']
As Hamlet would say, aye that's the rub. That's why I consider socialism the worst of the three chosen. At least with conservative monarchism you don't have the insidious argument that forced distribution is for the "greatest good".[/quote]

No. They call it "the common good," instead. It's also utilitarianism.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Micah' timestamp='1291959381' post='2191910']
As Hamlet would say, aye that's the rub. That's why I consider socialism the worst of the three chosen. At least with conservative monarchism you don't have the insidious argument that forced distribution is for the "greatest good".[/quote]

No. They call it "the common good," instead. Given its proponents' usual means of "achieving" the "common good," it is also an example of utilitarianism.

~Sternhauser

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1291929948' post='2191835']
It's a false distinction. Authoritarians use that distinction to beat those who don't believe the government has the right to take from one and give to another over the head with "lack of compassion" arguments. An authoritarian government will control the economy, though it might not provide social services (doubtful, since the left has figured out the best way to keep people weak is to give them stuff). Communist states are authoritarian by definition, as are fascist states.
[/quote]

Communist states are not authoritarian by definition. All major states that experienced successful communist revolutions instituted authoritarian regimes on the justification that the context (usually war and major social upheaval) necessitated single party guidance from a socialist state to a communist one but by definition communist societies should lack a state structure or have a highly minimal one.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1291947816' post='2191874']
I understand its purpose, but it's ridiculous to separate authoritarianism from telling everyone how they will dispose of their property and how they will run their businesses.


Socialism as a government isn't Christian.
[/quote]

Of course, actual socialists aren't on the far left axis; they're higher up the authoritarian scale, so they end up in the upper left quadrant, hanging out with fascists. It's significant that there's [i]nobody[/i] in the lower right quadrant on the sample provided, and very few people on the lower left. It's difficult to say do whatever you want...but share and play nicely. I guess the Dalai Lama can pull that off, because like Catholicism, Buddhism is full of apparent contradictions.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1292010042' post='2191995']
Communist states are not authoritarian by definition. All major states that experienced successful communist revolutions instituted authoritarian regimes on the justification that the context (usually war and major social upheaval) necessitated single party guidance from a socialist state to a communist one but by definition communist societies should lack a state structure or have a highly minimal one.
[/quote]
You can't enforce communism without being authoritarian. The control which communist states seek is by definition authoritarian. A community which requires communist attitudes, even if membership is voluntary, will have to resort to coercion at some point. You may be free to leave, but while you are in the society, you have no property and no true rights or liberty.

[Winchester]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1292010906' post='2191997']
Of course, actual socialists aren't on the far left axis; they're higher up the authoritarian scale, so they end up in the upper left quadrant, hanging out with fascists. It's significant that there's [i]nobody[/i] in the lower right quadrant on the sample provided, and very few people on the lower left. It's difficult to say do whatever you want...but share and play nicely. I guess the Dalai Lama can pull that off, because like Catholicism, Buddhism is full of apparent contradictions.
[/quote]
I believe in charity and in helping the poor. That's not leftism. Leftism is the use of the government to enforce that "charity."

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1292015950' post='2192008']
You can't enforce communism without being authoritarian.[/QUOTE]

As communism sees itself it is the natural state of human communities. You don't have to enforce communism because once the social reality established by property interests is deconstructed and the illusions that the masses operate under are dispelled there is no reason for any sort of state structures to exist except in the most skeletal of forms. I agree that communism is an unworkable, and undesirable, utopian fantasy but a communist society would not be authoritarian. I think it is perfectly right to argue that the methods to begin the collectivization process are authoritarian and that the system cannot be attained by any means, coercive or voluntary, but that doesn't change the definition of communism.

[QUOTE]The control which communist states seek is by definition authoritarian.[/QUOTE]

The control that all states that have aspired to transition to communism have sought has been intrinsically authoritarian. No communist state would, by definition, be authoritarian because, by definition, no communist society would have a state, or the class system that is inherent to authoritarian governments.

[QUOTE]A community which requires communist attitudes, even if membership is voluntary, will have to resort to coercion at some point. You may be free to leave, but while you are in the society, you have no property and no true rights or liberty.
[/quote]

Maybe. I guess that goes into what you mean by rights.

