Subdued Capitalism

[dairygirl4u2c]

there are many snippets from popes that indicate not the laissezz faire approach many advocate with captalism. not that socialism is good; it's in fact bad they say. just that caitalism must be subdued often.
i'd contend my view of all that stuff is more in line with stuff from the popes than many conservative catholics.

here are some quotes.... i had some posted here, but i couldn't find it in the search mechanism, so i'll be more explicit with my keywords here for future searches.

From the pope, in populorum progressio:
[quote]Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace[/quote].

here's an interesting one... although he refers to free trade advocation as more liberal. probably just word games since those who favor it are notoriously nowadays conservatives. i guess many conservatives are against complete free trade, to be fair.
[quote]In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce unfair results. One must recognize that it is the fundamental principle of liberalism, as the rule for commercial exchange, which is questioned here.[/quote]
[quote]What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.[/quote]


here is some by sollicitudo rei socialis
this one basically says, the earth is ours to use and people come first, but that's can only go so far. now, most conservatives wouldn't disagree, extreme the extremely extreme. but, it does make you wonder why they defer to conservative principles of no government interferrence instead of "liberal" principles of protecting the environment. there's a matter of discretion often, and it's a wonder why they defer one way instead of the other, especially the extreme conservatives.
[quote]Once again it is evident that development, the planning which governs it, and the way in which resources are used must include respect for moral demands. One of the latter undoubtedly imposes limits on the use of the natural world. The dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to "use and misuse," or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to "eat of the fruit of the tree" (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.[/quote]

it's interesting he calls it "liberal capitalism". it seems more like it's extreme conservative capitalism in the following quote. probably jsut talking abotu historic sense, and in the sense that anything that deviates from CC teaching is inherently "liberal". industrialization occurred in the late 1700s in the west, and not till the mid to late 1800s in the USA, when monopolies and poor working standards were run amok by laissez faire standards.
[quote]In the West there exists a system which is historically inspired by the principles of the liberal capitalism which developed with industrialization during the last century. In the East there exists a system inspired by the Marxist collectivism which sprang from an interpretation of the condition of the proletarian classes made in the light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two ideologies, on the basis of two very different visions of man and of his freedom and social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic level, antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures of ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production.[/quote]

Edited December 19, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

Don't have time for a good response, but I'd refer you to Thomas E. Woods's book "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy"
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Defense-Economics/dp/0739110365"]http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Cathol...s/dp/0739110365[/url]

Personally, I hold that distributivism is most compatible with Catholic economic teaching especially Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII, my absolute favorite social encyclical of the popes. More modern popes have gone the route of suggesting a capitalist market tamed with socialist programs, a sort of hybrid between them, a "subdued capitalism". I don't support that approach, but where me and the popes would agree is the principals, it is simply the pragmatic political approach that we would differ on. Based on the same principals, two people can suggest two different practical approaches and not be in disagreement on their principal beliefs and goals.

a laissez faire theorist could, in fact, find himself in good standing according to Catholicism so long as his theory took into account the principals and goals of Catholic social teaching, if he honestly believes those things can be accomplished through his version of a laissez faire economy. Probably couldn't be an absolute laissez faire the way liberal capitalists desire it, the government should make laws against economic moral evils such as theft, usury, exploitation, and the like. but when the difference of opinion comes down to practical matters, there is room for debate and disagreement.

[dairygirl4u2c]

do you suppose distributism would work in the real world to solve the ill effects of capitalism?
distributism being ensuring that there are many capitalists, by government intervention if necessary. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism[/url]

or do you care less to whether it works, and more to whether it's simply the right thing to do in principle, or.

i would like that better too, if it'd work, than subdued capitalism as i call it. (you could call distributism subdued cap too but) i could even see espousing what i'd call progressive distriutism, as that'd ensure that most of the problems are taken care of by the market, and problems that fall through cracks can be taken care of by the government. (or charity when appropriate)

Edited December 19, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

this doesn't say you have to believe in the minimum wage. but, it does say that sometimes, you do.
and, more importantly, it says you can't just assume the wages being paid are fair, just because it was agreed upon at arm's length.

[quote]We now approach a subject of great importance, and one in respect of which, if extremes are to be avoided, right notions are absolutely necessary. Wages, as we are told, are regulated by free consent, and therefore the employer, when he pays what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond. The only way, it is said, in which injustice might occur would be if the master refused to pay the whole of the wages, or if the workman should not complete the work undertaken; in such cases the public authority should intervene, to see that each obtains his due, but not under any other circumstances.

44. To this kind of argument a fair-minded man will not easily or entirely assent; it is not complete, for there are important considerations which it leaves out of account altogether. To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self preservation. "In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread."(33) Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First of all, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality. The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.[/quote]

i'd argue the paragraph after that though, really puts the presumption on insisting on a minimum wage. (not that exceptions wouldn't be sometimes warranted. they're exceptions because the presumption is for a minimum)
[quote]Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.[/quote]

you have competing principles... do not want government to intervene if possible v want a livable wage for an individual. why defer to no government if the wage being earned in unlivable? you may be able to maneuver a technical argument to get out of the popes' messages.... but is that the spirit of their messages?? for the extreme conservatives especially, given that there's always competing principles, why here defer to "conservative" politics of today, and given there's so many other places of deference areas yet some simply want to be a pop textbook conservative (meaning there are many principles you'd espouse as a conservative, but in addition you espouse contemporary things that pop culture says is what the "true" conservative believes)??
again proving my point..... no unifying priniciples, other than mindless adherence to a social convention.

Edited December 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c