Tradinistas

[KnightofChrist]

They are Neo-Marxist group. From the site.

Quote

In our task, we are influenced by Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Karl Marx, and the Catholic social magisterium, among others. We invite everyone of good will to join us in developing a politics dedicated to the common good of all humankind.

Source: http://tradinista.com/organize-the-catholic-left/

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Of course they are Marxists.

OK. But only because you say they are.

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Their using Marxist terminology and ideology. "Bourgeois" for example is a Marxist coined term to dehumanize wealthy persons.

I call my girlfriend bourgeois all the time. I guess that makes me a Marxist too.

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Corporations being owned by Government is part of a Marxist/Socialist ideology.

Well. That does not seem to be strictly what they advocate for. They seem to advocate for worker cooperatives (companies that are owned and managed by the workers). But perhaps that is a horror to you as well?

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Private ownership only being allowed if it "serves the common good" is another part of Marxist/Socialist ideology.

They do seem to go a bit further than the Catechism, I will grant you that. But I do not see what they wrote as being too far from the paragraphs of the Catechism that I recited above. I think those paragraphs make it rather clear that the ownership of private property is not a good in and of itself. From those paragraphs you can see that private property 1) is subordinate to the universal destination of goods 2) is for the purposes of advancing human freedom, dignity, and solidarity; and 3) to the extent that these are not served, the state has the right and the duty to take away the right of ownership.

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

"Democratized productive property" souds a lot like socialized/nationlized property where "everyone" owns it, but in actuality no one really does but the Government. And that is another part of Marxist/Socialist idealogy.

Perhaps we are just reading them differently. I read that paragraph as indicating that the primary mode of ownership will still be private. That is why they write that new commons (knowledge, land) and widely-democratized productive property  (whatever these things are) "complement" private property.

That is how I interpreted it at least, but perhaps this is because I am not as adverse to socialist concepts as you are. Perhaps your Marxist radar is more attuned than mine (I think that the Catholic view on property/economics is closer to a "communal" view than a "private" view, although I am sure many here would disagree with me on that).

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

If you're going to continue down the line of not viewing them as Marxists then there is little purpose in continuing this dicussion. Because there's no common ground or starting point, and it's clear they are advocating Marxism.

If you wish. But even I concede you the point - that they are Marxist, I do not think that warrants a suggestion that they advocate or are prone to killing people for political reasons.

Peace

6 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

They are Neo-Marxist group. From the site.

Source: http://tradinista.com/organize-the-catholic-left/

Well yeah. Obviously there is a Marxian influence on their thoughts. That does does not make them Marxists any more so than it makes them Augustinians or Thomists, who are mentioned in the same paragraph.

[KnightofChrist]

They also heavily source Marx and/or other advocates for Marxism in their documents. They are indeed Marxists. If you wish to deny it that's ok, you're wrong though.

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

They also heavily source Marx and/or other advocates for Marxism in their documents. They are indeed Marxists. If you wish to deny it that's ok, you're wrong though.

What is your definition of Marxism?

[KnightofChrist]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

OK. But only because you say they are.

I call my girlfriend bourgeois all the time. I guess that makes me a Marxist too.

Well. That does not seem to be strictly what they advocate for. They seem to advocate for worker cooperatives (companies that are owned and managed by the workers). But perhaps that is a horror to you as well?

They do seem to go a bit further than the Catechism, I will grant you that. But I do not see what they wrote as being too far from the paragraphs of the Catechism that I recited above. I think those paragraphs make it rather clear that the ownership of private property is not a good in and of itself. From those paragraphs you can see that private property 1) is subordinate to the universal destination of goods 2) is for the purposes of advancing human freedom, dignity, and solidarity; and 3) to the extent that these are not served, the state has the right and the duty to take away the right of ownership.

Perhaps we are just reading them differently. I read that paragraph as indicating that the primary mode of ownership will still be private. That is why they write that new commons (knowledge, land) and widely-democratized productive property  (whatever these things are) "complement" private property.

