Political slant and being Catholic...

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 14 2005, 12:05 PM'] This is not accurate. Socialism is clearly condemned by the Church. Pope Pius XI said, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist."
The Church has not condemned "Capitalism" across the board, but only "Laizes Faire" (think I misspelled that, sorry) Capitalism, that is, the idea that the economic market should be entirely free from any moral restraints.

There is, in fact, much orthodox Catholic thought in favor of a free market "capitalist" economy, which has proven to provide the most material goods for the most people in actual fact.

Historically, Socialism has led to nothing but failure and misery, and it denies man's right to private property. It leads to economic failure, and places control over people's material goods in the hands of the state, inevitably leading to government tyranny. At its worst (and purest) forms, it has led to the indescribable horrors of Communism and National Socialism (Nazism).

To call Socialism a "lesser evil" speaks great ignorance of economics, Church teaching, and history.

And about 'good intentions," the road to Hell is paved with them! [/quote]
The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

Call me crazy but I don't think that is a Catholic point of view. Many times good intentions are all we have. I was explaining to a friend that if a woman didn't get an abortion and her child turned out to become the next Hitler and murder 20 million people, then it still would have been a good act for her not to abort him.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Thomas' date='Jan 14 2005, 12:35 PM'] So far in this topic I have seen no mention of Democracy.

Capitalism is the 'Laizes Faire' version of Democracy. Capitalism as I understand it IS fueled by greed and money. It's a version of government which makes it easy for large corporations to have more political power than people. Democracy on the other hand is a very toned down version of Capitalism. Democracy is based on the people rather than the multi-billion dollar corporations.

This is how I see it, however there seems to be slightly different meanings for 'Capitalism', 'Democracy', and 'Socialism' depending on your upbringing and location in the world.

But seriously...wouldn't it be nice if Political Parties based on Catholic values started springing up all over? Many people, myself included, don't stand solely on one side of the fence when it comes to certain issues. It'd be cool if we could have a party that was a sort of 'the best of both' scenario.

Much Respect,

-Tom [/quote]
Capitalism is an economic theory
Democracy or Republic are forms of governmental organization

Capitalism - as classically defined - is fueled by self interest (which may include, but is not required to mean "greed and money") The important feature is that the economic assets are privately owned and controlled.

see, for example,
[url="http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/index.html?http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html"]http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/inde...Capitalism.html[/url]

Laissez faire ("leave alone") removes oversight from the economic marketplace
Men (humans, to be gender neutral) tend to think their own best interest is served by personal wealth - which admittedly, looks like greed.

However, there are examples of economic entities which do not operate on that core motivator - one modern example is Newman's Own, whose website has the motto "Shameless Exploitation in Pursuit of the Common Good", and which states it's sole shareholder Paul Newman donates all profits to charities of his choice - I remember hearing of another major corporation with the same philosophy (although I think that shareholder only donated about 80% - and plowed the other 20% back into his company) but can't remember the name or find the reference

In order to remove "greed" (a powerful economic motivator) from the equation, social values need to value something other than "big houses, big cars, big bank accounts . . . etc"

if the government removes the motivator - then it will do so through one of two or three methods - confiscation at the ownership level, confiscation at the benefits level, or by imposing prohibitively expensive operating requirements (what local governments call - unfunded mandates) . . . in either case, the personal initiative is removed

pure capitalism believes that the marketplace will decide
if more people believe in personal wealth, then the lowest cost provider will win out, since price affects bottom line of the individual balance sheet
if, however, quality suffers, or the goods cause harm, the marketplace will shun the provider because the long term costs exceed the short term savings
if more people believe in "fair dealing", the the provider who offers the best price combined with a "good" working environment for its employees will win
if more people believe in {pick an issue}, then those providers who {fall within that issue} will prevail (examples - boycott South Africa was an economic motivator a few years back . . . organic farming - no chemicals, preservatives or genetically modified products is a mix of a couple of issues today)

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others . . .
The United States is technically not a democracy, but a republic.
Any government of men (humans) is subject to human failings.
Yes, elected officials create situations which benefit their contributors - this is wrong, this is greed, this is politics (if we have to build a new {whatever} why can't we build it in my district and benefit my voters}

Don't look to government for the solution - look to the Church teachings - look to your own moral compass - and then seek to create a "market" for your ideas, rather than to legislate your ideas upon others

"no animals were harmed in the manufacture and distribution of this posting"

[Socrates]

[quote name='Thomas' date='Jan 14 2005, 12:35 PM'] So far in this topic I have seen no mention of Democracy.

Capitalism is the 'Laizes Faire' version of Democracy. Capitalism as I understand it IS fueled by greed and money. It's a version of government which makes it easy for large corporations to have more political power than people. Democracy on the other hand is a very toned down version of Capitalism. Democracy is based on the people rather than the multi-billion dollar corporations.

This is how I see it, however there seems to be slightly different meanings for 'Capitalism', 'Democracy', and 'Socialism' depending on your upbringing and location in the world.

