Why No Catholic can Support Socialism W/ Trent Horn
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- I ask Trent to give the Catholic position on Socialism. As Catholics we have a moral imperative to object to Socialism as an ideology, and not just because it doesn't work as an economic system.
📖 For more reading there are many encyclicals condemning socialism, as sampled in this article: www.tfp.org/wh...
📖 Get Trent's new book Can a Catholic Be a Socialist? here: www.amazon.com...
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodwo... (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenantey... (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mat...
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #18...
⭐ Trent's Podcast Website: / counseloftrent
Trent's RUclips Channel: / trhorn100
Trent's Bibliography: www.amazon.com...
Catholic Answers Site: www.catholic.com/
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
I recommend all Catholics read Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, two encyclicals that explain the evils of both socialism and unrestricted capitalism.
Other social encyclicals should be required as well, not just those two. I've realized that a certain segment of Catholics will only read those two, but not read Laborem Exersens, Caritatis in Veritatae, or Pacem in Terris.
I mean, the syndicalist system they propose would be called socialism by modern-day politicians. We need to be careful not to be deceived by modern political rhetoric.
@@josephgraney1928 I've heard of syndicalism. Does it even have Catholic social teaching as its basis?
@@Montfortracing Syndicalism pre-existed its adoption by the Catholic church in Rerum Novarum, so it isn't based on Catholic social teaching, rather Catholic social teaching is based on it.
Love Leo XIII. How the man is not even a blessed let alone a Saint is beyond me.
Pope Benedict XVI on democratic socialism, “Back to Europe. A third model was added to the two models of the 19th century: socialism. Socialism took two main paths - the democratic and the totalitarian. Democratic socialism became a healthy counterbalance to radical socialism. It enriched and corrected them. It proved itself even when religious confessions took over… In many ways, democratic socialism stands and stood close to the Catholic social teachings. It in any case contributed a substantial amount to the education of social conscience.”
“The Church is aware that the bourgeois mentality and capitalism as a whole, with its materialist spirit, acutely contradict the Gospel.” -Pope John Paul II
👏
@bEn sky render unto Caesar.... read what the Gospel says
@bEn sky yes every man is worthy of his hire... but he still has to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.... no contradiction there buddy
@bEn sky lol... you've got no idea if you think taxation is socialism. You've got no idea if you think taxation is theft and against church teaching... render unto caesar... do your duty to society.
@bEn sky Why would I bother... anyone who thinks society can function without government and taxation is clearly off their rocker.
A Catholic cannot be a capitalist either
@el Well, Luke 12: 13-21 makes pretty clear that accumulation of wealth is inimical to the Gospel. Accumulation of wealth is anti-Eucharistic. There is a free market in goods, the right to produce and trade, and buying and selling, but that is not "capitalism", per se. Contemporary capitalism is consumerist and depends not merely on supplying needs and satisfying natural longings, but on the ceaseless invention of new desires and more choices. Contrast that with the prohibition against "lust of the eyes" of 1 John 2:16. Capitalism is a system inevitably corrosive of as many prohibitions of desire and inhibitions of the will as possible, and therefore of all those customs and institutions first and foremost the Church that tend to restrain or forbid so many acquisitive longings and individual choices. Capitalism's reliance on immense private wealth makes it a moral problem from the vantage of the Gospel, for the simple reason that the New Testament treats such wealth not merely as a spiritual danger, and not merely as a blessing that should not be misused, but as an intrinsic evil.
What do you think?
@el Thanks very much for your reply. I disagree as to your "simple" definition of capitalism. That is not what capitalism is, that is just buying and selling. I tried to anticipate and address your point head on, and apparently failed. In either case, your definition of capitalism exists no where as governments always intervene in one way or another: taxes, subsidy, tariffs, etc...
