Political Philosophy

[Nihil Obstat]

I've always liked that quote.

[Winchester]

I've always liked: "Shut up, commie."

[Jesus_lol]

Liberal, generally with a few exceptions such as Abortion. and a few others i cant think of right now for some reason, totally fried from work.


It is worth noting that the American definition of Left and Right is way off that of most other countries.

[Winchester]

When one looks at leftist government models, one sees a tendency to place much power in government over private property (all the way over to a complete denial of any but state property). This is disguised by supposed concern over solving social problems. Thus lefties appear "compassionate," because they want to help everyone (when actually, they rarely want to help people personally--they want the government to do it for them. A recent discussion with a leftist in which I suggested forming a private group to aid those deemed worthy of help ended in my being called a pig).

I do not confuse liberals with leftists. The liberals in the US are idiots who think that liberalism will be best served by protecting it with a huge number of laws and regulations. They would do far better to support right wing government.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282954798' post='2164311']
I've always liked: "Shut up, commie."
[/quote]
That was St. Pius X, right?

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282960347' post='2164343']
I do not confuse liberals with leftists. The liberals in the US are idiots who think that liberalism will be best served by protecting it with a huge number of laws and regulations. They would do far better to support right wing government.
[/quote]

+1

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1282931026' post='2164179']
~ Pope Pius XI, [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html"][i]Quadragesimo Anno[/i][/url]
[/quote]

What did Pope Pius XI specifically mean by "true Socialist" that he condemn?
Stalin would obviously think that he's Socialism is true, and it was totalitarian. Many Socialists would say that it's not even Socialism in the first place.
Some people even go so far call Obama a Socialist, even though he is the savior of Corporate Capitalism.

When the Church defends "Private Property", it is not in any way the same sense of "Private Property" in the Capitalistic sense, or most economist's understanding of the word "Private Property".
The Church endorses and condemns certain [i]concept [/i]under certain [i]term[/i], I'm more interested in the [i]Church's definition[/i] of its term rather than the word used for the definition itself.

Btw, do you agree that "Democratic Socialism" is close to Catholic Social Doctrine, and has made a remarkable contribution to the formation of social consciousness? I don't actually endorse it.

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282960347' post='2164343']
When one looks at leftist government models, one sees a tendency to place much power in government over private property (all the way over to a complete denial of any but state property). This is disguised by supposed concern over solving social problems. Thus lefties appear "compassionate," because they want to help everyone (when actually, they rarely want to help people personally--they want the government to do it for them. A recent discussion with a leftist in which I suggested forming a private group to aid those deemed worthy of help ended in my being called a pig).

I do not confuse liberals with leftists. The liberals in the US are idiots who think that liberalism will be best served by protecting it with a huge number of laws and regulations. They would do far better to support right wing government.
[/quote]

I do agree with this. US liberals are very ignorant, always looking to the State as a solution. US conservatives, on the other hand, are a bunch rhetorical experts in limited government (who obviously mean the perfect opposite), they confuse "freedom" with "privileges" or "license".

[un.privileged]

[quote]Enforced charity is not charity.[/quote]
That is State Socialism. Libertarian Socialism does not enforce charity.

[un.privileged]

It does not also take property rights, it restore property rights to the worker and/or workers (instead most to the State or most to few capital investors) by decentralizing private property.

Edited August 28, 2010 by un.privileged

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1282964373' post='2164374']
What did Pope Pius XI specifically mean by "true Socialist" that he condemn?
Stalin would obviously think that he's Socialism is true, and it was totalitarian. Many Socialists would say that it's not even Socialism in the first place.
Some people even go so far call Obama a Socialist, even though he is the savior of Corporate Capitalism.
[/quote]

Whoah, there, Questioning Quentin. You're going to upset someone by asking direct and pertinent questions, so knock it off. Here, have a whole Somna tablet. (Not to be confused with Soma, which affects the body.)

Socialism doesn't have any [i]definition[/i], it is what anyone wants to believe it is: or better yet, what anyone wants to [i]feel[/i] it is. As Catholics, you see, we're also idealists, in the philosophical sense. <cough>

~Sternhauser

Edited August 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1282994242' post='2164452']
Whoah, there, Questioning Quentin. You're going to upset someone by asking direct and pertinent questions, so knock it off. Here, have a whole Somna tablet. (Not to be confused with Soma, which affects the body.)

