Tradinistas

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

From their about us page.

"We Tradinistas are a party of young Christians devoted to a ressourcement of Catholic social teaching, classical Aristotelian-Thomist political philosophy, Marxist economic analysis, and their integration into a new kind of politics."

As plain as day they are claiming to be devote Catholic Aristotelian-Thomist Marxists. As plain as day they openly admit to trying to marrying Catholic social teaching to Marxists socialism. Can we both admit as a matter of fact that they can correctly be referred as Catholic Marxists now?

I am honestly not sure why you continue to debate this specific point, as I have already conceded the argument to you twice, for the sake of advancing the discussion. I have also explained to you why it does not matter even if you are correct.

But if you really want to continue debating this point, aside from the fact that it is irrelevant to the ultimate point that I made, I will be happy to oblige you as soon as you provide me with your definition of Marxism, as I asked you previously, or who you consider to be a "Catholic Marxist" as I am asking you now.

If by "Catholic Marxist" you mean someone who is influenced by Marxist thought or who holds certain views that are consistent with Marxism, then yes, I would consider them Catholic Marxists. I have already conceded here in this thread that they are influenced by Marxist thought, so this should come as no surprise to you. The problem with such a definition, of course, is that it would likely include me, you, Maggyie, and everyone else on this forum except Socrates, as well. I hold to certain views that are socialistic, such as Universal Health Care, a minimum wage, food stamps for the poor, etc. Does that make me a Catholic Marxist as well?

If by "Catholic Marxist" you mean someone who holds to all of the major principles of Marxism, then I do not think that has been established. As I already explained, for example, my understanding is that Marxism in principle seeks for the abolition of private property, and that the authors of the website do not appear to advocate for that.

As for the smoking gun that you located on their website, I kindly refer you to Wikipedia concerning Marxian economic analysis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics
 

Quote

 

Because one does not necessarily have to be politically marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage rather than being synonymous. They share a semantic field while also allowing connotative and denotative differences.

Marxian economics concerns itself variously with the analysis of crisis in capitalism, the role and distribution of the surplus product and surplus value in various types of economic systems, the nature and origin of economic value, the impact of class and class struggle on economic and political processes, and the process of economic evolution.

Marxian economics, particularly in academia, is distinguished from marxism as a political ideology as well as the normative aspects of Marxist thought, with the view that Marx's original approach to understanding economics and economic development is intellectually independent from Marx's own advocacy of revolutionary socialism.[2][3] Marxian economists do not lean entirely upon the works of Marx and other widely known Marxists, but draw from a range of Marxist and non-Marxist sources.[4]

 

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Maggyie said:

I don't think it's too extreme a statement, given that they are OK with violence. I think it's reasonable to think that is a likely outcome.

I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.

Quote

I'm kinda a broken record on that point though. I've been thinking about the best way to crystallize what I'm saying - the Tradinistas are replacing faith in God with faith in ideology. Ideology is poison.

Where exactly do they say that we should replace our faith in God with a faith in ideology?

Quote

Notice that their manifesto has 20 points and the first point is "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life." He, the Alpha and the Omega, is reduced to a bullet point in the program. They have the audacity to continue with 19 other critical parts of their platform. That's what ideology does to Christians. It makes people forget they can and should stop with Point #1. Jesus is just a plank, one of 20, in their political manifesto. A hard ideological center with a thin Christian shell. 

I think I already responded to the substance of this in my previous responses to you. You are advancing mostly on an argument from silence, which are never very convincing as a general matter.

If we took the above attitude, how could we ever discuss anything on this website other than the name of Jesus? Anytime you wrote anything other than "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life" I would have to respond by saying "How dare you have the audacity to write anything other than the name of Jesus!" I do not think that Jesus minds if we discuss, sports, politics, economics, our love lives, etc. It is not as though He is in competition with us.

But maybe I am just really misunderstanding your concern or the point you want to make.

