Is Christianity Socialism?

[Sternhauser]

John Paul II in [i]Centesimus Annus:

[/i] "Is this the model [capitalism] which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress? The answer is obviously complex. If by"capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative."


I subscribe to the first definition of capitalism.

But then, what is the State but socialism? The State is the idea that those in power may determine how much of your labor is yours, and which part belongs to "the People." The whole rallying cry of the socialists is that "the rich [or anyone who has a little more than necessary to sustain himself] are selfish and greedy, and if they do not have their labor taken by violence, needy people will not get the goods and services they need." And it is a bogus, consequentialist rallying cry.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

I don't capitalism is a system based on the notion that the end of commerce is solely profit.

Winnieism is pretty much the only acceptable Catholic economic system.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1255308753' post='1983424']
I don't capitalism is a system based on the notion that the end of commerce is solely profit.

Winnieism is pretty much the only acceptable Catholic economic system.
[/quote]

Well, one of the intrinsic ends of commerce is profit. It a free-market transaction were not profitable in some way, the transaction would never take place. However, the notion of what the most important end of a commercial transaction is actually depends on [i]you, [/i]the individual[i] [/i]involved in the transaction.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

Solely. That's the key word.

[Sternhauser]

I am a capitalist, or as John Paul II said, I believe in a "free economy." Capitalism/free marketeers do not necessarily hold that profit is the exclusive (sole) end of an economic transaction. There is nothing in the tenets of capitalism/the free market that requires believing that monetary gain is the ultimate end of any transaction.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[add]

Socialism is evil because it removes free will.

[add]

Socialism is evil because it removes free will, therefore the two can not exist together

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 October 2009 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1255309449' post='1983448']
I am a capitalist, or as John Paul II said, I believe in a "free economy." Capitalism/free marketeers do not necessarily hold that profit is the exclusive (sole) end of an economic transaction. There is nothing in the tenets of capitalism/the free market that requires believing that monetary gain is the ultimate end of any transaction.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
However, truly free economy results in children being sent down mineshafts. The government must regulate commerce because when one truly considers profit the ultimate goal, justice goes out the window.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='apparently' date='11 October 2009 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1255310659' post='1983462']
Socialism is evil because it removes free will, therefore the two can not exist together
[/quote]

Does the State remove, or at least attempt to coerce the free will?

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1255310771' post='1983465']
However, truly free economy results in children being sent down mineshafts. The government must regulate commerce because when one truly considers profit the ultimate goal, justice goes out the window.
[/quote]

Sometimes, free economies do result in children going down mineshafts. Children have gone down mineshafts for centuries. They've also chopped cords of wood, hauled sacks of feed, plowed, sown wheat, and harvested wheat. One does that which economic reality requires one to do to survive.

In other countries, such as Indonesia, children who are not sewing things in factories are being forced into prostitution. You can't look at one century in a rich country and say, "This is the way it has always been, and must always be."

You speak of "regulation." What is the ultimate goal of those in the State? Do politicians often have and keep selfless motives for gaining and maintaining power? Does the discernment of justice really rest with them? Who regulates the regulators? No one. And I'll tell you why: Joe Average does a really good job at running his own life, but he doesn't know how to run yours. But that's just what he does by voting. Unfortunately, an aggregate of votes by all the Joe Averages does not result in the selection of a truly virtuous man: it results in a collective aggregate of the values of Joe Average, with the exception that the aggregate-selected average man suddenly has a lot more power than the average man. That is not a good thing. You cannot stop an avalanche once you've started it, and likewise, you cannot wrest power over your own life out of the hands of the person Joe Average foolishly and unjustly chooses to return to power, year after year.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 October 2009 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1255311065' post='1983474']
Sometimes, free economies do result in children going down mineshafts. Children have gone down mineshafts for centuries. They've also chopped cords of wood, hauled sacks of feed, plowed, sown wheat, and harvested wheat. One does that which economic reality requires one to do to survive.

In other countries, such as Indonesia, children who are not sewing things in factories are being forced into prostitution. You can't look at one century in a rich country and say, "This is the way it has always been, and must always be."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I can, but I didn't.

You cannot have a free economy. The government has to regulate businesses. Hopefully, it is a just government.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]sure charity has that connotation, voluntary free giving. and Jesus talks about helping the man on the street, not calling in government.
but 'charity' as a word, has generally applicability too, at least at a certain point. i dont see how it wouldn't, anyway. it's at least as suspectible to a certain general applicability as it is to non. and what Jesus said, about helping people, has certain general applicability too.
and as to the man on the street, it depends on his situation.
ie, ensuring people have a minimum isn't the role of charity (i talk about this in general terms-- lazy people aren't ensured anything, people who have the opportunity to pull themselves ahead but can't aren't assured anything, such that being down on your luck etc. why i find 'unemployment' a gray area, often), it's a 'natural right'. when the law prevents someone in dire straights from going to plant corn to eat, cause of 'property laws' etc, well they are infringing on that persons rights and should reciprocate.

the debate isn't either/or. socialism or not.
im pretty sure the popes have agreed.
ive quoted these things many times, yet conservatives dont mention it.

they even say those *rights* trump private property. pretty powerful stuff.

QUOTE
Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the *right* to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.

