Can One Be A Sincere Catholic And A True Socialist?

[Aloysius]

what do you mean by help people get to work? any intervention by a larger government would be to help the smaller government do it itself, not to take over the issue.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1544642' date='May 27 2008, 12:40 AM']no, I don't agree with socialist healthcare, nor temporarily socialist healthcare... you seemed to totally miss the point. the government can use corrective measures like imminent domain when private property is being denied by some unjust situation. I already said healthcare is an entirely different situation. "distributivist" healthcare would be nothing more than lots of doctors who own their own practices. it's not a government policy, it's an economic system that can be supported by some economic policies including in radical cases corrective imminent domain.

to me, there must be a systematic change in healthcare that includes cutting through all the red-tape regulation and too many malpractice lawsuits that keeps costs so high... perhaps less regulation in the way of health insurance could provide competition to lower health insurance prices... the distributivist stuff might mean more small privately owned insurance providers so that you can deal with someone on your own level. my primary concern at a government level is the inflation of healthcare prices due to self-defeating government systems.[/quote]

if the popes say everyone is to be ensured a basic minimum... how can you say that people shouldn't get a basic minimum while they are waiting for the land etc? i have to speak metaphorically.... we simply can't divvy up land nowadays, the idea of divvying up land can only be as an analaogy and methphorical. if they ahve the right to the basics... how can we deprive them while we wait for capitalism to catch up?

whether it be in health care, or whether it be in any situation when society should have been structured more fairly. not just health care.

this is about foundational social issues, not simply people being out on their luck. that's why charity isn't the proper channel. how can we say charity is proper when the fondational issues are fundamental rights as defined by the popes? matters of social justice, "rights" are not matters of charity.

maybe you don't like the idea of penalizing everyone with taxes to help the poor... but if that's hte case... and i'm sorry if this sounds really liberal, but... then that means we tax the "luxeries" as the popes said, to ensure "peace" as the pope said. we can't divvy up land nowadays, so we shouldn't get too focused on that alone, as it's only the way things were back in the day.

Edited May 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1544643' date='May 27 2008, 12:40 AM']the policy implications i could be getting to... are that... if a gov up the ladder says, this is the minimum for everyone, then that's not necessarily bad. they're just saying what is acceptable and what's not. the locals still do it, and can do more if they want.

i think you and i have discussed... whether the bigger gov should do this...i said they should, as it's minimally intrusive to lay guidelines. and you said we should wait till they fail. but i thought it was impractical to wait until they fail when it's a minimum and merely a guideline, and minmally if not really at all intrusive to the locals.[/quote]

just ignore this post. it's too theoretical and only will side track us. and too incidental.

[Aloysius]

everyone's entitled to the opportunity to earn the basics and own the basics on their own. the theoretical distributivist stuff I've been talking about is how one would achieve what I think would be the most ideal situation, however back to the practical: obviously welfare to help people become self sufficient when they are at a point where they cannot afford the basics is good. don't make them dependent upon it, obviously, and have the ultimate goal to bring people to their own private property. this is not socialism, this is a form of government charity. private charity is definitely preferable and it might be better to have the government finance private charities rather than have them directly involved where they will likely end up creating dependency (as is the nature of government help, it creates dependency and begins to hinder freedom). but it is only to be a safety-net, there is no justification for providing the basics to everyone.

I don't have a problem with luxury taxes. it is wrong that we tax things that we want to happen: it is wrong to tax income and productivity (and it is especially immoral to tax property on a continuous basis, because that takes away the right to private property and requires one to pay a continuous fee to the government to remain on that land, ie it is the government's property not yours; a one time tax on the sale of property could be acceptable). but taxing things that are not necessities is smart and good and can fund the safety-net that is needed... I believe that the systematic change I would propose ultimately would make that safety-net much less necessary. it's obviously a pipe dream and the only way distributivism (or economic Thomism as I like to consider it) could occur is through private endeavors like the Catholic Land Movement in England did. I just brought it up because I find that Catholics who recognize the problems and feel drawn to socialist solutions (which are, in reality, radical no matter how practical they are in the modern social structure due to their wide acceptance) are more willing to recognize the errors of the socialist solution when they research the solutions proposed by the Church's actual social teachings like in the classic encyclical Rerum Novarum... and in Chesterton and Belloc's discussions about the third option of distributivism. It can provide a framework for what types of practical solutions one might be willing to look into also

socialism recognizes a real problem and offers a wrong solution. Rerum Novarum is pretty much the best encyclical to explain this.