Capitalism involves the incessant creation and fulfillment of desires and perceived "needs". That is inimical to the Catholic idea of what a person is and what is beneficial to a person. It is also called advertising. The reduction of creation to "wealth" is problematic as it drains God out of it. What Jesus says about the rich youth selling all his possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor, and about camels trying to pass through needles’ eyes, is anti-capitalist. In the Sermon on the Plain’s list of beatitudes Jesus tells the poor that the kingdom belongs to them and that the rich that, having had their pleasures in this world, they shall have none in the world to come. Jesus condemns those who buy up properties and create large estates for themselves. One cannot serve both God and mammon. Do not store up treasure on earth, in earthly vessels, for where your treasure is, there your heart will also be. The apostolic Church in Jerusalem adopted a sharing of goods.
Paul constantly condemns the desire for more than one needs. Paul instructs the Corinthian Christians to donate all their profits to the relief of the poor in other church assemblies.
James says that God’s elect are the poor of this world; the rich he condemns as oppressors and revilers of the divine name, who should howl in terror at the judgment that is coming upon them, because the rust of their treasure shall eat their flesh like fire on the last day. Hope that is helpful.
@el That is helpful. This may sound/feel like a cheap shot, but I do not intend it that way.... My point is for Catholics, and probably Orthodox as well, and not "americans" Buddhists, or secularists, etc.... Your assertion of "Spend our money the way we want" points to freedom as an individual’s sovereign liberty of deliberative and acquisitive choice, and we understand individual desires either as rights or at least as protected by rights, just as you assert. This assertion of yours is highly individualist, devoid of the communal/koinonia responsibilities and opportunities that are required of us as being members of the Body of Christ. Your point makes no reference to God, creation, the sacraments, repentance, etc... and that is not accidental, but essential to capitalism, as I described earlier. Secularism is the necessary cultural expression of capitalism as all restrictions on desire, etc... are swept away in favor of "free market" and promotes a logic that enables/requires that pornography by easily accessible to children to protect free speech. For a Catholic/Orthodox, this is contrary to faith and the organization of ourselves as the community of the Body of Christ/Church. Hence, a Catholic cannot be a capitalist.
@el Of course, Disagree! You are ignoring and giving no account for Jesus' many, many statements that I provided earlier. I hope you have a fruitful Lent!
2 Corinthians 9, before verse 7 states: So I thought it necessary to urge the brethren to go on to you before me, and arrange in advance for this gift you have promised, so that it may be ready not as an exaction but as a willing gift. 6 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
Then goes onto say:
Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written, "He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever." 10 He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be enriched in every way for great generosity, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God; 12 for the rendering of this service not only supplies the wants of the saints but also overflows in many thanksgivings to God. 13 Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others; 14 while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!
@@johnlaodicean7862I wholeheartedly agree. Greed is NOT good. It seems that many let political ideologies supersede their essential religious beliefs. Selfish regard is indeed the root of all sin. We may seek proper reward/merit for our actions, but earthly rewards are nothing in comparison to eternal rewards.
While governmental systems may range from extreme redistribution and denial of individual agency to unregulated systems that perpetuate abuse and cronyism (not merit), we have to revisit encyclicals and the Bible for guidance on how to love God and all mankind, recognizing that all Creation comes from and belongs to God.
CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
None of what you said here is incompatible with Capitalism. Rejecting and refusing to accept something are two very different things. The Church refuses to accept certain non-essential Theologies that exclude other (such as Catholic Orthodox, and also within the Roman Catholic branch), it does not follow however that the Church rejects them.
There's a reason they specifically state "in the practice of "capitalism," **individualism**".
ruclips.net/video/toxgdjHlglk/видео.html
@@Manuel-kl8jc Don't know what more to say mate, I think its pretty clear. If you have time to spare please read the book 'Barren Metal' Cheers!
@@trnslash I'm familiar with E. Michael Jones & his work, he's very famous in our philosophical circles. This is an issue of definitions and ontologies however, which happens to be my field of interest & study. It might be mistaken reading or writing, because EMJ does in fact abide by & reaffirms Essentialism & Nessecity, alongisde other Scholastic Catholic principles. If he attacks my previos points, it leads to both rejecting & affirming the same principles, which is a contradiction & something the Church rejects.
@@Manuel-kl8jc Great! i'm no philosopher, I may exhibit the lack thereof, I basically quoted what was in the Catechism in this thread. I'm sure you'll find the book interesting!
@@trnslash I understand what you're trying to say.
Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction is a book by a Catholic logician, he goes into detail (introductory book) about the principles I'm (and Trent) are talking about. Essential/essentially are extremely strong, specific words. The proper use would be "usury is accidental to Capitalism". Although, it could easily be misunderstood also since "accident/accidental" are misused in the current generations.
"No one can be a true socialist and a sincere Catholic at the same time."
--Pope Pius XI
The Pope said it so it must be true?
@@JoeCiliberto Marxism denies God. Enough said.
@@francis1961 Marx denied God, Dorothy Day did not, and I do not.
@Qwerty B*llSh*t... First, I'm not a Marxist, secondly, I'm not a socialist. And most certainly I'm not an apostate. My point has been and is that Capitalism has far more blood on its hands, among many other sins, and continues to do so, than anyone is giving it credit for. Neither form of capital, labor, and trade, in its pure-play form, is Christian. Both capitalist and socialist forms must co-exist to prevent the organic abuses of either. Listen to the encyclical that I put into the comments today. Apostate... Jeez......
@Qwerty Both forms co-exist in America today. Who says Socialism is apostasy? And Why? Because Marx was an atheist? Because communist countries adopted some form of it and shut out churches?
It is incredibly encouraging to see so many fellow Catholics in the comments reminding us all to stay vigilant but not to let Capitalism off the hook for it's incredible offenses against human dignity and justice. Our community rocks!
Amen
Peace be with you.
Yes free market with an "Orthodox" Christian paradigm would be more ideal
Community as in commune?
@Cardboard Cape thanks for pointing that out, it's a really important point. Marx is just one person among many (including the Catholic church) to make scathing critiques about the nature and structure of capitalism.
Hilarious that RUclips loaded a Bernie ad on this.
Elena M. Cambio 🤣😂😂
Don't think Bernie is the same as socialism.
@@DANGJOS Bernie is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist.
@@Camelepiz Not the most accurate self description.
According to Matt Fradd and Trent Horn, it sounds like Bernie is a capitalist.
It’s reductive to say that the growth of cities was due to people seeking a better life because it leaves out the enclosure movements that forced serfs off their land, leaving them with little other options. The evictions that occurred during the Great Famine in Ireland were a great example of the interests of capital forcing rural poor into cities to participate in wage labor.
Also Marx saw the pursuit of equality of outcome as an unhelpful political goal. That’s why he said from each their ability to each their need, implying that people would be different.
I would agree with your analysis of central planning though.
Even the decidedly anti-socialists Distributists admitted that and talked about it at lenght. But once you open up the discussion on what Marx called "Primitive Accumulation", the enclosures and emerging mercantile and trade economy, etc. you open up the argument for Socialism and of course we can't have that.
I'll also add add that the definition of Socialism in this video is completely erroneous, the state fundamentally has nothing to do with Socialism. Even the most widely acknowledged "State Socialists" and Marxist-Leninists like Lenin make the distriction between a Capitalist State and a Socialist State. The real difference between Socialism and all other systems, which for the sake of simplicity we'll call Capitalism, is that workers (those who work for a wage under an employer) are the ones making the laws in government for their own interest.
I don't blame Matt Fradd or Trent Horn for their errors here though, trying to involve the teaching and morality of the Church in politics has always been and will always be difficult since unlike religious dogmas that have a clear definition, political ideology is always subject to interpretation. My final point is to say perfectly be a Socialist and a Catholic and that actually Socialism may, depending on your interpretation, be the best fulfilment of the Catholic Social Teaching.
@@Aetherius21 oh snap thanks for coming in with the assist friend.
I do think we should fault, albeit fault in a spirit of affirmation, Matt Fradd and Trent for there errors here, especially as they style themselves to be philosophically/dialectically minded and hold protestants/atheists responsible for not radically, reasonably, and rationally assessing their beliefs. To me these errors reflect staying inside Christian conservative echo chambers and serve to alienate other Catholics that may, for example, support Bernie Sanders' economic platform, which to my understanding, is not in conflict with church teaching. Bishop Barron gives a pretty good and well publicized example of how to address this issue I think.