I think that communists would question the coherence of property. We all share a common geography. What right does one man have to use the violent means of the government to insist that he has exclusive access to a piece of that common geography? Why does one man have the right to make exorbitant wealth because a subset of individuals claim that they have a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in that common geography and that they have decided to violently enforce that one man's exclusive opportunity to utilize and profit off of an iron ore? Because he gave the state some shiny metal that, for whatever reason, some people decided had value? The earth has a finite amount of resources that can be used to feed humans. Who decides who has access to those resources? What authority does a group of individuals collectively called a 'state' have to say that one man has a right to control and profit from naturally growing food resources rather than another man who is starving? Why do some men have a 'right' to make exclusive use of a section of geography that is particularly valuable for growing food but a man chronically short of food has no right to use that land to grow food to meet his basic food needs?

So what is property? It seems to be the result of a group of men saying that they have a right to violently control who gets to have exclusive access to the resources of the planet. What does that racket have to do with human rights? Human rights are rights one has in virtue of being human. Free speech fits into this. Why does any man have a right to control what another man thinks and expresses? Thinking and understanding are pretty inherent to what makes human being human. What about property? What is inherently human about being given a promise by a government (which itself is a social construction) that it will violently ensure a human being exclusive access to the planet's resources? Why are the resources of the planet allocated according to the wealth an individual has accumulated rather than need.

I assume that a communist would argue something like that. I don't see anything inherent in a social system that rejects the notion of private property that makes it intrinsically authoritarian.

[Socrates]

While it's wrong to put the Christian Faith in a box of human ideology, I'd say that "conservatism" is most compatible with the Catholic Faith.

No social-political ideology has been more explicitly and repeatedly condemned by the Church than socialism, so I can only pray that those who chose "socialism" were joking.

"No one can be at the same time a true socialist and a sincere Catholic" - Pope Pius XI

The form of voluntary "socialism" mentioned in Acts is similar to the voluntary poverty practiced by monastaries and religious communities.
State socialism, in which the state collectively owns or controls all property, and forcibly redistributes property, is a different beast altogether.

Religious take vows of celibacy, but it would be wrong and tyrannical for the state to try to enforce celibacy on all its citizens.

Extreme laissez faire capitalism (espoused by libertarians) has also been condemned by the Church. Most libertarians want to keep all consideration of morality out of the law, which is also contrary to Church social teaching.

Conservatism, like liberalism, is a rather vague term whose meaning varies in different times and places, but I believe the Church is conservative in the truest and best sense of the word, in that it is dedicated to preserving timeless moral and religious truths, despite the attempts by the world to declare them obsolete.

Conservative (and Catholic) political philosopher Russell Kirk declared that the first principle of conservatism is belief in an "enduring moral order" (as opposed to moral relativism).

Belief in an enduring moral order is definitely central to the moral teaching of the Church (much reviled by modern liberals).

Edited December 10, 2010 by Socrates

[Winchester]

The only way to prevent someone from having private property is by taking it away (to a greater or lesser degree).

If communism is the end, not the systems we have actually seen, then one could accept it as non-authoritarian. But even as an end, one must accept that it's okay to control people to the extent that the transition toward communism demands. This threat will always exist.

If communism were the natural state of man, we would be communists. Violence and control is the natural state of man. Resentment of those with more and the desire to attain their position is the natural state of man.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1292010906' post='2191997']
Of course, actual socialists aren't on the far left axis; they're higher up the authoritarian scale, so they end up in the upper left quadrant, hanging out with fascists. It's significant that there's [i]nobody[/i] in the lower right quadrant on the sample provided, and very few people on the lower left. It's difficult to say do whatever you want...but share and play nicely. I guess the Dalai Lama can pull that off, because like Catholicism, Buddhism is full of apparent contradictions.
[/quote]
It's stupid and simplistic to try to reduce political philosophies to points on a square grid.

[Micah]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1292005599' post='2191990']
No. They call it "the common good," instead. Given its proponents' usual means of "achieving" the "common good," it is also an example of utilitarianism.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Semantics. Like you point out. It's theoretically utilitarianism in practice. Therefore the greatest good is the common good. C'mon. I posted this thread. I know the basics of socialism. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif[/img]

However, I disagree that it is utilitarian. Utilitarianism is an abstract philosophy. Nobody can even agree on what happiness is, let alone how to increase it. What is good for some may not be good for others, and how is any sort of governing body, even nominally egalitarian, supposed to regulate what is good for each person. The same flaw in socialism applies to utilitarianism. Unless Peter Singer has a super-calculator that can quantify happiness, the whole concept seems rather silly; like sugar lattice-work. It looks pretty. It seems architecturally sound, but nothing more than decoration. It will, even in natural conditions, dissolve.

