In defense of capitalism
#31
Anastasia Wrote:Well, just maybe, Woods got a job there because he actually agrees with thier economic policies? There's a thought! Are all employed persons  described as "paid to dance" for their employers?
The problem with the english version of capitalism is that the Anglican religion didn't do its part to protect the common good and virtue of society, probably because the religion was founded on the basis of the Church doing whatever the state told them. In a Catholic state, on the other hand, the Church is the one who supervises these things, and is able to check the abuses of state power.
 I'm reminded of a story my grandfather told me about Murray Rothbard, one of the best Austrian economists in the last century: his parents were extremely liberal, and when he was about six, he shocked them by asking what the hell was so bad about Franco's defeat of the socialists, anyway?


yes he agrees with it, that is my point and how he got the job.....Capitalism is Protestant, may incorporate elements of Catholic thought, but largely, is not Catholic......
Reply
#32
Anastasia Wrote:The encyclicals I have read condemn the abuses of capitalism, but stopped short of condemning it outright, as they did with Socialism. Frankly, I've never seen a good demonstration of how Distributism differs very much from Socialism, since both rely on government power to redistribute wealth.


Old arguement, answered many times over, for anyone that will do the research and read the  work...
Reply
#33
The_Harlequin_King Wrote:So far from what I've seen about distributism, it's only a theory that's never been applied before. Christendom has lived under feudalist, mercantilist, and early capitalist systems before... but distributism? Haven't seen it.


Applied all throught Middle Ages, read Medaille's book, lays it out completely....has been tried, worked and successful......

Feudalism-man works 2-3 days for Lord, restof time, works for self. Modern man in so-called capitalism, works 5-6 months for the State taxes, plus handouts to capitalists in Govt bailouts, etc over the  yrs.
Reply
#34
Pardon me, but I have read on this subject, and I still have yet to hear that argument on how if you take something that belongs to one man and redistribute it to others differs from socialism.
 Feudal man did not work for himself; the serfs worked for their overlord, who in turn worked for his overlord, and so on up the chain.
Modern so called capitalism isn't what we're talking about here: if the government is bailing out private companies and supporting this thorugh taxes, it's not capitalism. Capitalism in about the state not interfering in business unless someone's life or property is taken.
Reply
#35
Anastasia Wrote:Pardon me, but I have read on this subject, and I still have yet to hear that argument on how if you take something that belongs to one man and redistribute it to others differs from socialism.
 Feudal man did not work for himself; the serfs worked for their overlord, who in turn worked for his overlord, and so on up the chain.
Modern so called capitalism isn't what we're talking about here: if the government is bailing out private companies and supporting this thorugh taxes, it's not capitalism. Capitalism in about the state not interfering in business unless someone's life or property is taken.


Obviously, you have not read the Taiwan Tiller program:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/...eform.html

Also, the land is not an absolute right of man, but man in charge for God...Modern capitalism or not, same beast, it just has devolved to this.....capitalists in Conn were given land stolen from people (Kelo decision), so that is socialism.

Socialism is Govt control of all property.Distributism seeks property ot be widely owned by individuals, families,etc....the arguement that Distributism is socialism is rather worn and tired.....read some more.....it will become clearer..... gotta go!
Reply
#36
OK, I read it and don't really see how it changes anything. When you take something that belongs to person 1 and give it to person 2, it's stealing. Doesn't seem like a hard concept. And sure, ultimately, everything belongs to God, but that doesn't prevent my having a right to own the house I've paid for! Capitalism, when the Church is there to protect worker's rights, leads to individual and family owned property.
 I'm not entirely sure what the point about the CT case is; if they were given stolen land through government power, you're right, it is socialism, and therefore NOT capitalism.
Reply
#37
Quote:that doesn't prevent my having a right to own the house I've paid for!

You would own your house in distributism, though, that's the point.

In capitalism, on the other hand, people dont usually own their houses. Bankers who do nothing productive own the houses through a usurious "mortgage" and their control of the debt-money.

A one time redistribution might be necessary to start with a blank-slate, but after that there would be nothing socialistic. Socialism, as I described earlier, would attempt to keep the capitalist wealth-generating mechanisms, and then just keep re-distributing that wealth when the gap got too big. It would keep using supply-and-demand to drive the economy, and then take all the money created and give it away (though that probably wouldnt work for long given that competition/incentive in an S&D system would be affected greatly by the knowledge that it was all going to be taken away anyway) and people who truly worked harder and deserved more (in an absolute valuation) would be basically stolen from unjustly.

Distributism and other aspects of an economy based on applied Catholic social teaching...however, would simply get rid of even the underlying mechanisms (such as usury, relativistic "supply-and-demand" valuation, debt money, etc) that create the gap in the first place, while still allowing true hard work or value to be rewarded proportionately (as opposed to just cunningly positioning yourself at the right place along the capital curve, at the right node on the network).