But I would stress an affirmative fault in consideration of their lofty aspirations, as I would agree it is a bit of a nitpick. I would like to see more criticisms of state capitalism (maybe there were some in the Jacob Imam interview?) as I feel like that's much more relevant to the Catholic "anglosphere" but never a bad idea to bash Marxist-Leninist stuff I say.
The irony lies in the fact that the Enclosure Acts are more representative of Socialism - the State acting to bestow land where the State imagines that it will do the most good, however you define that - than Capitalism.
Likewise it was political actions to force down the price of corn (wheat) in Ireland that led to many landholders changing production from corn to livestock, with a consequent reduction in labour.
Politicians and political theorists always believe that they know what is best for us, but they almost never pay the price for unanticipated consequences.
I farm, and come from a long line of farmers. I suspect that those who have never worked a farm with nothing but manual labour have no little idea what it is like to work in the open, all year round, regardless of weather. I suspect that few of you have any idea what rural poverty looks like, or how many people in rural areas were still living on one-room hovels, without windows, doors or floors and which were shared by livestock for additional warmth.
@@peterwebb8732 I am certainly captivated with thoughts of pre-industrialized agriculture and whether our present age of non-farmers is the product of greed/covetousness for the excess. I am certainly divorced from such hardship and I believe everyone should garden/pasture/forestry every bit of land they have in the vein of God's command to Adam after the fall. The poetry of Charles Peguy certainly makes me see it as a cure for our modern heresies, so even though I grant you that some people sought factory work as a way to improve their lives, I think you would agree that people should be able to make economic decisions without coercion, so I'd like to examine the enclosure movement.
My understanding of Enclosure may be inadequate for my statements, so forgive me if so, but I'm unconvinced by your assertion. Yes, the state was technically distributing the land, but it was transferring it from common usage to private ownership: privatization. I have never seen a reason to classify privatization as anything other than a capitalist policy. Are we to understand that recent wave of privatization at the behest of Reaganites and Thatcherites as socialism because the government was the one who decided who got to run prisons, the railway, etc.? Is there a more capitalist way of converting public property to private property?
Also it's hard for me to find your reference to a political reduction in the price of wheat in Ireland, could you send me more info or links?
12:59 the principle of communism is "take from everyone according to his/her abilities; give to everyone according to their needs"
@@Kitiwake and after that?
@@Kitiwake except in communism there are classes, the super rich elite and the super poor.
It sounds good, until you realise that what you can produce and what you need are decided by bureaucrats who will not starve alongside you if they have made a mistake.
That is what cause the Holodomor... Millions of people in the Ukraine starved because Russians decided how much each village should produce, and took everything to make up the quotas. People were shot for hiding food to feed their families.
Don’t leave out the other tenets of Socialism, either. Complete State control of all forms of Production, Distribution and Exchange. That means you are TOLD what work you will do, TOLD what you will get paid for it, TOLD what you may buy and TOLD what you must pay for that.
@@peterwebb8732 1. "decided by bureaucrats": is this not so in our contemporary society? they even decide what to inject in your body. I mean, there is no society without bureaucracy. Communism is a theoretical society, people wanted it to be more humane than contemporary.
2. there was no "holodomor" in reality -it is a propaganda construct introduced in 50s to fight Soviet Union in cold war. There was several famines in history of each country. It was caused by the bad weather which happened periodically in pre-revolution Russia not only in Ukraine but also in Volga region, Poland.
Add to that the WW1 and civil war and you will see the whole picture.
Today's situation in politics clearly shows us how history can be rewritten just before our eyes.
How many of you actually live under socialism as a Catholic? I did. I remember forced "marches for socialism", brainwashed into thinking that we live in the greatest place on earth and at the same time long lines for everything, empty shelves and rations cards: one pair of winter boots for us kids, no choice for style or color, ill fitting jackets and parents struggling to put a meal on the table: potatoes with fried onions as the dinner staple in our family. Practicing our faith was the only way of feeling free. I cannot believe demons of my childhood are finding their voices here.
I did.
I lived (luckily as a Free American ) in a Socialist Country for 2 years and I CANNOT contemplate the idiocy of people who think Socialism is GReat. It reduces people to beasts of burden and breeding stock for the elites.