In your view, is it acceptable for Christians to be actively involved in politics, or to have strongly held political beliefs?

Although I would disagree with the particular politics that they advocate, as a general principle, I do not understand why it is wrong for them to advocate for particular politics, if they believe that those particular politics are most consistent with the Christian faith.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Peace

[Amppax]

And... Godwin's law! That didn't take long. 

Ultimately, Catholic social teaching is concerned with establishing the social kingship of Christ (see the encyclical "Quas Primas"). This only comes about through conversion, not politics. However, this doesn't mean politics or political science doesn't play a role in the formation of Christian society. While I agree that ideology can be a problem, I don't necessarily think that's the case here. 

Even though I read the different posts, I still don't see how Thomism and Marxist thought can be reconciled. The underlying philosophies are so radically different. I don't see anything those posts that address those differences. 

Also, violence can be just. To assert otherwise is to ignore the majority of the western theological tradition. 

[Amppax]

@Nihil Obstat interested to see your thoughts. 

[KnightofChrist]

I believe I will write them and simply ask them if the term "Catholic Marxism" is a correct or incorrect term to apply to their group/party. Whatever their answer, if they answer, yes or no, I will provide it here. Whether or not they agree or disagree I still believe it is correct to use the word "Marxist" to describe them. Also, later today or tomorrow I will respond with in depth and detailed post of how I believe their ideology is a form of Marxism and is incompatible with Church teaching.

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

And... Godwin's law! That didn't take long. 

Godwin's Law, I thought I'd save us the 20 or so pages it typically takes and just go ahead and get it out of the way early, lol.
But in all seriousness, I brought it up because it has always perplexed me how Nazism and Marxism seems to receive different treatment from society. Both socialist ideologies lead to the deaths of millions of people. Nazism is largely condemned by society and any attempt to resurrect or renew is panned and condemned by most. Yet this does not seem to happen with Marxist Socialism, even though collectively it killed people in far greater numbers than Nazism. Which is something I've never understood. Why does Marxism get a pass but Nazism does not? Why are people still trying to resurrect, renew, or retry it? Why are not such attempts condemned and panned in the same manner? It makes no sense to me.

I think people in this thread would have reacted quite differently if it was an attempt to marry a form of Neo-Nazism with Catholicism in the same manner. But, I'm not so sure since @Peace stated he may have reacted the same.

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

Ultimately, Catholic social teaching is concerned with establishing the social kingship of Christ (see the encyclical "Quas Primas"). This only comes about through conversion, not politics. However, this doesn't mean politics or political science doesn't play a role in the formation of Christian society. While I agree that ideology can be a problem, I don't necessarily think that's the case here. 

Even though I read the different posts, I still don't see how Thomism and Marxist thought can be reconciled. The underlying philosophies are so radically different. I don't see anything those posts that address those differences. 

Since you seem to believe they are trying to marry Thomism/Catholic thought with Marxist thought do you believe that the term "Catholic Marxist" or that term "Marxist" could be correctly used to identify this group? Or do you disagree with the use of such a term? If you agree or disagree, why?

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

Also, violence can be just. To assert otherwise is to ignore the majority of the western theological tradition. 

While I'm not saying this group "will go out and kill people" ( @Peace ). I do understand how others could legitimately be concerned for the potential violence of any group that advocates Marxist ideology, given Marxism's long track record of violence.

Break time over, back to work.

[Ice_nine]

On 9/30/2016 at 0:54 PM, Maggyie said:

Also I want to add that such people with grand programs are usually spoiled bourgeois Westerners. From a global perspective, the 21st century is the most just and least impoverished in history. Just in the last 20-30 years, huge percentages have been lifted out of poverty. Meanwhile progress in the West has slowed and in some cases reversed (income inequality). Myopia makes these effete Westerners unable to process these experiences of others. 

yeah but it's also easy for someone who is relatively well off (has adequate shelter, clothing, food, water, employment opportunities) to say economics has nothing to do with salvation. That may be true, but misleading. I know Catholics have a tendency to romanticize poverty as a means to holiness, and of course it can be, but it can also wear down your resolve to be holy. I know I get pretty pissy when I'm hungry/tired or whatever. If I had to deal with the constant stress of poverty and my only source of relief was from sex/alcohol/drugs . . . who knows if I would cave or not?