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

'right', means something the government should enforce, like constitutionally. if it's not in the constittution, which i think you could and should argue it is, then it should be in it if it's not.

there's more quotes i could provide, but i thought those said it best. [/quote]

[quote]
obviously it's the cookie cutter conservatives, that are the only problem.
the ones that you know what they believe, before you meet and/or talk to them, by virtue of everything they believe being a conservative platform. you could encapsulate them in pamphlet form, even, they are so unoriginal, and capture many of them. libertarian, the conventional conservative platform. and nothing that could be construed as liberal (unless in rare situations it might happen to overlap, like being anti-war). a real person, would have views that could be viewed as liberal, on some things, too.

that Jesus taught charity etc, means something. it means that at a certain point, gun access to all is a bad thing. it means, as popes even say but many a conservative don't mention, people have a fundamental right to a minimum, ie at least bootstraps to pull yourselves up from in a country like ours. at a certain point, God's command to use the Earth as a utilitarian, bends to taking care of God's creation.
at that level that necessarily becomes 'liberal' (or, more accurately, 'balanced' and 'normal' as opposed to cookie cutters), you don't see the cookie cutters ever advocating them.
eg, obvious and blatant pollution of earth, or people without bootstraps-- and the cookie cutters say nothing. even if you can convince and corner them that there are times these things bend to the liberal curve, as a practical matter you never hear it from them. they dont advocate that truth when they should. cause they are cookie cutters. they arent as bad as the blind cookie cutters, but htey are cookie cutters.
you know, the worst ones, are the blind cookie cutters, who drive big trucks, do the confederate flag thing, have bald eagles for anything they can think of, brandish guns just to create controversy or some misguided purpose, call anything that involves the government "socialist" or "either or" type thinking (making themselves appear incapable of drawing even the most basic distinctions of a rational person), etc.
there are blind cookie cutter liberals, too, though. even of the stereotype variety. [/quote]

[quote]
another stereotype of conservative. acting as if anything 'republican' or 'conservative' is interchangeable with christian. as if the political party that exists at the turn of this century, happens to be God's political party.
sheer odds alone, without looking at substance, indicates that that is not the case.

and so when a moral system includes socialistic tendencies, even if minimal, it's always crazy to hear people talk about any government involvement being socialism.

sure, capitalism should be the predominate trend etc, by far. but, still. when you hear crazy liberals talking about "oo, that's capitalism" or "crazy capitalists"- you rightly call them crazy. well, when you hear people talk about any government involvement as "socialist", that too is rightly called crazy. a little mroe sympathy to the "that's socialist" crowd, especially when it's crazy government involvement, but. those exclamatories or whatever, (injunctives?), by and large, sound the same to me. and most people aren't in favor of 'big crazy government' that would actually be called 'socialism'. but a lot of conservatives are for calling anything government involved socialism-- the irony is that if it's only some involvement, then it's mosstl caitalism, and they're calling it socialism. conservatives might be worse in this 'that's socialist/capitalist!" quagmire.[/quote]

if ya want more papal 'liberal' sounding quotes, just search the key words of the quotes i quoted above from them, and then search for my name too. there's long lists of quotes. i just thought the above said it best, and shortestest and sweetest.

Edited October 12, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

Quiet. The grown-ups are talking.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1255311391' post='1983482']
I can, but I didn't.

You cannot have a free economy. The government has to regulate businesses.
[/quote]

Perhaps we will one day have a free economy. Businesses and the customers in a free market do an admirable job regulating themselves. Nobody wants to buy a product that kills the consumer, whether it be the legendary rat-dung encrusted meat from [i]The Jungle[/i], or a Ford Firebomb. I mean Pinto.

Has anyone bought any Yugos recently? How about some nice FDA-approved (State-approved) thalidomide? Has anyone here bought much Chinese baby formula recently? Didn't think so. And don't tell me it's because you don't have a Chinese baby. Remember, the Ringling Brothers 1944 Hartford Circus fire was made possible by the State, which laid first claim on all available fire-retardant waterproofing solutions, forcing the circus to use older, less-optimal substances. Like paraffin and gasoline. Similar story with the Hindenberg. Helium was effectively considered the property of the State at the time.

The most troublesome examples of corporate corruption have historically been corporations which are on rather intimate terms with the State and its agents.

[quote]Hopefully, it is a just government.[/quote]

A just State is like a square circle. Or a just robber.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

Only if labor organizes and organizes properly can the state step out.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1255307731' post='1983387']
Unless labor is government, it's privately owned.

And I believe the lack of support of socialism is qualified by its atheism.
[/quote]

Just because atheists used the system and messed it up does not mean the system is bad. Just the people are. People have used religion for numerous evil things, it does not make the religion wrong. You can be fully religious and socialist. I do not see how they are related.

[quote name='apparently' date='11 October 2009 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1255310659' post='1983462']
Socialism is evil because it removes free will, therefore the two can not exist together
[/quote]

Not is does not..(there I can make a blanket statement without support also) maybe you can re-read what i have written and then provide a reason why you think socialism removes the free will.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='11 October 2009 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1255312606' post='1983529']
Just because atheists used the system and messed it up does not mean the system is bad. Just the people are. People have used religion for numerous evil things, it does not make the religion wrong. You can be fully religious and socialist. I do not see how they are related.
[/quote]
You're not supposed to go after me when I'm helping you out.

[Sternhauser]

Revproj,

Is it true, what the Poet says? That out in Bethlehem they're killing time, filling out forms, standing in line?

~Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

new thread: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=99553

[Saint Therese]

Socialism is not Christianity. REspect for freedom of the human person is intrinsic to any serious understanding of Christianity; a person is free to behave as one should or not. Socialism lacks this respect for human freedom, and so is opposed to authentic Christiantiy.