Where did you live?
@@splinterbyrd as you would have any idea how easily a thin line bordering these two ideas is crossed.
NHS is a socialist ideology as is any welfare system. Confusing communism with socialism, as per usual.
Capitalism is not simply a market economy, and socialism is not communism.
Bingo ; ) Kisses from Poland.
I am not a capitalist, neither am i a Socialist, first and foremost i am a Christian period!
Based and my kingdom is not of this world pilled.
AS somebody who grew up under communist regime, in country, which had in name "socialistic" and somebody, who had to study and pass exam in marxism, other way wouldn't be able finish university.. I will round it in few points. Marxism aka socialism it's not base on love for the poor, it's base on the hate of the rich. And it doesn't matter, how somebody got rich (hard work themselves, their parents, grant parents), as in most causes it wasn't case, that they stolen the wealth from somebody. Socialism doesn't make everyone same well off, it makes every body equally poor. Marxism/socialism is base on envy of somebody else's property. Socialism is base on entitlement for something one haven't work for and in many cases it was taken from somebody, who work hard for it. And there is never enough. First they will take from the super rich. That it's used and gone fast. Then they go for the rich. Then the middle class, then for the next and then everybody... even the super-poor have to give what they have...
My summary why Catholics can't support socialism will be in this words:
hate
envy
jealousy
baseless entitlement
laziness
larceny/theft/robbery
greed
(just mention few...)
And if you look around: in each country, where "this experiment was taken", you can see, that one class was torn down and new one risen up. And the new one, didn't got up or rich on their own hard work, but by stolen it from the hard work from the "previous class" and then later on the hard work and back of the poor, they were saying how they care for them...
Amen!!!
@Justina In the early 1950 my father as senior student was hold in "holding comp" for a year just for going to school, which was catholic, with the monks and other senior students... I know from my grand parents, parents and other people talk how it was, when the communist were taking over (after WWII they won the election by deceit, as they were the only party, who could candidate in both states. They didn't won in mine, had only few %, but together with the other it tip over) In the late 1960 there were 2-3 years ease, but then the Warshaw pact invasion happened. I was born in former CSSR in the years after that invasion in the hard reinstalment of the regime. In the ease my parents got small land. I remember and know, how communist took it from us and I still feel this funny nag about it. They build kinder garden on the land.. There were people, who had much much more (and I could tell stories how they got it...), then my family, (and could take just part, but they took all of ours) but they were communist now, we weren't. We were the "working intelligence" (academics) as they called people with education or from educated family and not part of the communist party; and as that the enemy of "the party and the people"... It's really saddens me, how people forget so fast or that don't learn from hard experience of the others. I am from hard working and hearty nation, but it's so hard to watch, how the "socialism" ruined that... how they struggle to go back to the original nature... And it's not so funny to watch, that after the regime fall down, that the people, who were able start to do business were all the "former communist", as they were the only one, who had connections and money! And no, I am not saying as envy, just the irony. Sarcasm. I already saw how some of them already finished. We have this saying: "God's mills works slow, but surely... " Justice will be on the end.
probably you need to read St John Chrysostom about what he thinks of the excesses of riches. In terms of communism, of course this is bad. But not because of stupid accusations of laziness, envy and so on. Do you think the Soviet Union could have put people in space and created a huge industrial base if they were lazy? Communism is a misplaced economic theory that doesn't work due to it being monolithic and autocratic. It severely distorts economic incentives. But to say that it inherently promotes hate, laziness, envy, theft and so on is just stupid and contradicts facts. You can easily same the same things about the capitalist system. It can promote greed and even laziness. Look at how capitalists on Wall Street make money. Not by doing anything productive, but by skimming cuts out of other productive businesses. How does that promote virtue?
@Qwerty Si Rasputin
makes a good point. One could say capitalism without soul, without Christian principles is the flip side of the same coin that is based on materialism. Their God is their belly.
@Qwerty Regardless, it is not justice the way capitalism is ran, which is unbridled capitalism. Are we supposed to tell people, "Consider yourself fortunate you do not live in a totalitarian regime." So much for the way businesses behave here in the states such as moving jobs and equipment to a communist country such as China while leaving the middle class to fend for themselves. Thanks in part to lobbyists.