Socialism doesn't have any [i]definition[/i], it is what anyone wants to believe it is: or better yet, what anyone wants to [i]feel[/i] it is. As Catholics, you see, we're also idealists, in the philosophical sense. <cough>

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I'll just say that the Pope's meaning of "True Socialism", is primarily Marxist socialism with includes the process to "takeover of all private property ownerships for the State",

As Pope Leo XIII said in [i]Rerum Novarum[/i]

[indent][size="3"]"To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, [b]are striving to do away with private propert[/b]y, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all,[b] to be administered by the [i]State[/i] or by municipal [i]bodies[/i][/b]. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community."[/size]
[/indent]
Socialism had and has other definition, it was and is "worker ownership and control" instead of "State ownership"

As Benjamin Tucker, a libertarian socialist said,

[indent]"There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other [i]solidaritarian[/i].
One is dictatorial, the other [i]libertarian[/i].
One is metaphysical, the other [i]positive[/i].
One is dogmatic, the other [i]scientific[/i].
One is emotional, the other [i]reflective[/i].
One is destructive, the other [i]constructive[/i]."
[/indent]
[indent]"The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor. "

[/indent][indent]"One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
[i]The other says[/i]:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these[i] two Socialisms[/i].
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other."[/indent]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1282971738' post='2164403']
It does not also take property rights, it restore property rights to the worker and/or workers (instead most to the State or most to few capital investors) by decentralizing private property.
[/quote]
How do you decentralize private property without a government to prevent corporations from reorganizing?

[un.privileged]

[size="2"][quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1282994242' post='2164452']
Whoah, there, Questioning Quentin. You're going to upset someone by asking direct and pertinent questions, so knock it off. Here, have a whole Somna tablet. (Not to be confused with Soma, which affects the body.)

Socialism doesn't have any [i]definition[/i], it is what anyone wants to believe it is: or better yet, what anyone wants to [i]feel[/i] it is. As Catholics, you see, we're also idealists, in the philosophical sense. <cough>

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
[/size][font="Arial"][size="2"]
I'll just say that the Pope's meaning of "True Socialism", is primarily Marxist socialism with includes the process to "takeover of all private property ownerships for the State". This type of Socialism usually is Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist, which sadly was the "mainstream" form of Socialism.

As Pope Leo XIII said in [i]Rerum Novarum[/i]

[/size][/font][indent][size="2"][font="Arial"]"To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, [b]are striving to do away with private propert[/b]y, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all,[b] to be administered by the [i]State[/i] or by municipal [i]bodies[/i][/b]. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the communit[/font]y."
[/size][/indent][size="2"]
[font="Arial"]Socialism had and has other definition, it was and is "worker ownership and control" instead of "State ownership" of "municipal bodies ownership". This definition socialism is not at all opposed to Church's teaching, the fact is the Church endorses worker ownership and control (such as Co-operatives). As Pope John Paul said in [i]Laborem Exercensm.[/i]

[/font][/size][indent][font="Arial"][size="2"]"In the light of the above, the many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church take on special significance[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][sup]23[/sup][/size][/font][font="Arial"] [size="2"]: [i]proposals [/i]for [i]joint ownership of the means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and/or profits of businesses[/i], so-called shareholding by labour, etc. "[/size][/font]
[/indent][size="2"]
So socialism has two opposed definitions, As Benjamin Tucker, a libertarian socialist said,

[/size][indent][size="2"]"There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive."
[/size][/indent] [indent][size="2"]"The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in [i]possession of its own[/i].
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor. "

[/size][/indent][indent][size="2"] "One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
[i] The other says[/i]:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these[i] two Socialisms[/i].
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other."
[/size][/indent][font="Arial"][size="2"]
Unlike[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"] Capitalism, [/size][/font][size="2"]the Church teaches that Labor is not under the rule of Capital, as Capital is the [i]result[/i] of work.

[i]Laborem Exercens,[/i]
[/size][indent][size="2"]"Further consideration of this question should confirm our conviction of [i]the priority of human labour over [/i]what in the course of time we have grown accustomed to calling [i]capital. [/i]Since the concept of capital includes not only the natural resources placed at man's disposal but also the whole collection of means by which man appropriates natural resources and transforms them in accordance with his needs (and thus in a sense humanizes them), it must immediately be noted that [i]all these means are the result of the historical heritage of human labour. [/i]All the means of production, from the most primitive to the ultramodern ones-it is man that has gradually developed them: man's experience and intellect. In this way there have appeared not only the simplest instruments for cultivating the earth but also, through adequate progress in science and technology, the more modern and complex ones: machines, factories, laboratories, and computers. Thus [i]everything that is at the service of work, [/i]everything that in the present state of technology constitutes its ever more highly perfected "instrument", is [i]the result of work."[/i][/size]
[/indent]

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1282971342' post='2164401']
That is State Socialism. Libertarian Socialism does not enforce charity.
[/quote]

Libertarianism to closely resembles anarchy. Some law is necessary.