[Didymus]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1544459' date='May 26 2008, 11:59 PM']I may be wrong but every time I replied you had defined what you where talking about as a Socialism. All forms of socialism is condemned by the Church. I can not be blamed for your mistake, I was reading what you said, you define what you are taking about as socialism, the Church condemns it.

There are goods in everything. But those goods to not make those things good. It is difficult to speak or communicate on a online board. The things you've stated are very vague, some sound like they could be good some things not, but Socialism is not good, and you've defined those things as Socialism, so I dont know what you want from me. I know that all Socialism is condemn by the Church and you did seem to try to work around that condemnation.[/quote]

but even if this was all you were doing, you never attempted to explain why... as in, understanding the fundamental principles that run contrary to Church teaching. It was always something like 'the Church condemns all forms of Socialism... end of story...'

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1544353' date='May 26 2008, 10:24 PM']but I am not referring to an excessive socialism, but an excessive welfare state, as that is what JPII seems to be actually focusing on here:[/quote]
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
[quote]the Church does not condemn the idea behind welfare, but only excesses in its practice, that in the end they only lead 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."[/quote]
Pope John Paul II is clearly saying here that, in accord with the principle of subsidiarity, the state should not be doing what is best left to private charity.[quote]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.[/quote]
This describes to a tee the modern welfare system, in which government bureaucracies have taken over what was once the duty of family and community among the urban poor, with disastrous results.

In any case, JPII's words here should give serious pause to the Catholic bleeding hearts who insist that ever more government spending is needed for social justice.
Sorry, but the truth is that government bureaucracies will by their nature be dominated by bureaucratic ways of thinking, and increased dependence on government has been a bad thing for society.

[quote]And my identifying with a democratic socialism was not to defend socialism in and of itself, but as a way of bouncing the ideas I was thinking off of PM - ideas that are found in socialism along with the erroneous beliefs that I have never held. I never accepted Socialism as something that was infallible; i merely wanted to learn. Eventually I realized that you and KoC would rather condemn then actually teach. No worries though; there are many others in the Church who feel the same way. Usually others just see them as arrogant.[/quote]
Nothing that is good is unique to socialism, as stated in [i]Quadragesimo Anno[/i]:
[quote]115. Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, [b]and much less are they special to Socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.[/b]

. . . If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith [b]and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity.[/b][/quote]

[quote]I'm calling for an increased awareness to the fact that much of the products we use in this country are made by those in other countries who are denied the right to a fair wage. You have acknowledged the workers in China (as many conservatives do) but how much different is there situation from those in central America? Why must we allow American corporations to exploit cheap labor in other countries?[/quote]
If you want to raise awareness, more power to you! You are free to organize boycotts, buy from socially-conscious businesses, and pressure businesses against unjust practices. Sure, this will take effort, but most worthwhile things do.
Again, that would have nothing to do with socialism.

[quote]I am advocating a greater regulation of the media, which often times influences the outcomes of election debates, candidate stances, polls, election outcomes, etc. as well as working to improve on an electoral system that favors a party frame of mind, one that often leads folks to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' and against the worse candidate rather than for someone that will actually represent them.[/quote]
In other words, say bye-bye to to the First Amendment, and to the fundamental American right to freedom of speech and of the press!
(And yes, kids, that clause of the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect free [i]political[/i] speech - it was not about protecting obscenity and porn as liberals would have you believe, and was never interpreted as such until the 1960s. Of course, many of these obscenity-defending bleeding hearts also want to hush Rush, and throw freedom of political speech out the window.)

At the time of the founding of our American republic, it was common for political speech which went against the official government position to be rigidly regulated and censored by the government.
Is that really what you want to return to?

And somehow, I get the feeling you wouldn't be too thrilled with, say, greater regulation of the media by the Bush administration.
(Presumably, this regulation would only take place [i]after[/i] the People's Glorious Democratic Revolution, when everything is wonderful, and the government only stands for Pravda -Truth?)

And how exactly would the electoral system be "improved"? Independent and third-party candidates are free to run and be voted for. And you can't legislate a "frame of mind." If people want to rally around an independent or third-party they are perfectly free to do so.

[quote]You need to be wealthy to get into office, or you need wealthy donors. To me, this weakens the 'democratic' part of a democratic republic, because we are no longer necessarily choosing from the best to represent us, but rather the richest. As you would probably say, I am pretty much just 'bitchin and moanin' here, as I don't see a change happening anytime soon with regards to this, but it is another problem I find with the political scene we currently find ourselves in.[/quote]
Well, setting aside for the moment the fact that the American Founding Fathers [i]never[/i] used the word "democratic" to refer to their republic (that would have to wait until Chairman Mao), what exactly are you advocating here?