That is how I interpreted it at least, but perhaps this is because I am not as adverse to socialist concepts as you are. Perhaps your Marxist radar is more attuned than mine (I think that the Catholic view on property/economics is closer to a "communal" view than a "private" view, although I am sure many here would disagree with me on that).

If you wish. But even I concede you the point - that they are Marxist, I do not think that warrants a suggestion that they advocate or are prone to killing people for political reasons.

Peace

Well yeah. Obviously there is a Marxian influence on their thoughts. That does does not make them Marxists any more so than it makes them Augustinians or Thomists, who are mentioned in the same paragraph.

You like to argue for the sake to argue, don't you. Pretty clear that you do, they are making it clear as can be that they are advocating a form of Marxist Catholicism and yet you argue not so. Also, when you call your girlfriend bourgeois you are joking. This group isn't joking. I don't believe you are very well educated on the subject sorry, and I'm also sorry but it shows.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

You like to argue for the sake to argue, don't you. Pretty clear that you do, they are making it clear as can be that they are advocating a form of Marxist Catholicism and yet you argue not so. Also, when you call your girlfriend bourgeois you are joking. This group isn't joking. I don't believe you are very well educated on the subject sorry, and I'm also sorry but it shows.

My understanding of those systems is that they generally do not allow for private property and free markets, while the authors of the website allow for them. It is not entirely clear to me what they believe, but I view them as wanting to supplement private property heavily with other more communal forms of ownership and state services such as Universal Health Care. When I read through the main page of the website it struck me as something different than what I would typically think of as Marxist.

Perhaps I could be wrong. I do not deny that. But you haven't given me any good reason to believe that I am wrong, despite how cut and dry the issue may seem to you. 

And yes I enjoy a good argument, especially when I am correct, which is most often the case when you and I argue.

Good day.

[KnightofChrist]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

What is your definition of Marxism?

If the group heavily sourced Hitler, and Nazis would you play this dumb game of "but that doesn't really mean their Nazis!"? Heck no, especially if it was a Conservative, Republican or Traditionalist group, which is why this is silly and super-de-dupar lame. They are Marxist.

[Peace]

4 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

If the group heavily sourced Hitler, and Nazis would you play this dumb game of "but that doesn't really mean their Nazis!"? Heck no, especially if it was a Conservative, Republican or Traditionalist group, which is why this is silly and super-de-dupar lame. They are Marxist.

Plenty of racist groups heavily cite the Bible does that make them Christians? 

The authors of the website heavily cite papal documents does that make them Catholic? 

But to answer your question, it would depend on how they cited Hitler, what they cited him for, and the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with what Hitler wrote. 

I already explained to you one area in which they seem to disagree with what I understand to be Marxism.

If you think I am lame that is perfectly fine by me. Your appoval does not put food on my table or bring joy to my ears. In other words, I do not care in the least what your opinion is of me concerning this. 

If you want to stop the name calling, act like an adult, and respond with something that contains substance I welcome you to do so. 

Otherwise we may agree to disagree.

Anyway, in the interest of advancing the discussion, I will concede you for the sake of argument that the are Marxist, as I did previously.

It doesn't matter. That does not warrant an accusation that the are prone to mass murder.

[Maggyie]

Frankly any group that doesn't reject violence is bad news. Let's think about this. It's fun to argue, but let's be real - a Catholic group that is ok with violence is not kosher.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Maggyie said:

Frankly any group that doesn't reject violence is bad news. Let's think about this. It's fun to argue, but let's be real - a Catholic group that is ok with violence is not kosher.

It certainly is fun to discuss the substance, but frankly, any person in this forum who disagrees with me on anything must be wrong. Not because I have a convincing reason, mind you. Merely because I say so.

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Plenty of racist groups heavily cite the Bible does that make them Christians? 

The authors of the website heavily cite papal documents does that make them Catholic? 