But seriously...wouldn't it be nice if Political Parties based on Catholic values started springing up all over? Many people, myself included, don't stand solely on one side of the fence when it comes to certain issues. It'd be cool if we could have a party that was a sort of 'the best of both' scenario.

Much Respect,

-Tom [/quote]
Democracy is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system.
A democratic system is not necessarily capitalist, and a capitalist system is not necessarily democratic.

Learn the meaning of these terms before you start critiquing.

[Socrates]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 14 2005, 12:43 PM'] The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

Call me crazy but I don't think that is a Catholic point of view. Many times good intentions are all we have. I was explaining to a friend that if a woman didn't get an abortion and her child turned out to become the next Hitler and murder 20 million people, then it still would have been a good act for her not to abort him. [/quote]
Preserving the life of a child is a morally good and necessarry act.

Setting up a socialist government is not.

In practical sciences such as government and economics, we must consider what really works, what will actually bring about the most good in reality, not simply in what the intention is.

(Good post, journeyman! You put that up just as I was writing my last post.)


By the way, Spath., what's up with the "The Church hates me" sig?

[crusader1234]

Forgive me for saying the Church opposes Capitalism. It opposes the abuses of liberal capitalism. Now, if you can find me one example of a Capitalist system without disgusting amounts of abuse, I'll eat my words. Until then, Capitalism is evil because nobody does it right.

[hyperdulia again]

edited, 'cause I love you Al. Peace.

Capitalism is evil. Moral neutrality does not exist. Read von Urs. Read Ratzinger. Read Wojtyla.

Edited January 15, 2005 by hyperdulia again

[journeyman]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 14 2005, 11:30 PM'] Forgive me for saying the Church opposes Capitalism. It opposes the abuses of liberal capitalism. Now, if you can find me one example of a Capitalist system without disgusting amounts of abuse, I'll eat my words. Until then, Capitalism is evil because nobody does it right. [/quote]
definitions please?

how much abuse would be disgusting?
what would be "right"?

would the Newman's Own example in my prior post come close?

[hyperdulia again]

AND the Magisterial comments on the economy from Pius IX through John Paul II. Then take a college level economics course. Then study Magisterial statements on economics from the Early Middle Ages till Pius IX. Then, tell me that true capitalism is acceptible.

If we look at nothing other than capitalism's emphasis on personal autonomy(and there are plenty of other things to look at), we will see then that the economic system that replaced Distributist system that governed the west for most of the Christian era is evil. Neutrality does not exist. Capitalism is what left Europe hobbled enough in the first place for Socialism in its many forms to take over. And pan-socialsim (as zionism, as classical liberalism, etc.) is what led to the death of Christianity in Western Europe.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 14 2005, 12:35 AM'] Socialism and Capitalism were [i]both[/i] condemned actually. I'd say Socialism is the lesser of the two evils because its fueled by honestly good intentions, whereas Capitalism is largely fueled by greed. [/quote]
Socialism thrives among the poor and working class as a source of unity, Capitalism thrives in the rich and powerful as a way to tyrannize the poor and working class!

[Apotheoun]

Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html"]Centisimus Annus[/url] [Nos. 47-49]


47. [. . . ] The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution. Her contribution to the political order is precisely her vision of the dignity of the person revealed in all its fulness in the mystery of the Incarnate Word.

48. These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called Welfare State. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the Social Assistance State. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

49. Faithful to the mission received from Christ her Founder, the Church has always been present and active among the needy, offering them material assistance in ways that neither humiliate nor reduce them to mere objects of assistance, but which help them to escape their precarious situation by promoting their dignity as persons. With heartfelt gratitude to God it must be pointed out that active charity has never ceased to be practiced in the Church; indeed, today it is showing a manifold and gratifying increase. In this regard, special mention must be made of volunteer work, which the Church favors and promotes by urging everyone to cooperate in supporting and encouraging its undertakings.

In order to overcome today's widespread individualistic mentality, what is required is a concrete commitment to solidarity and charity, beginning in the family with the mutual support of husband and wife and the care which the different generations give to one another. In this sense the family too can be called a community of work and solidarity. It can happen, however, that when a family does decide to live up fully to its vocation, it finds itself without the necessary support from the State and without sufficient resources. It is urgent therefore to promote not only family policies, but also those social policies which have the family as their principle object, policies which assist the family by providing adequate resources and efficient means of support, both for bringing up children and for looking after the elderly, so as to avoid distancing the latter from the family unit and in order to strengthen relations between generations.

Apart from the family, other intermediate communities exercise primary functions and give life to specific networks of solidarity. These develop as real communities of persons and strengthen the social fabric, preventing society from becoming an anonymous and impersonal mass, as unfortunately often happens today. It is in interrelationships on many levels that a person lives, and that society becomes more personalized. The individual today is often suffocated between two poles represented by the State and the marketplace. At times it seems as though he exists only as a producer and consumer of goods, or as an object of State administration. People lose sight of the fact that life in society has neither the market nor the State as its final purpose, since life itself has a unique value which the State and the market must serve. Man remains above all a being who seeks the truth and strives to live in that truth, deepening his understanding of it through a dialogue which involves past and future generations.