Here, the socialist may say that, ah well we're talking about simple subsistence applications. We take some from the dominant middle class and give a little to the poor in order to iron out the difference and minimize suffering. But the socialist is actually taking away from the majority in order to give to the minority, thus it is not utilitarian.

[Micah]

[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][quote][b]As communism sees itself it is the natural state of human communities. You don't have to enforce communism because once the social reality established by property interests is deconstructed and the illusions that the masses operate under are dispelled there is no reason for any sort of state structures to exist[/b] except in the most skeletal of forms. I agree that communism is an unworkable, and undesirable, utopian fantasy but a communist society would not be authoritarian. I think it is perfectly right to argue that the methods to begin the collectivization process are authoritarian and that the system cannot be attained by any means, coercive or voluntary, but that doesn't change the definition of communism. [/quote][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rain.gif[/img]That's what the Czech thought too.. I recommend a narrative;[i] Under a Cruel Star[/i] by Heda Margolius Kovaly. It's a well written account of life within a soviet nation. The prague spring (the uprising of the Czech and Slovakian peoples against the soviets) and the bohemian culture that sprung from it originated from the inhumane conditions imposed on society by communism. The fact that it had to be enforced in every example throughout history kind of testifies that it is not a natural state of government. In Czechoslovakia, the people really bought the idea of communism. Kovaly's husband was a foreign diplomat and helped establish soviet government in Prague. He ended up getting killed in front of his wife by a hammer to the head. Kind of dispelled my illusions about communism at an early age, and I thank my Russian professor for that. [/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][img]http://www.sovlit.com/pics/prague.jpg[/img]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]

[4588686]

[quote name='Micah' timestamp='1292026308' post='2192048']
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rain.gif[/img]That's what the Czech thought too.. I recommend a narrative;[i] Under a Cruel Star[/i] by Heda Margolius Kovaly. It's a well written account of life within a soviet nation. The prague spring (the uprising of the Czech and Slovakian peoples against the soviets) and the bohemian culture that sprung from it originated from the inhumane conditions imposed on society by communism. The fact that it had to be enforced in every example throughout history kind of testifies that it is not a natural state of government. In Czechoslovakia, the people really bought the idea of communism. Kovaly's husband was a foreign diplomat and helped establish soviet government in Prague. He ended up getting killed in front of his wife by a hammer to the head. Kind of dispelled my illusions about communism at an early age, and I thank my Russian professor for that. [/size][/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][img]http://www.sovlit.com/pics/prague.jpg[/img]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[/quote]

Yes. My Professor in a class that I have, whose father was a pro-Western Czech nationalist who had to flee to America because he was being hounded by the secret police, actually recommended that book. My screen name comes from a Bosnian author whose masterpiece, Death and the Dervish, used the narrative setting of 17th century Ottoman Bosnia to attack the authoritarian government in place Tito's Yugoslavia. I've also read Milan Kundera's account of the Prague Spring in The Unbearable Lightness of being.

I've been conditioned for almost all my life, by Parish Priests whose close friends were tortured to the brink of death by the government when Mao came to power, by family, and by Professors (Russian, East German, Czech and Soviet Specialists) to view the communist revolutions as morally and intellectually bankrupt.

My point is that I am not giving my personal views. As I said I view communism as a system that is neither practically implementable nor a system that one would want to see implemented even if it were viable. However it makes no sense to say that communism by definition is an authoritarian system. By definition, a communist society would not be authoritarian. An authoritarian system assumes some sort of state structure and a class system (even one as basic as a class of ruler and a class of the ruled). By definition a communist state would not be authoritarian as a communist system would, by definition, lack both a state and a class structure.

The Czech system was put in place by the Soviets. The Soviet theorists admitted that their system was not a finished communist project. The justification for the horrors of forced collectivization and industrialization was that the Russia (and the whole of the eastern block countries, although the Czech part of Czechoslovakia was seen as further along) were not yet ready for transition into communist societies and needed to be restructured by the vanguard in order the become properly positioned for their transition into utopia.

I would argue that the limits of collectivization and forced social transformation make any such successful transition impossible but that does not mean that communism analytically entails authoritarian structures. It does not. In fact exactly the opposite. The theoretical and practical shortcomings of Marxism that make such a system impossible in the real world does not change what a communist system by definition would be.