Sure we all have free will and personal responsibility yada yada I get that. But for believers who seem to be in love with capitalism and so very much against government programs that help the poor, it can convey a message of dismissive indifference. Whether or not a person actually cares about the marginalized is a different matter than the image we portray to others.

The Gospel is hard to understand sometimes. I have strong feelings about empowering those who are marginalized in society. I think gov't is one of many vehicles one might use to reach that destination. But there is no panacea. Power will always be abused, always because of sin. You're right on that. It seems very hard for humans not to abuse power.

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Whether or not they agree or disagree I still believe it is correct to use the word "Marxist" to describe them.

Let me give you an example. The NAZI party has the word "Socialist" in their title. Does this make them socialist? No. They are fascist.

Another example: I, Peace, am the president of the USA. Does this make me the president?

You admit that the answer they give to the question is irrelevant to whether or not they are properly characterized as Marxist, because you will continue to characterize them as Marxist regardless of the answer they give.

Why exactly are you asking then?

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Also, later today or tomorrow I will respond with in depth and detailed post of how I believe their ideology is a form of Marxism and is incompatible with Church teaching.

Wait a second. You desire to discuss the substance of what they actually say? This is positive news.

I would not be surprised to conclude that some of what they advocate contradicts the teaching of the Church. Some of what they advocate appears to be fairly suspicious to me.

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Godwin's Law, I thought I'd save us the 20 or so pages it typically takes and just go ahead and get it out of the way early, lol.
But in all seriousness, I brought it up because it has always perplexed me how Nazism and Marxism seems to receive different treatment from society. Both socialist ideologies lead to the deaths of millions of people. Nazism is largely condemned by society and any attempt to resurrect or renew is panned and condemned by most. Yet this does not seem to happen with Marxist Socialism, even though collectively it killed people in far greater numbers than Nazism. Which is something I've never understood. Why does Marxism get a pass but Nazism does not? Why are people still trying to resurrect, renew, or retry it? Why are not such attempts condemned and panned in the same manner? It makes no sense to me.

Because Nazism and Marxist Socialism are different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
 

Quote

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/[1]), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state, as well as other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism developed out of the influences of Pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after German defeat in World War I.

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying Germans as part of what Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[2] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of "racial purity" (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum, while excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or belonging to an "inferior" race. The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of a new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good" and to accept the priority of political interests in economic organisation.[3]

 

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I think people in this thread would have reacted quite differently if it was an attempt to marry a form of Neo-Nazism with Catholicism in the same manner. But, I'm not so sure since @Peace stated he may have reacted the same.

I have no idea, but it is likely that my reaction would be different because, as I explained above, Nazism and Socialism are different things.

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

While I'm not saying this group "will go out and kill people" ( @Peace ). I do understand how others could legitimately be concerned for the potential violence of any group that advocates Marxist ideology, given Marxism's long track record of violence.

Well would you also understand if someone made the same accusation against someone who believes in capitalism? Plenty of capitalists have also committed atrocities throughout the years.

Ideologies do not commit violence. The people who believe in them do. And there have been plenty of people who hold all kinds of different beliefs that have committed violence. This is one of the reasons why I find these types of arguments to be very weak. It is essentially another form of the "Muslims commit violence therefore Islam is a violent religion" argument that you and others seem to advance from time to time.

[KnightofChrist]

I haven't the time right now to give anything close to a detailed response. But I will make a couple of points.