But since capitalism has already done such damage, it may be necessary to do a one-time-only re-leveling of wealth to undo what capitalists have done (and punish them) over the centuries. The money that the bankers and their oligarch partners have is essentially stolen anyway, gained through illicit means, so this is just restoring to people what has been stolen from them.

Cancelling all mortgages is probably the best thing the government could do right now, and then forbid the usury that creates new ones. And people who have already paid theirs shouldnt get mad, workers in the vineyard afterall (though maybe they'd get some kind of bonus credit). But we must tell Shylock he can have his pound of flesh only if he spills not one drop of Christian blood.
Reply
#38
In response to question about the state and its role in property and distribution of same:

114. For if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice, and if this is not that blessed social peace which we all seek, it can and ought to be the point of departure from which to move forward to the mutual cooperation of the Industries and Professions. So also the war declared on private ownership, more and more abated, is being so restricted that now, finally, not the possession itself of the means of production is attacked but rather a kind of sovereignty over society which ownership has, contrary to all right, seized and usurped. For such sovereignty belongs in reality not to owners but to the public authority. If the foregoing happens, it can come even to the point that imperceptibly these ideas of the more moderate socialism will no longer differ from the desires and demands of those who are striving to remold human society on the basis of Christian principles. For certain kinds of property, it is rightly contended, ought to be reserved to the State since they carry with them a dominating power so great that cannot without danger to the general welfare be entrusted to private individuals.
115. Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to Socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.

QA http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11QUADR.HTM
Reply
#39
7HolyCats Wrote:
Quote:that doesn't prevent my having a right to own the house I've paid for!

You would own your house in distributism, though, that's the point.

In capitalism, on the other hand, people dont usually own their houses. Bankers who do nothing productive own the houses through a usurious "mortgage" and their control of the debt-money.

A one time redistribution might be necessary to start with a blank-slate, but after that there would be nothing socialistic. Socialism, as I described earlier, would attempt to keep the capitalist wealth-generating mechanisms, and then just keep re-distributing that wealth when the gap got too big. It would keep using supply-and-demand to drive the economy, and then take all the money created and give it away (though that probably wouldnt work for long given that competition/incentive in an S&D system would be affected greatly by the knowledge that it was all going to be taken away anyway) and people who truly worked harder and deserved more (in an absolute valuation) would be basically stolen from unjustly.

Distributism and other aspects of an economy based on applied Catholic social teaching...however, would simply get rid of even the underlying mechanisms (such as usury, relativistic "supply-and-demand" valuation, debt money, etc) that create the gap in the first place, while still allowing true hard work or value to be rewarded proportionately (as opposed to just cunningly positioning yourself at the right place along the capital curve, at the right node on the network).

But since capitalism has already done such damage, it may be necessary to do a one-time-only re-leveling of wealth to undo what capitalists have done (and punish them) over the centuries. The money that the bankers and their oligarch partners have is essentially stolen anyway, gained through illicit means, so this is just restoring to people what has been stolen from them.

Cancelling all mortgages is probably the best thing the government could do right now, and then forbid the usury that creates new ones. And people who have already paid theirs shouldnt get mad, workers in the vineyard afterall (though maybe they'd get some kind of bonus credit). But we must tell Shylock he can have his pound of flesh only if he spills not one drop of Christian blood.


many states, you can buy a house, but never have absolute ownership of land....that is law written by capitalists in state legislatures, not distributists......
Reply
#40
Anastasia Wrote:OK, I read it and don't really see how it changes anything. When you take something that belongs to person 1 and give it to person 2, it's stealing. Doesn't seem like a hard concept. And sure, ultimately, everything belongs to God, but that doesn't prevent my having a right to own the house I've paid for! Capitalism, when the Church is there to protect worker's rights, leads to individual and family owned property.
 I'm not entirely sure what the point about the CT case is; if they were given stolen land through government power, you're right, it is socialism, and therefore NOT capitalism.


How would the land be divided, if not Govt intervention...capitalism would say-tough nuggests, maybe someday when you collect enough of your wages from an employer, maybe-just maybe you could buy something, of course capitalists in Govt will deflate the dollar, buy up teh best alnd or seize it for national parks,etc and make sure bankers have high interest rates,etc...so, good luck trying to afford a home or land, without crushing payments and 30+ yrs of buying it, usually ending up with paying 3x the initial cost,etc....

Belloc and Chesterton both supported Distributism and go awards from the CHurch for efforts, inc a Papal sympathy note sent to England's primate.......must have been onto something there...

JP2 in CA supported labor unions, cannot think of any capitalists supporting labor, usually view labor as opponent............
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)