Comparing Christianity with Marxism is comparing Apples to something dead and rotten. Christianity can be perverted or distorted, Marxism is perverted and distorted.

They are Catholic in a similar sense that "Catholics for Choice" are Catholic, or members of the "Liberation theology movement" were Catholic, or any other group that attempts to marry a incompatible and condemned ideology with the Church. What they purpose is a perverted or distorted form Catholicism because it attempts to mix what is perverted and distorted with what is pure.  

Quote

But to answer your question, it would depend on how they cited Hitler, what they cited him for, and the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with what Hitler wrote. 

I have trouble believing that you would not take the position of condemning such a group. I believe it is unlikely that you would not. However, though I do doubt, I believe you and take you at your word just with some difficulty.

Quote

I already explained to you one area in which they seem to disagree with what I understand to be Marxism.

If you think I am lame that is perfectly fine by me. Your appoval does not put food on my table or bring joy to my ears. In other words, I do not care in the least what your opinion is of me concerning this. 

If you want to stop the name calling, act like an adult, and respond with something that contains substance I welcome you to do so. 

I believe you are personally are a cool guy, you are passionate and caring on the topics that you are concerned about. I do however think in this discussion your position has been lame, silly and has shown a lack of full understanding of Marxism and the threat it poses. I have not called you any names, I've attack your position, your argument, not your person.

Also, if a group sourced and was influenced by Hitler and Nazis in the same manner that this group sources and is influenced by Marx and Marxists then I would also condemn them in the same manner. I would also argue that the group or party would be prone to the same evils of Hitler and the Nazis.

Quote

Otherwise we may agree to disagree.

Anyway, in the interest of advancing the discussion, I will concede you for the sake of argument that the are Marxist, as I did previously.

It doesn't matter. That does not warrant an accusation that the are prone to mass murder.

Marxism is however prone to dictatorship/authoritarian rule and/or mass-murder of groups that oppose the Marxist state. That is simply a sad and frighting historical fact. As evidence I can give you a long list of Marxist Socialist states that have put Marxist Socialist ideology into practice and that has lead to dictatorship/authoritarian rule and/or mass-murder. I can also provide you and @ToJesusMyHeart a list of authoritative papal documents that condemn Marxism/Socialism because it is prone to great evils and attacks to persons and liberty. But only if it is actually going to be worth the time to compile the list. I really don't want to bother if it's just going to be brushed to the side and ignored.

Edited October 1, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[<3 PopeFrancis]

When in doubt one cannot go wrong with The Ten Commandments.  

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

Comparing Christianity with Marxism is comparing Apples to something dead and rotten. Christianity can be perverted or distorted, Marxism is perverted and distorted.

The point was that referencing a source concerning particular points does not make the person who makes the reference a follower of the source on every issue. Here is another example for you:

Bishop Robert Barron quite often references the Anglican scholar N.T. Wright. That does not make Bishop Barron an Anglican.

In a similar manner, a person may reference Karl Marx concerning certain points without being a Marxist. This would be particularly true where the person seems to differ with key points of Marxism (such as the recognition of a right to private property).

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

They are Catholic in a similar sense that "Catholics for Choice" are Catholic, or members of the "Liberation theology movement" were Catholic, or any other group that attempts to marry a incompatible and condemned ideology with the Church. What they purpose is a perverted or distorted form Catholicism because it attempts to mix what is perverted and distorted with what is pure.

Perhaps they have advocated things that are incompatible with Catholic teaching. To me, they do seem to be pushing the line as for what the Church allows, but it is difficult for me to say that they advocate for any specific positions that are inconsistent with what the Church teaches. This is because I do not see them advocating for the specific forms of socialism that the Church has specifically condemned (She has not condemned socialized health care, and things like the minimum wage, for example).

That is up for debate of course. I do not particularly care to go into the details of it, but if you want to go into specific details of what they propose and why they contradict Church teaching, that would be interesting I think. Perhaps someone might want to take you up on it.