Point one, I'm asking them the question to help solve the disagrement between us. I believe I can show they are Marxists, or Neo-Marxists, with or without their admission. However, if they answer in the affirmative it will make it harder for you to continue the position that they are not Marxists. Even though you've concede for the sake of argument that they are, yet you continue to argue they are not and wonder why I keep arguing they are. Just to be clear as long as you make an argument that they are not Marxists I will respond that they are Marxists. Either you concede the point or you don't and you haven't, not really.

Point two, if I for the sake of argument ( which I do not btw) accept the revisionist/false history that Nazism wasn't a form of Socialism, both ideologies still share one big disgraceful thing in common. A commonality you ignore in your response. Both ideologies when put into practice directly caused millions of mass-murders. Taking the position of just glossing over that fact makes it extremely difficult to take your response 'because they're different' seriously. Which causes me to doubt whether I should take any of your points seriously. If you're going to so quickly brush away the common trait of mass-murder of the two it's difficult to take any point you make seriously. In any event my questions of how one ideology that directly caused mass-murders gets a pass whilst another doesn't get a pass still stand, and stand unanswered. 

Point three, I do not accept the revisionist history that Nazism is not a form of Socialism. It was a form of Socialism in competition to Marxist Socialism. Yet still a form of Socialism. Similar to how both Coke and Pepsi are both colas but are in competition to one another. I would suggest you and anyone else reading this take the time to read the writings of Friedrich August von Hayek, an actual witness at the time of Nazism. He explains why the Nazis were indeed Socialists and why some have difficulty grasping that fact.

Below is a link to a chapter from the book of a collection of writings by Hayek, The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents: The Definitive Edition

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/101931439/Nazism-is-Socialism-by-F-A-Hayek

Point four, ideologies are beliefs humans hold. In the case of Nazism and Marxism when humans put into practice or acted on those ideologies it directly caused the murders of hundreds of millions of people. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

20 hours ago, Maggyie said:

 

I don't think it's too extreme a statement, given that they are OK with violence. I think it's reasonable to think that is a likely outcome.

I'm kinda a broken record on that point though. I've been thinking about the best way to crystallize what I'm saying - the Tradinistas are replacing faith in God with faith in ideology. Ideology is poison.

 

Ideology is a poison.  Everyone has their own interpretation of it.

 

@Nihil Obstat is suspiciously quiet   

[dominicansoul]

I wouldn't be surprised if Nihil is taking a break from phatmass.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

3 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Nihil is taking a break from phatmass.

[Peace]

36 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Point one, I'm asking them the question to help solve the disagrement between us.

Thank you. I knew that you asked the question to help solve the disagreement.

By my question I meant, even if you are able to successfully resolve the argument in your favor, what exactly do you plan on doing with the result? I already explained that the information is irrelevant to the point that I made (that it is not fair to accuse them of of being prone to going on a killing spree merely because they call themselves Marxists).

The answer to the question also seems irrelevant because you have not defined what you mean by a "Catholic Marxist".  I have already asked you two times to define what you mean by that, and both times you did not answer the question. So even if you are able to prove that someone is a "Catholic Marxist" that tells me next to nothing about what the person actually believes. It does not provide me or anyone else with any useful information.

So how is the answer to this question relevant to anything? Just to prove who wins the argument?

Or do you think that putting this label on them will help you to prove that their beliefs are inconsistent with Church teaching? If you want to prove that what they believe is inconsistent with Church teaching, why not just state their beliefs and demonstrate why those beliefs are wrong? Why go through all of this debate just to put a label on them, which has no clear significance because you have not even defined what the label means?

36 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

However, if they answer in the affirmative it will make it harder for you to continue the position that they are not Marxists.

No. It is completely irrelevant. If I call myself the president of the USA does that make it more likely that I am the president? Does the fact the North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea make them more likely to be a democracy?

36 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Even though you've concede for the sake of argument that they are, yet you continue to argue they are not and wonder why I keep arguing they are. Just to be clear as long as you make an argument that they are not Marxists I will respond that they are Marxists. Either you concede the point or you don't and you haven't, not really.