Any American citizen meeting the legal requirements can run for office, but the practical reality is that campaigning often takes money. But, hey, that's a fact of Democracy.
Again, you haven't proposed anything concrete. Bitchin' an' moanin' ain't gonna cut it.
And I certainly don't see more government interference in the campaign process as a good answer, if that's what you're after.

I'm afraid your schemes to bring Power to the People would in reality only bring more power to the government, as is invariably the case in socialist regimes.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1544591' date='May 27 2008, 12:15 AM']Lay off dude. No need to be rude to someone who agrees with your points.[/quote]
Except Alycin never even addressed my points, having nothing to say but a snide (and rude) comment to Didymus about "black and white thinkers" (presumably referring to me).

It seems rules of politeness are to be a one-way street on phatmass, not applying to the bleeding hearts.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1545764' date='May 27 2008, 10:45 PM']Except Alycin never even addressed my points, having nothing to say but a snide (and rude) comment to Didymus about "black and white thinkers" (presumably referring to me).

It seems rules of politeness are to be a one-way street on phatmass, not applying to the bleeding hearts.[/quote]




ohhhh the irony

[XIX]

[quote name='kujo' post='1544591' date='May 27 2008, 02:15 AM']Lay off dude. No need to be rude to someone who agrees with your points.[/quote]
Where do you get that she agrees with all of his points? And more importantly, why should that matter? Do you think we should hold people to a more lenient standard just because we agree with them?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]this is not socialism, this is a form of government charity. private charity is definitely preferable and it might be better to have the government finance private charities rather than have them directly involved where they will likely end up creating dependency (as is the nature of government help, it creates dependency and begins to hinder freedom). but it is only to be a safety-net, there is no justification for providing the basics to everyone.[quote][/quote][/quote]

i'm not sure how earlier you said i was missing the point, when essentially we agree on important things, given that you'd be for welfare etc in some situation to get them back on their feet etc. whether it's called socialistic etc, tomatoe, tomato, or euphemized by saying gov charity. i don't see how it's not though socialistic. but it's semantics. i agree with teh saftey net thing.
the only thing i dn't agree with is the private charity preference thing. private charity is only to be used sometimes like when someon eis down on their luck, but gov charity othertimes... if it's a "right" and all the talk i quoted from the popes, a foundational societal issue then gov charity is required. ultimately, a distributist goal of course. subsidiarity is not applicable to insit on private charity in chases of "rights" as that theory only deals with the lower level gov being prefereable to fixing the situation of rights, as that theory only mandates private charity first when it's not a "right", at least as far as i read it frm the popes, and my sense of justice.

i really don't like saying it's gov "charity" though, if its' a right. i think you are missing the point of what popes mean when talk about "justice" and "rights". it doesn't make sense to put the burden on private charity, when the rights are being derpived of someone. it's a matter of law. laws are depriving them, and so laws should fix the situation too, however briefly it may be to ensure access.

Edited May 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

.

[MilesJesu]

Please allow me to add for your consumption, Pope Leo XIII's encylical: Rerum Novarum. It is an excellent encyclical about Capital and Labor. I did not see anyone bring it up for discussion, but here are two excerpts that may intrigue you to read more.

4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. 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.

14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents."(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.

These are good excerpts establishing property rights, due justice, and to some extent, the proper limits of government. The last few lines are particularly interesting given the virtual ban on homeschooling in CA (only certified by the state, only with approved materials). But if you are interested in reading the encylical (warning: it is long but good) here is a link:

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

Peace,

MilesJesu

[Socrates]

[quote name='MilesJesu' post='1678911' date='Oct 16 2008, 04:22 AM']Please allow me to add for your consumption, Pope Leo XIII's encylical: Rerum Novarum. It is an excellent encyclical about Capital and Labor. I did not see anyone bring it up for discussion, but here are two excerpts that may intrigue you to read more.

4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. 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.

14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents."(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.

These are good excerpts establishing property rights, due justice, and to some extent, the proper limits of government. The last few lines are particularly interesting given the virtual ban on homeschooling in CA (only certified by the state, only with approved materials). But if you are interested in reading the encylical (warning: it is long but good) here is a link:

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

Peace,

MilesJesu[/quote]
Thanks for the quotes.

I quoted [i]Quadragesimo Anno[/i] written by Pius XII in commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of [i]Rerum Novarum[/i].

Still very pertinent.