Pope Demands "legitimate Redistribution" Of Wealth

[John Ryan]

But power is not money.
 

 

"Time is money, but money is not time. You'd think it would work both ways but it doesn't." — Fez

[Socrates]

The higher deaths from communism are mostly due to increasing world population.  The percentages of persons killed are somewhat similar, considering all the deaths from capitalist-colonial genocide.

 

Oh, really?

 

 

 

Really??

 

 

 

Please, really.

 

 

 

Expect me to buy that, and I suppose you've also got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell me.  (Or would that be too "capitalist"?)

 

If you look at the numbers (even if you, like the libertarian who did that chart accept that 15 million were killed in wars waged in the name of "Democracy"), nothing comes close.  Even when you take into account the large population of China, that can't account for the 60 million of its own people the Chinese Communist government killed.

(Remember, the numbers here are people killed by their own government, not including wars.)

Where do you get these "similar percentages" from?  The math simply doesn't add up.

I suppose "increasing world population" also accounts for the all the genocides, forced famines, purges, blatant persecutions of churches and religious groups, throwing political dissenters in Gulags, and all the rest of Communism's bloody history.

 

The only thing actually comparable in modern history are the horrors of Nazi Germany (where the smaller numbers actually are because of a smaller population).

Do you think it's nothing but coincidence that real-life Communist regimes have been murderous, despotic hell-holes?  Communism by its very nature involves a tyrannical despotic state.  Marx himself admitted as much.  (Though he also taught the fantastic lie that the state would "wither away" once the capitalists were overthrown.)

 

 The trick is that genocides are patriotic when they are capitalistic and only count as evil if they are done by a leftist. The difference is that Marxists are willing to admit that Communism has led to many atrocities in practice, whereas capitalists are too busy trying to figure out how to have relations with the American flag.

 

Oh, indeed.

 

Do you have any real facts to back up your assertions, or can you do no more than piously spout leftist dogma?

 

 

 

Communism is not about Government tyranny over the individual. It is about the freedom of the individual to democratically control the means of production with others in the community. 

 

 

 

Only in Marxist Fantasy-land.  In the real world, it's bloody tyranny.

 

 

You can say that is not communism-in-practice, but, and I hate to break it to you, the libertarian wet-dream of free-markets is not capitalism-in-practice either.

 

 

While our current system is far from a true free market (and constantly becoming less free), it's still far better than than any actual Marxist state.

 

If "capitalism" and the free market are so horrible, why do so many flee to oppressive capitalist hell-holes like America to better their lives, rather than Marxist Communist states?

 

If Marxism's so great, then surely by now someplace ought to have gotten Communism right.  Maybe you can give some real-world example of a place that proves the vast superiority of Marxist Communism.  Then you can explain why you haven't moved there.

(Well, I suppose if you actually believe those hilarious North Korean propaganda videos . . . )

 

Everything in this fallen real world will fall far short when measured against utopian fantasies.

 

But if you insist on talking about imaginary fairy-lands, we can always discuss Narnia.

[Socrates]

All kneel before Mammon. Worship Mammon all the days of your lives. All hail the Mark of the Beast.

 

All kneel before the Almighty Communist State!

 

All hail our savior and deliverer from Capitalist Oppression!

 

 

[Benedictus]

I don't have a problem with labor unions in theory (whether labor unions actually always work in the best interest of their members and society as a whole is a different story, but also a different topic).  The Church has always been a strong supporter of the right of workers to form unions and guilds (I believe Pius XI even writes of this in the same encyclical I quoted), and does not consider unions the same as socialism.

I likewise have no problem with people forming voluntary coops and such.

 

It's the State using coercive force to forcibly redistribute the wealth and property of others that I (and the Church) take issue with - something that is always a feature of the socialist state in practice, and which necessarily involves the violation of property rights and granting undue tyrannical power to the State.

 

Well it depends what you mean by force and resdistribution. Some people would say taxation is a violent act in principle. There is also a difference between progressive taxation and reform on the one hand pitched against wholesale removal of wealth and assets on the other. The issue is how to create a structure and system that works to benefit everyone and is suitable for the current world we live in. I don't see capitalism, at least how it's implemented now,  as the answer anymore. Sociallism seems to offer, at its best, a refocus towards a better way of being. Socialism aims to remove the state, not create a powerful one. Anyway, I don't see it being a case of dogmatically being a slave to an idea or implementing something in a narrow way.  it may well be possible to do something totally different for our current situation and reach a better outcome. If so I'd be happy to explore those ideas as well.

 

All that is much too vague to give much substantial response to - though it seems the bottom line is that you think Church teaching is wrong and needs to be changed to be brought more in line with your own opinions, and those of like-minded lefty-progressive types.

 

Based on your other posts (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), I'm guessing it's more-or-less the usual "progressive Catholic" agenda - more left-wing politics, "gay marriage," changing the old teachings on sexual morality, womyn priestesses, modernist theology, etc.  You know, Sing a NewChurch into Being, and all that funky jazz.