[Apotheoun]

Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html"]Sollicitudo Rei Socialis[/url] [No. 28]


28. At the same time, however, the [i]economic[/i] concept itself, linked to the word development, has entered into crisis. In fact there is a better understanding today that the mere accumulation of goods and services, even for the benefit of the majority, is not enough for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the many real benefits provided in recent times by science and technology, including the computer sciences, bring freedom from every form of slavery. On the contrary, the experience of recent years shows that unless all the considerable body of resources and potential at man's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the human race, it easily turns against man to oppress him.

A disconcerting conclusion about the most recent period should serve to enlighten us: side-by-side with the miseries of underdevelopment, themselves unacceptable, we find ourselves up against a form of superdevelopment, equally inadmissible, because like the former it is contrary to what is good and to true happiness. This super-development, which consists in an excessive availability of every kind of material goods for the benefit of certain social groups, easily makes people slaves of [i]possession[/i] and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better. This is the so-called civilization of [i]consumption[/i] or [i]consumerism[/i], which involves so much [i]throwing-away[/i] and [i]waste[/i]. An object already owned but now superseded by something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible lasting value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.

All of us experience firsthand the sad effects of this blind submission to pure consumerism: in the first place a crass materialism, and at the same time a radical dissatisfaction, because one quickly learns - unless one is shielded from the flood of publicity and the ceaseless and tempting offers of products - that the more one possesses the more one wants, while deeper aspirations remain unsatisfied and perhaps even stifled.

The Encyclical of Pope Paul VI pointed out the difference, so often emphasized today, between [i]having[/i] and [i]being[/i], which had been expressed earlier in precise words by the Second Vatican Council. To [i]have[/i] objects and goods does not in itself perfect the human subject, unless it contributes to the maturing and enrichment of that subject's [i]being[/i], that is to say unless it contributes to the realization of the human vocation as such.

Of course, the difference between [i]being[/i] and [i]having[/i], the danger inherent in a mere multiplication or replacement of things possessed compared to the value of [i]being[/i], need not turn into a contradiction. One of the greatest injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess much are relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all.

This then is the picture: there are some people - the few who possess much - who do not really succeed in [i]being[/i] because, through a reversal of the hierarchy of values, they are hindered by the cult of [i]having[/i]; and there are others - the many who have little or nothing - who do not succeed in realizing their basic human vocation because they are deprived of essential goods.

The evil does not consist in [i]having[/i] as such, but in possessing without regard for the quality and the ordered hierarchy of the goods one has. Quality and hierarchy arise from the subordination of goods and their availability to man's [i]being[/i] and his true vocation.

This shows that although development has a necessary economic dimension, since it must supply the greatest possible number of the world's inhabitants with an availability of goods essential for them [i]to be[/i], it is not limited to that dimension. If it is limited to this, then it turns against those whom it is meant to benefit.

[Phatmasser777]

uggh too much stuff to read.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 15 2005, 07:31 AM'] uggh too much stuff to read. [/quote]
As the old commercial said, "Reading is fundamental."

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 14 2005, 11:30 PM'] Forgive me for saying the Church opposes Capitalism.  It opposes the abuses of liberal capitalism.  Now, if you can find me one example of a Capitalist system without disgusting amounts of abuse, I'll eat my words.  Until then, Capitalism is evil because nobody does it right. [/quote]
It's ok bro, I forgive you.

But by your definition, every economic or political system must be considered evil, because in the fallen human world, every system will be abused and there will always be evil. There cannot be a utopia on earth and never will be until the Second Coming. This is due to fallen human nature.

There is a disgusting amount of abuse within the Catholic hierarchy. This does not make the Catholic Church evil!

Yes, there has been much abuse in the captialist economy (witness the corporate scandals.)
However, free-market "capitalism" has provided more wealth for more people across the board than any other economic system. There are also some "capitalists" who have made a profit, while maintaining a Christian conscience, and using their wealth to help others and good causes. (Retired former-biilionaire and Domino's Pizza founder/owner Thomas Monahan comes to mind.) Capitalism is not a "magic bullet" which will solve all the world's problems, and is not without its flaws. However, within limits, it is simply the most effective economic system existing.

Socialism has failed wherever practiced, and has produced massive poverty and high unemployment. (I have recently heard horror stories from Canadians about their countries' now-failing socialized medicine). The economy simply does not work under government planning.

Politicians and government officials are just as prone to corruption and evil as business executives, if not more so.

So I return your challenge. Show me one socialist system without disgusting amounts of abuse!
Socialism has led to the monstrous evils and horrendous failures of Communism and National Socialism. Capitalism has led to the world's greatest economies. Immigrants from around the world flock to "capitalist" America.

You do the math. Socialists need to look at what works in the real world, not live in utopian fantasies.

Edited January 15, 2005 by Socrates

[crusader1234]

Since when has Socialism failed? Communism failed, but Socialism? Canada is doing great, as are the Scandanavian countries. We are all ranked consistently higher than America.