OK. They are Marxist. I concede you the point. For the sake of argument I concede it to you. In actual reality on the planet Earth I concede it to you. On the planet Krypton I concede it to you. Wherever else and in whatever other manner you desire, I concede it to you. Can we move on?

The result does not matter, because you have not even defined the boundaries of what that term means to you. It tells me nothing about what the authors of the website actually believe.

36 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Point two, if I for the sake of argument ( which I do not btw) accept the revisionist/false history that Nazism wasn't a form of Socialism, both ideologies still share one big disgraceful thing in common. A commonality you ignore in your response. Both ideologies when put into practice directly caused millions of mass-murders. Taking the position of just glossing over that fact makes it extremely difficult to take your response 'because they're different' seriously. Which causes me to doubt whether I should take any of your points seriously. If you're going to so quickly brush away the common trait of mass-murder of the two it's difficult to take any point you make seriously. In any event my questions of how one ideology that directly caused mass-murders gets a pass whilst another doesn't get a pass still stand, and stand unanswered. 

1) An ideology cannot directly cause a mass-murder. Neither can a religion. It is not as though an ideology can pick up a gun. People directly cause mass-murders. Whatever they happen to believe are secondary factors.

2) If your logic is that when a person who believes in a socialist or Marxist ideology commits a mass-murder, then the socialist or Marxist ideology directly causes mass-murders, then by the same exact logic capitalist ideology also causes mass murders, because people who have believed in capitalism have committed mass murders. Does that then mean that I can justifiably accuse you of being prone to commit mass-murder, because you believe in capitalism?

3) Nazi ideology expressly advocates the idea of a master race, racism, eugenics, and the elimination of the "weaker" members of society. I will readily grant you that a person who holds such beliefs is more likely to kill others. 

But what you need to prove, is that a person who holds socialist beliefs (such as the abolition of private property, for example) is more likely to kill than others because of his socialist beliefs (an argument which I also conceded you merely for the sake of argument).  The reason why socialism "gets a pass" (your words) is because you have not made this proof. The only thing you have demonstrated is that there is some correlation between people who hold socialist views and violence. A correlation can also be made between violence and capitalism, and violence and many other things. As I wrote before, in any elementary statistics course the professor will teach you on the very first day of class that correlation does not equal causation. So you have not proven anything from the fact that some people who hold socialist views have committed mass murder.

36 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Point three, I do not accept the revisionist history that Nazism is not a form of Socialism. It was a form of Socialism in competition to Marxist Socialism. Yet still a form of Socialism. Similar to how both Coke and Pepsi are both colas but are in competition to one another. I would suggest you and anyone else reading this take the time to read the writings of Friedrich August von Hayek, an actual witness at the time of Nazism. He explains why the Nazis were indeed Socialists and why some have difficulty grasping that fact.

Below is a link to a chapter from the book of a collection of writings by Hayek, The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents: The Definitive Edition

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/101931439/Nazism-is-Socialism-by-F-A-Hayek

 I will pass. I would rather just agree to disagree on that matter. I do not think it is worth the time.

36 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Point four, ideologies are beliefs humans hold. In the case of Nazism and Marxism when humans put into practice or acted on those ideologies it directly caused the murders of hundreds of millions of people. 

Please see my response above concerning this.

The assertion that I made was that it is not fair to accuse the writers of the website as being likely to go out and kill large numbers of people. None of the side issues that we have debated matters as to whether that assertion is correct, because for the sake of argument I already conceded you the side issues, and supported my assertion even assuming that you are correct on all of those side issues.

So exactly what is it that you want to continue to argue about? And why?

[Socrates]

On 9/29/2016 at 9:01 PM, <3 PopeFrancis said:

To be frank, is this Catholic?  

To be frank, no.

