Is Christianity Socialism?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='08 October 2009 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1255058177' post='1981432']
Not to cause too much trouble, but what kind of practical authority does this document have for today's understanding of Socialism? In 1931 we really did not have the same understanding of socialism as we do today. Not that I am advocating socialism, just curious.
[/quote]
Your article was from the 1870s or so, so Pope Pius XI's encyclical is actually more recent, and condemns so-called "Christian Socialism" among other ideas. I'm not sure exactly what "modern understanding of socialism" you are referring to, but history has proven socialism a massive failure on all levels. Perhaps people could be forgiven for naively advocating socialism in the 19th century, but the history of 20th century socialism has proved Pope Pius's words prophetic. All "modern" forms of socialism being advocated today will prove equally disastrous if implemented. Socialism is contrary to both the human right to property ownership and to the basic rules of economic reality. It invariably results in poverty and tyrannical government.

[Socrates]

[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. Hopefully, it is a just government.
[/quote]
It's foolish to trust the government to be any more wise and just than businesses. In a truly free economy (unlike today's heavily government supported and regulated system) bad business will fail and good business will thrive.

There's no such thing as a perfect system, but government has a horrible track record of "regulating" the economy, and government interference in the economy has repeatedly led to economic disaster.

[Socrates]

[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.



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.
[/quote]
If you read the encyclical, you will note that even "Christian socialism" is condemned.
Socialism is wrong because it is based on false premises, and denies what the Church recognizes as a fundamental right to property ownership.
In socialism, property is either explicitly or implicitly owned by the state.

"Religious" people have advocated all sorts of immoral foolishness, including abortion and immorality of all sorts. We should listen to the Church.
True religion is good. There is no such thing as good socialism.


For those Catholics who oppose the free market economy, I strongly recommend reading Thomas Woods Jr.'s [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Defense-Economics/dp/0739110365/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255394746&sr=1-5"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i][/url] as well as [url="http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255394746&sr=1-2"][i]Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse[/i][/url].

Edited October 13, 2009 by Socrates

[Laudate_Dominum]

Hey, good call Socrates. Thomas Woods has a pretty good website too:

http://www.thomasewoods.com/

Also of interest would be the Ludwig von Mises institute:

http://mises.org/


But don't write off distributism too hastily:

http://distributist.blogspot.com/


And in honor of Stern, don't forget that you can read Spooner online:

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

Come on people, anything but state socialism. lulz.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the answer to the title of the thread, is christianity socialism, is obviously no.
but the irony.... conservatives are quick to call any government involvement, socialism. christianity does required government involvement, as a matter ofregulation and 'distributing' distributism etc, in some cases. so in that sense, if those conservative whacko cookie cutters were to say all that stuff about any government at allbeing socialism, they should be saying it about christianity too. it's kinda poetic, in that sense... what they are putting down ultimately, is their own religion, in its true form.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='13 October 2009 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1255411224' post='1984418']
the answer to the title of the thread, is christianity socialism, is obviously no.
but the irony.... conservatives are quick to call any government involvement, socialism. christianity does required government involvement, as a matter ofregulation and 'distributing' distributism etc, in some cases. so in that sense, if those conservative whacko cookie cutters were to say all that stuff about any government at allbeing socialism, they should be saying it about christianity too. it's kinda poetic, in that sense... what they are putting down ultimately, is their own religion, in its true form.
[/quote]


"Revprodeji, on 08 October 2009 - 11:16 PM, said:
Not to cause too much trouble, but what kind of practical authority does this document have for today's understanding of Socialism? In 1931 we really did not have the same understanding of socialism as we do today. Not that I am advocating socialism, just curious."

i think ya know the answer to this, by your question. it serves no practical purpose. it's too easy, a truism, to say socialism is not christian. but the truth is that some government involvement as said above is warranted. the best advice at this point, then, is to say when and in what forms are they warranted. anything else is unoriginal, uninspired, and probably cookie cutter in origin.
but then again.. the title of the thread was 'is christianity socialism'... and the direct answer to that question, is no.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='12 October 2009 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1255397754' post='1984219']
Hey, good call Socrates. Thomas Woods has a pretty good website too:

http://www.thomasewoods.com/

Also of interest would be the Ludwig von Mises institute:

http://mises.org/


But don't write off distributism too hastily:

http://distributist.blogspot.com/


And in honor of Stern, don't forget that you can read Spooner online:

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

Come on people, anything but state socialism. lulz.
[/quote]
Thanks for the links. While I've read his books, I wasn't aware of Woods' website.
(I'm completely unfamiliar with Spooner, however.)

The distributist site had the name of Thomas Storck, whom I'm a bit familiar with (and knew his oldest son, who shares his dad's ideas.) I find his ideas unconvincing, to put it mildly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure distributists have nothing but good intentions.
However, distributism is based on profound ignorance (or denial) of basic economic facts, and would never work in real life.
While distributists see themselves as being strongly opposed to socialism and big government, the reality is that many of their proposals would require a powerful central government to enforce. Woods does a good job of demonstrating this in his "Church and the Market" book.
Most distributists favor taxing businesses that are "too large" out of business (essentially punishing business owners for being too successful), and government confiscation and redistribution of "excessive" property (which amounts, in practice, to socialism).
Some even call for government banning or restriction of most modern technology (including computers, automobiles, even the printing press!).

"Distributism" tends to be a vaguely defined concept. If distributism (as some define it) means simply voluntarily pursuing a simple, self-reliant lifestyle, or low taxes helping the small business owner, I'm all for it.
But where it involves excessive government interference with private property ownership and free enterprise, I can't see it as beneficial.

[Aloysius]

you've been talking to the wrong "distributists" then.

this is the best introduction I've ever seen to distributism: http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/08/introduction-to-distributism.html

I've got to go for now, but I would say that illegalizing modern technology is NOT a distributist thing... either whoever you talked to had their facts horribly mixed up, or you might've seen some distributist suggesting simplicity in people's everyday lives. I've seen distributist how-tos written that suggest people stop watching TV or using the internet... that's in the tradition of people like Fr. Vincent McNabb who, when asked what people could do, pretty much proposed all sorts of self assumed virtuous poverty and humility and such... it's not exactly a legal proposal.

it's not about companies being too big, it's not about punishing successful companies; it's about companies utilizing resources which are not their own. I can't go buy a National Park, but for some reason an anonymous national business man is allowed to buy the local shop. why? For the same reason people can't buy whole countries, people shouldn't be able to buy out far away shops; they can cooperate with them to their mutual advantage, but the restriction is against people owning things that they're not even working at; at people profiting from work they're not even doing.

it is my opinion that one should prove first from a moral standpoint why it makes sense that someone living in Bentonville, Arkansas, is allowed to own a store in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. how does that make sense? it only makes sense because we've adopted an economic theory which is RADICAL in itself--capitalism. people forget how radically liberal capitalism is as an ideal... how/why does Bentonville own the store in Latrobe? In pracitcal terms, it is the general manager of the WalMart in Latrobe who practically owns it... so why doesn't he have the benefits of ownership that he should have? these are important moral questions in my opinion that undercut the Capitalist's pre-supposed premises... the pre-supposed premise that the whole world is available to be owned by any individual, and thus to stop him from doing so is to stop him from progressing and succeeding.

well look at that, I meant to go. I really have to go, going out drinking at the bar you know. what a shame it would be to let talk of Distributism keep me from enjoying things it aims to preserve: local small business bars like the one I'm headed to to drink

I'll come back to this...