Open Questions For A Marxist/communist

[Aloysius]

the prohibition against theft presumes private property ownership, and the Church has always upheld the right of private property, most recently in Rerum Novarum, Quadregesimo Anno, and in the encyclicals of all the popes since John XXIII.  you may attribute this to some kind of capitalist corruption, but the economist they were most influenced by was Heinrich Pesch and his students which led to the idea of solidarism that maintained private property.  Distributism doesn't necessarily mean a return to the past, distributism needn't be agrarian or overly idealistic (of course any more than communism, for instance).  

 

communal property has only ever been supported by the Church among voluntary communities like monasteries, but for society as a whole she has always promoted private property ownership as important in her interpretation of the 7th and 10th Commandments.

[4588686]

Everything the Church says aside, my issue with Communism is this: If I'm a wealthy man and my neighbor is poor and in need of monetary assistance (Medical, food, clothing, etc.), it would be an act of charity for me to give him money to help him out. However, if the government takes money away from me and gives it to him, that is no longer an act of charity on my part. It takes away the ability to be charitable and give to others. It creates a dependence on the government, when our dependence should be upon God alone.

 

 

So people should be desperately poor so you can feel good about tossing them some scraps?  

[4588686]

I think that if you believe that the means of production being socialized would obliterate charity then you have a very narrow conception of charity.  

[4588686]

the prohibition against theft presumes private property ownership, and the Church has always upheld the right of private property, most recently in Rerum Novarum, Quadregesimo Anno, and in the encyclicals of all the popes since John XXIII.  you may attribute this to some kind of capitalist corruption, but the economist they were most influenced by was Heinrich Pesch and his students which led to the idea of solidarism that maintained private property.  Distributism doesn't necessarily mean a return to the past, distributism needn't be agrarian or overly idealistic (of course any more than communism, for instance).  

 

communal property has only ever been supported by the Church among voluntary communities like monasteries, but for society as a whole she has always promoted private property ownership as important in her interpretation of the 7th and 10th Commandments.

 

 

Most socialist writers would concede the existence of personal property.  Private property generally refers to the productive capacities of a society.  I don't think it's Church Dogma that the productive mechanisms of society must be held in private hands.  

[PhuturePriest]

So people should be desperately poor so you can feel good about tossing them some scraps?  

 

I think if you force a man to pay for something it takes the charity out of the situation completely. I never said poor people should be poor so we can feel good about ourselves.

[4588686]

I think if you force a man to pay for something it takes the charity out of the situation completely. I never said poor people should be poor so we can feel good about ourselves.

 

 

You're not saying it, but it's the logical implication of what you are saying.  

[4588686]

Making murder illegal also usurps man's prerogative to be merciful.  

[Jaime]

I'm just surprised that anyone sees Obama as a humanitarian.

 

 

These aren't words I put together.

 

 

 

But then again... what the hell do I know?

[PhuturePriest]

You're not saying it, but it's the logical implication of what you are saying.  

 

It has nothing to do with feeling good. This would imply that charity is about feeling good. Charity is about doing what God wills for you to do. Seeing as how what Jesus was meant to do is to die an excruciating death, I don't think we can logically conclude charity always feels good.

 

Making murder illegal also usurps man's prerogative to be merciful.  

 

This one honestly has me scratching my head. I don't see how you can equate these two completely different situations.

[Ice_nine]

Making murder illegal also usurps man's prerogative to be merciful.  

 

Oh come on that's a bit of a stretch don't ya think?

[4588686]

Oh come on that's a bit of a stretch don't ya think?

 

No.  A lot of people die from deprivation or an inability to pay for medical care.  

[4588686]

It has nothing to do with feeling good. This would imply that charity is about feeling good. Charity is about doing what God wills for you to do. Seeing as how what Jesus was meant to do is to die an excruciating death, I don't think we can logically conclude charity always feels good.

 

 

This one honestly has me scratching my head. I don't see how you can equate these two completely different situations.

 

 

Ok.  So some people need to suffer extreme want so you can be charitable with your money?  

 

What's wrong with the analogy?  That's how analogies work.  The details are different but the structure is the same.  You're opposed to programs to abolish poverty and want because it degrades man's opportunity to give freely.  So you should also be opposed to programs that aim at abolishing violent crime since it removes man's opportunity to exercise mercy.  

[Ice_nine]

so you think that's equal to murder?

[4588686]

so you think that's equal to murder?

 

 

No, but I think that his logic applies.  

[Ice_nine]

meh, I think there's a problem. One can still be merciful without having the power to kill or to spare people's lives seemingly at random, but how can you offer material assistance when your materials are taken from you and reassigned by a third party?

 

Also is meeting a person's material needs alone, enough? Aren't there very practical social needs that are met, for both the donor and the recipient, when charity takes place that don't take place when there's compulsion involved?

 

You just probably see these relational and social needs as superfluous. The warm fuzzies are not going to pay for little Billy's antibiotics.