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

I have trouble believing that you would not take the position of condemning such a group. I believe it is unlikely that you would not. However, though I do doubt, I believe you and take you at your word just with some difficulty.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

I believe you are personally are a cool guy, you are passionate and caring on the topics that you are concerned about. I do however think in this discussion your position has been lame, silly and has shown a lack of full understanding of Marxism and the threat it poses. I have not called you any names, I've attack your position, your argument, not your person.

Thank you for the compliment. We just have different views on things, but I respect you.

I never claimed to have a full understanding of Marxism. I certainly do not.

If you think my position is lame or silly (as opposed to me personally) that is also perfectly fine by me. If it is so silly and lame as you suggest, then I would think that you would have easily been able to show that it is false by this point, which you have not done.  But then again, I suppose that in your mind you believe that you have shown it to be false, which is fine by me. We can agree to disagree on that.

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

Also, if a group sourced and was influenced by Hitler and Nazis in the same manner that this group sources and is influenced by Marx and Marxists then I would also condemn them in the same manner. I would also argue that the group or party would be prone to the same evils of Hitler and the Nazis.

OK. Thank you for your input.

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

Marxism is however prone to dictatorship/authoritarian rule and/or mass-murder of groups that oppose the Marxist state. That is simply a sad and frighting historical fact. As evidence I can give you a long list of Marxist Socialist states that have put Marxist Socialist ideology into practice and that has lead to dictatorship/authoritarian rule and/or mass-murder. I can also provide you and @ToJesusMyHeart a list of authoritative papal documents that condemn Marxism/Socialism because it is prone to great evils and attacks to persons and liberty. But only if it is actually going to be worth the time to compile the list. I really don't want to bother if it's just going to be brushed to the side and ignored.

You do not have to compile a list for me. I have most of the encyclicals. I do not advocate for socialism. I consider myself more of a free market person, although I think that certain safety nets are good, and that it makes sense to socialize certain services such as health care (because I have lived in a country with socialized health care and found it to be a much better system than we have in the USA, as far as my own personal experiences with both).

I do not find the arguments that Marxism is more prone to violence than Capitalism to be very good (on the first day of any elementary statistics course the professor will teach the class that correlation does not equal causation), but for the sake of argument let's say that that Marxism is more prone to violence than Capitalism. I still do not think that warrants anyone accusing the authors of that website as being likely to go out and kill people, as soon as their plan does not work. I am sure you can see the logic behind this. For example, African Americans commit violent crime at a rate that is much higher than other groups in the USA. I am African American. Would that then make it right for you to accuse me of plotting to commit a crime tonight, merely because African Americans as a group are more likely to commit violent crime?

Likewise, I do not think it is fair to say "These folks advocate socialism. When they do not get what they want, they will go out and kill people". That is too extreme of a statement, in my view.

[KnightofChrist]

From their about us page.

"We Tradinistas are a party of young Christians devoted to a ressourcement of Catholic social teaching, classical Aristotelian-Thomist political philosophy, Marxist economic analysis, and their integration into a new kind of politics."

As plain as day they are claiming to be devote Catholic Aristotelian-Thomist Marxists. As plain as day they openly admit to trying to marrying Catholic social teaching to Marxists socialism. Can we both admit as a matter of fact that they can correctly be referred as Catholic Marxists now?

[Maggyie]

I don't think it's too extreme a statement, given that they are OK with violence. I think it's reasonable to think that is a likely outcome.

I'm kinda a broken record on that point though. I've been thinking about the best way to crystallize what I'm saying - the Tradinistas are replacing faith in God with faith in ideology. Ideology is poison.

Notice that their manifesto has 20 points and the first point is "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life." He, the Alpha and the Omega, is reduced to a bullet point in the program. They have the audacity to continue with 19 other critical parts of their platform. That's what ideology does to Christians. It makes people forget they can and should stop with Point #1. Jesus is just a plank, one of 20, in their political manifesto. A hard ideological center with a thin Christian shell.