The Sin of the Socialist

[Guest Aluigi]

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.

discuss, I'll bring more up later..

[crusader1234]

There are a lot of socialists who are socialist because they have a lot of homes, fields, servants, maids, oxen, and indeed ass in the first place, adn want to give it away to those less fortunate

Anyways, I'm not sure if this is correctly categorized as the sin of the socialist. It is more like the sin of everyone. Coveting other people's property is, in my opinion, the sinful aspect of every economic system currently implemented in the world. (Note: Distributism isn't being implemented in the world)

Now, I'm not a socialist (though most certainly not capitalist, if its one or the other I'd probably move to some crazy villiage where they trade cows) but I don't think you're being reasonable.

[Guest Aluigi]

Going against private property is part of breaking the tenth commandment.

[quote]11. With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force. The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his."(2) [/quote]
-Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

discuss amongst yourselves.
More Later...

[crusader1234]

[quote]Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else? As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.  [/quote]

Capitalism = Rich guys benefit from poor guys
Socialism = Poor guys benefit from rich guys

Both seem inadequate.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 20 2005, 04:26 PM'] Going against private property is part of breaking the tenth commandment.


-Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

discuss amongst yourselves.
More Later... [/quote]
While ther eis nothing wrong with private property, social=ism is not merely coveting other's property, but wanting to live equally. This just means that property gets moved around. No one relaly owns it, yes, because it is for the community. You are sinning if you want to have what others have, but socialism isn't about having what others have, but it is about sharing what you have, be it more or less than others. This is a virtue.

The Christian community in Acts was socialistic since you were supposed to give to the needy, and everything you owned belonged to the community. Two people died or trying to lie and withold from the community. To condemn socialism is to condemn the apostles.

Acts 5:32-35

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possesions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

God bless,
Mikey

[ironmonk]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 20 2005, 04:13 PM'] There are a lot of socialists who are socialist because they have a lot of homes, fields, servants, maids, oxen, and indeed ass in the first place, adn want to give it away to those less fortunate 

Anyways, I'm not sure if this is correctly categorized as the sin of the socialist.  It is more like the sin of everyone.  Coveting other people's property is, in my opinion, the sinful aspect of every economic system currently implemented in the world.  (Note:  Distributism isn't being implemented in the world)

Now, I'm not a socialist (though most certainly not capitalist, if its one or the other I'd probably move to some crazy villiage where they trade cows) but I don't think you're being reasonable. [/quote]
If socialist wanted to give their stuff away then they could do so... socialist want to force others to give and take from those that have. They don't like it if someone has more then them. They are the epitome of those that push class warfare on free nations.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited January 20, 2005 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Jan 20 2005, 06:42 PM'] While ther eis nothing wrong with private property, social=ism is not merely coveting other's property, but wanting to live equally. This just means that property gets moved around. No one relaly owns it, yes, because it is for the community. You are sinning if you want to have what others have, but socialism isn't about having what others have, but it is about sharing what you have, be it more or less than others. This is a virtue.

The Christian community in Acts was socialistic since you were supposed to give to the needy, and everything you owned belonged to the community. Two people died or trying to lie and withold from the community. To condemn socialism is to condemn the apostles.

Acts 5:32-35

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possesions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
It was not socialistic. They gave freely. They were not forced to give.


God Bless.
ironmonk

[MichaelFilo]

That is true, but irrelevant. The point was that it's wrong to be a socialist.

God bless,
Mikey

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 20 2005, 11:07 PM'] Capitalism = Rich guys benefit from poor guys [/quote]
I think of it more as clever guys ripping off the less astute.

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 20 2005, 04:07 PM']
Capitalism = Rich guys benefit from poor guys
Socialism = Poor guys benefit from rich guys

Both seem inadequate. [/quote]
Indeed, these are extremely inadequate (as well as false) definitions of captalism and socialism. The Church has indeed condemend socialism. (I put the quote from Pope Pius XI regarding socialism on my signature to help combat this nonsense.)

Learn the real meanings of these terms, rather than make cheap slogans, if you wish to debate these issues intelligently.

Socialism is wrong because it denies man the fundamental right to private property, as explained in the quotes from Rerum Novarum which Aluigi provided. Socialism places total power over a man's property in the hands of the state. This wrong, and is tyranny. Furthermore, it leads to economic ruin which leads to increased poverty for all.

"Capitalism" can actually infact involve "rich guys" helping "poor guys" by creating jobs. If a business does well, jobs are created and people are are given the opportunity to economically benefit from the "capitalist's" wealth.
More importantly, "capitalism" gives the poor (or anybody) the opportunity to economically benefit themselves. In "capitalist" America, there are countless success stories of people starting out penniless, and through hard work and ingenuity, working their way to the top to create success for themselves and others. "Capitalism" rewards hard work and ingenuity.

In "capitalist" countries like America, being "poor" usually means not having to drive a cheaper car, or not being able to afford a "nice" house. In much of the world, being poor means literally starving to death.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a destroyer of wealth and of the human spirit. Success is punished, and laziness and mediocracy encouraged. Men are not free to decide what to do with their own property, and these decisions are put in the hands of government beurocrats, who are parasites and did nothing to create the wealth which they control. It is a system bound to failure.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Jan 20 2005, 04:59 PM'] That is true, but irrelevant. The point was that it's wrong to be a socialist.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
It is indeed wrong to be a socialist. (Again, see my signature!)

Freely giving and sharing one's belongings is not socialism. If people freely choose to live in a communal setting (such as a monastary), this is fine and good.

Socialism is when the state forcably redistributes other people's property. It is in reality the redistribution of power from individuals to the state, and this is wrong.

For anyone interested in studying this issue in depth, I strongly recommend they read The Ethics of Redistribution by Bertrand de Jouvenal.

[Guest Aluigi]

Read [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html"]Rerum Novarum[/url]

The right to private property is an inherent right of man, part of what separates him from the beasts. This right is upheld in the tenth commandment and thus an infringement upon this right is an infringement on the tenth commandment.

All major sins can be categorized into one of the commandments, and the point is that the sin of socialism is an infringement upon the tenth commandment.

[Guest Aluigi]

<more later>

[crusader1234]

I never said socialism was right, so I don't understand why you launched into an exhaustive explanation of why I was wrong. I am by no means a socialist.

I do, however, think Capitalism is not conducive to the 'dignity of work' that the Catholic Church supports. In my previous post, I quoted Rerum Novarum which states that each person should reap the harvest of their own labour. While Capitalism allows for this in ways which Socialism arguably does not, it also allows tremendous abusive of power and the 'reaping of others harvest'.

I don't really think it matters what economic system you support in word. I think what matters is action. How much have you given to Tsunami relief? How much do you give to the Church? How much do you give to local homeless shelters? Whether you give time or money to these organizations, thats what matters. The broad political spectrum allows for anything. Personal charity is my economic stance.

Tangent for Ironmonk: If a person choses to live in a 'socialistic nation', they aren't being forced to do anything. I don't understand what is wrong with that. For example, in Canada I pay my taxes and everyone gets healthcare. I have no problem with that. How is supporting healthcare bad? If I wanted to stop, I would pack my bags and move.

[Guest Aluigi]

<the Church is opposed to emmigration, especially JPII. people are supposed to love their own country and stay in it to help it>

Anyway, people have the right to private property, and ought to OWN their own means of production. They ought to own things, that is part of what separates him from the beasts. Ownership is a good thing, but like all good things the giving up of it is a good thing. Like celibacy, et cetera. But forming a society in which no one can own anything because everyone shares everything is wrong.