 

Quote

 

It seems to be offshoot of Catholicism than a movement.

Ideologically it seems sound but with a vulnerable potential to be dangerous and heretical.

 

Actually, it doesn't have a potential to be dangerous and heretical; it is dangerous and heretical.

The Church has repeatedly and consistently condemned socialism from its beginnings, and made it clear that it is completely incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

As Pope Pius XI said in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: 

Quote

 

But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? . . .

We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.

 

He concludes:

Quote

Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

 

It doesn't matter if these clowns call themselves "Catholic" or "Traditionalist."  Neither does the fact that this website also cites some sound Catholic doctrine. Mixing deadly poison with something good and wholesome does not make the poison less deadly. Even the devil can quote Scripture for his purposes.

 The Marxist socialist ideology they preach is contrary both to true Catholicism and the teaching tradition of the ordinary magisterium.  And the reality is that in practice the forceful eradication of "class" by forced redistribution of wealth and the abolition of "capitalism" cannot be accomplished without violence by the socialist state.  Marxists have always claimed to be about helping the poor and oppressed, and claimed lofty goals.  But the reality of Marxism is always worse oppression and poverty, as well as murder and countless other evils.  

The fact that this group cites as one of its goals the eradication of "homophobia" and "transphobia" without further explanation should also make one wary of its orthodoxy.  It looks like yet another un-Catholic leftist group trying to pass itself off as Catholic.  It's sad that so many seem to be falling for this sort of thing now.

On 10/1/2016 at 8:44 PM, Peace said:

2) If your logic is that when a person who believes in a socialist or Marxist ideology commits a mass-murder, then the socialist or Marxist ideology directly causes mass-murders, then by the same exact logic capitalist ideology also causes mass murders, because people who have believed in capitalism have committed mass murders. Does that then mean that I can justifiably accuse you of being prone to commit mass-murder, because you believe in capitalism?

You're ignoring (or ignorant of) the fact that Marxist socialist states have been responsible for far more murder and oppression than any others in history.  Only the Nazi Third Reich can even be considered in the same league.  (This is setting aside, for the moment, the whole argument over whether or not the Nazis were "true socialists.")  To argue as though the Marxist Socialist regimes are really no worse than "capitalists" or anyone else shows a very serious ignorance of history.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

You're ignoring (or ignorant of) the fact that Marxist socialist states have been responsible for far more murder and oppression than any others in history.  Only the Nazi Third Reich can even be considered in the same league.  

I am wondering, when black people die or are oppressed, do they make it into your tally? Just as many if not more people were killed in the Congo as in the Holocaust, for example.

Quote

To argue as though the Marxist Socialist regimes are really no worse than "capitalists" or anyone else shows a very serious ignorance of history.

Well. Either that or I have taken a basic course in statistical analysis. You are not even asking the right question. The authors of the website are not a socialistic regime. They are a few dumb kids who advocate socialsm. My assertion was that it is not fair to accuse the authors of the website as being more likely to kill simply because of their personal political beliefs. That is like saying that Bernie is more likely to kill than Trump simply because he is a liberal. If you want to know whether a personal belief in socialsm  or capitalism makes an individual more or less likely to be violent, you need to be looking at an entirely different set of data, rather than by comparing death tolls of political regimes. But you can think through that for yourself.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Peace

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

The Church has repeatedly and consistently condemned socialism from its beginnings, and made it clear that it is completely incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Pure forms socialsm (those that abolish the right to private property) are banned. Pure forms of capitalism are banned as well, although perhaps not as explicitly.

Mixed economies that include forms of socialsm are acceptable to the church. We live in one such economy right now (along with most of the Western world).

And there are many more encyclicas that speak on modern economics than what you cite below.

"Socialism = bad. Capitalism = good" is much too simplistic of a way of looking at the website. If you want anyone with a mind to take you seriously, you should look at the specific forms of socialism that they advocate and compare them with the forms that the church has condemned and allowed.