 

Thing is, the Episcopalians, and other more liberal branches of the Anglican Communion have already taken that route and we know it's just doing wonders for them.

 

A church that merely "baptizes" whatever ideas are politically correct and fashionable at the moment is worthless and irrelevant.

 

And I have no idea if it's part of what you're suggesting, but the idea that making the Church more "liberal" is the cure for the various sex and other scandals that have plagued the Church is nonsense.  Many of the worst offenders (such as Archbishop Weakland and Card. Mahoney) were extremely liberal and progressive.

Thanks for letting me know what you think I think. I'm not necessarily supporting all of those things at all. It depends on the issue, the reasons (science, rationale, academic view, logic), the historical developments and patterns, the trends, the focus given to it in the Gospel and church (and why). I then use the reason God gave me, and the teaching guidance of the church, to reach my own opinion. Even then I don't disregard the view of the church or others who have good reasons for seeing it differently. But I'm not keen on the 'I think this because I'm told its what I should think' brigade.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Benedictus

[NotreDame]

I'd take a bourgeoisie businessman that lusts for money over a marxist that lusts for power any day. 

 

 

And that is your choice to make.

 

And I'm only free to make that choice as long as there isn't a Marxist in power. 

[Benedictus]

All kneel before the Almighty Communist State!

 

All hail our savior and deliverer from Capitalist Oppression!

 

 

 

And I'm only free to make that choice as long as there isn't a Marxist in power. 

Oh dear. Surely you're not trying to use cheap caricatures of what a Marxist, is or will be, to support your case? There's plenty of academic theory on Marxism, Socialism and Communism around that you could engage with and then frame your own view/opposition clearly. Trying to taint a viewpoint through claims to negative association is lame.

[Benedictus]

All kneel before the Almighty Communist State!

 

All hail our savior and deliverer from Capitalist Oppression!

 

 

So you're opposed to a world leader, imperialist structures and those without a democratic mandate? Cool. The church has one leader, a spreading ideal, and no democratic madate. How does your political views fuse alongside your religious views on the Catholic church structure?  Also if Pope Francis tells everyone to accept some new politcal theory taking the best of Marxism and Capitalism, what are you going to do? Would you proclaim your support, dissent, stay silent? Do you believe people can simply change their thoughts and beliefs?
 

Edited June 23, 2014 by Benedictus

[superblue]

All kneel before the Almighty Communist State!

 

All hail our savior and deliverer from Capitalist Oppression!

 

 

 

 

Makes ya wonder how the people of North Korea an be so poorly mistreated and still have such an unconditional devotion to this leader of theirs to the point that women burst into tears around his awesomeness,

 

 

or hey perhaps we all have it wrong, perhaps the North Koreans are truly happy with their way of life and do not see it as oppression , but as protection from a horrible cruel western world that wants to destroy their way of life.

 

But wait if that is the case, how come there are no illegal immigrants trying to get into N. K every day ?

And if America is so horrible why are constantly bombarded from every angle with illegal immigrants, what is America doing so wrong that keeps drawing illegal immigrants of all races to us ?

[superblue]

So you're opposed to a world leader, imperialist structures and those without a democratic mandate? Cool. The church has one leader, a spreading ideal, and no democratic madate. How does your political views fuse alongside your religious views on the Catholic church structure?  Also if Pope Francis tells everyone to accept some new politcal theory taking the best of Marxism and Capitalism, what are you going to do? Would you proclaim your support, dissent, stay silent? Do you believe people can simply change their thoughts and beliefs?
 

 

 

Wouldn't one need to look at the early power of the Church in order to properly answer that, we went from an all powerful conquering crusaders ,judge an executioners to a very small political state but the largest religious leadership ever.

 

I am deff opposed to a one world leader, which really wouldn't be the case as there would be underlings pulling the strings as well.  But look to the past true kings and empires of the past, and then look to now and see how powerful they still are.

 

Spread all the peace , love an hope ya want, nothing wrong with that.

 

an can we please have a vote for Taco Tuesdays !

[4588686]

But power is not money.
 

 

 

Power is not necessarily money.  

[John Ryan]

Oh dear. Surely you're not trying to use cheap caricatures of what a Marxist, is or will be, to support your case? There's plenty of academic theory on Marxism, Socialism and Communism around that you could engage with and then frame your own view/opposition clearly. Trying to taint a viewpoint through claims to negative association is lame.

 

Thanks for having reason within your soul. While there are obviously some crazy socialists who think North Korea is a paradise, the vast majority of Marxists in the West are just as, if not more, critical of authoritarian "socialist" states than non-Marxists. The problem is that most people want to replace complicated analysis with caricatures. I should think most people would be surprised to discover that many of the leading Marxist in the West were highly critical of Sovietism. Karl Kautsky, the successor to Engels, called Lenin a "dictator" and wrote a book against Leninism. 

 

Marx himself actually condemns a socialism of the State Soviet kind in his Paris Manuscripts (1844). He writes that some socialists envision a society where the Government negotiations everybody's wage contracts. He laughs at this "socialism" for merely replacing a myriad of capitalists with a singular, state capitalist. Seventy years before the USSR, Marx condemned that sort of system as the highest realization of capitalist exploitation. People who condemn Marxism might actually know some of this this if they you know, actually read through some of his writings. 

[Benedictus]

Makes ya wonder how the people of North Korea an be so poorly mistreated and still have such an unconditional devotion to this leader of theirs to the point that women burst into tears around his amesomeness,

1. Most are born into it. They are then indoctrinated
2. Some have vested interests, so when they don't agree they play along to keep their positions and favour
3. Propaganda and media manipulation
4. Fear. They don't have much choice aside from compliance. Would you want to be the only woman not crying over the leader in a public line up when it gets seen by the powers that be?
 

 

or hey perhaps we all have it wrong, perhaps the North Koreans are truly happy with their way of life and do not see it as oppression , but as protection from a horrible cruel western world that wants to destroy their way of life.

 

 

What do they have to compare it with? I don't think many outside the main cities are very happy. Neither are those in the concentration camps.
 

 

 

But wait if that is the case, how come there are no illegal immigrants trying to get into N. K every day ?

And if America is so horrible why are constantly bombarded from every angle with illegal immigrants, what is America doing so wrong that keeps drawing illegal immigrants of all races to us ?

 

Apparently there are some, probably those desperate to trade or reunite with family. In terms of the US -  it's because it has wealth and money through acquiring power and manipulating global markets/countries. If the surrounding countries have been sucked dry and have no opportunity then that's what happens. The chickens come home to roost, one way or another. It's simply pragmatic, not necessarily a vote of confidence or like for the US economic and foreign policy.

 

 

[Socrates]

. . .  Sociallism seems to offer, at its best, a refocus towards a better way of being. Socialism aims to remove the state, not create a powerful one. 

 

The reality is, there's no way to implement socialism without a despotic state violating property rights (as even Marx himself acknowledged in the Communist Manifesto.):

 

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

 

 

Can you give even one real-world example of socialism which has lessened the power of the State, much less removed it?

 

The Marxist idea that socialism will cause the state to wither away is but a fantastical lie.

 

 

Thanks for letting me know what you think I think. I'm not necessarily supporting all of those things at all. It depends on the issue, the reasons (science, rationale, academic view, logic), the historical developments and patterns, the trends, the focus given to it in the Gospel and church (and why). I then use the reason God gave me, and the teaching guidance of the church, to reach my own opinion. Even then I don't disregard the view of the church or others who have good reasons for seeing it differently. But I'm not keen on the 'I think this because I'm told its what I should think' brigade.

 

 

Like I said, it was only guess.  You haven't told us anything of substance regarding your beliefs, other than that you disagree with the Church's teachings on sexual morality and like socialism.

[Socrates]

Oh dear. Surely you're not trying to use cheap caricatures of what a Marxist, is or will be, to support your case? There's plenty of academic theory on Marxism, Socialism and Communism around that you could engage with and then frame your own view/opposition clearly. Trying to taint a viewpoint through claims to negative association is lame.

 

Oh, and characterizing all those who reject Marxist Communism as worshippers of Mammon and the "Mark of the Beast" is not a cheap caricature or lame?

 

Comrade John made a moronic post, and I responded in kind to illustrate the idiocy of it all (and because posting pics of Kim Jong Un is fun).

 

(It also happens to illustrate the yawning gap between Communist fantasy and Communist reality.)

[Socrates]

So you're opposed to a world leader, imperialist structures and those without a democratic mandate? Cool.

 

Actually, I said none of that, but anyway . . .

 

 

The church has one leader, a spreading ideal, and no democratic madate. How does your political views fuse alongside your religious views on the Catholic church structure? 

 

 

Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.  The Church has spiritual authority regarding teaching and the sacraments, but is not a political power which uses coercive force.  Christ founded a Church, not a government or a political party.

 

It in no way logically follows from the fact that I accept the Church's spiritual authority, that I must also accept every tyrannical government, particularly one so opposed to the Church and Christian principles.

Your "argument" is a complete non-sequitor.

 

 

 

 

Also if Pope Francis tells everyone to accept some new politcal theory taking the best of Marxism and Capitalism, what are you going to do? Would you proclaim your support, dissent, stay silent? Do you believe people can simply change their thoughts and beliefs?

 

 

Actually, the Church never dictates that we must all accept one particular political/economic system, though it does condemn certain systems and ideologies contrary to Christian principles, such as socialism and Nazism.

 

If Pope Francis, or some future Pope, made such a dictate, I would probably say he was acting outside his competency (this would fall outside faith and morals).  But generally, I think its best not to worry about extremely unlikely scenarios unless they actually occur.

It's a little like asking "What would you do if the Pope declared ex cathedra that there is no God?" or some similar Dairygirl-ism.