Socialism takes away Caritas1.) Geopoliticalfutures article:"The World Bank began tracking poverty in China in 1981. In that year, 88.3 percent of China’s population lived on less than $1.90 a day (roughly 870 million people). Push the threshold up a little bit and poverty in China was even more striking: 99.1 percent of China’s population lived on less than $3.10 a day (over 980 million people). The last year for which the World Bank has official data is 2010, and the transformation, as you can see in the line graph above, is extraordinary. In 2010, only 11.2 percent (almost 150 million people) lived on less than $1.90 a day. Not shown above is that 27.2 percent (almost 360 million people) lived on less than $3.10 a day.
However, the problem with these data sets should already be clear. If you factor in population growth, you can make the claim that China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty if you define poverty as living on less than $1.90 or $3.10 a day. This doesn’t say anything about how well those lifted out of poverty are doing. A rural household living on $1.91 a day by this standard wouldn’t be counted as suffering from extreme poverty, even though by any objective measure a household earning that much on an annual basis would be cripplingly poor."...
2.)Telegraph.UK:" 1978, nine out of 10 people in China’s population of a billion were struggling to survive on an income below the “extreme poverty line”, set by the World Bank at just under $2 a day.
Today, the pyramid has been flipped on its head. As a result, almost all the more than 1.3 billion individuals who previously would have spent most of their life hungry have doubled their calorie intake"...(notice the change from numbers to calories,while not mentioning that chinese are slaves now for 6 billion people,but get only double the calories).5 DEMANDS! St.Francis Xavier pray for us!
I think you've got be really careful with terms and who you describe as socialist. I notice the Sanders is on your thumbnail. Sanders is not a socialist - he actually advocates for a European/Nordic mixed economic system with safety nets for those who are left behind by markets. He does not advocate for government nationalisation of means of production. If you look at Christian social teaching, particularly Catholic social teaching, there are strong limitations of where they think markets can go - be that because of protection of the poor or because markets are amoral and you can profit really from any activity. Limitations on certain kinds of market activities should be objected to. Furthermore, the East Asian example is used as an example of market economies reducing poverty, which is true, but it's got to be nuanced. They didn't adopt markets wholesale over all aspects of the economy. They targeted high value industries that the government would protect and support. Korea is a prime example of this. So I think the discussion should be nuanced a bit, and there needs to be recognition that markets can lead to distorted and, frankly, immoral incentives if not regulated.
I agree there needs to be rules for corporations to run by so they don't run rough-shod over consumers and small businesses. Nordic countries aren't socialist, the president of Denmark hates when people call his country socialist. Bernie just claims he wants a system like theirs because it sort of works with the Nordic countries small homogeneous populations. Bernie's plans call for 90% tax on the rich, which will make them and their companies move to different countries. He wants control over whole segments of the economy like everything medical, the energy sector, and many more. Central planning of businesses never works because people far away don't have the knowledge of the local business sphere. The had his honeymoon in the USSR, praised the Sandinistas, and Castro. He is a socialist. Catholic teaching stresses subsidiarity; local people supporting each other, which is often one of the best way to help the poor and sick. Heck the Us already has socialist policies like Social Security and that is going to go bankrupt. I totally agree with you that some markets lead to immoral incentives and exploitation. I wonder what Trent Horn thinks of distributism?
In many discussions people always associate socialism with the brutal atheist regimes of the 20th century and completely ignore the fact that there is a possibility of a democratic socialism (or social market economy if you'd like) where the state does not own means of production nor determine business plans but enforces a highly functioning market by not allowing conglomerates to reach a dominant market position by M&As. However, there might be special industry segments where monopoly makes more sense than free market, like cross-country railroad or oil pipelines. I see no reason why it would better if a private company operates a monopoly than the state.
And both Christian democracy both democratic socialism believes in the principle of subsidiarity, which means that in ideal case decisions should be made in the forum closest to the people whose tax money is included and whose lives will be affected by those decisions.
My real beef with contemporary western socialists is that they're typically engaged with hardcore progressive social ideas. I'd gladly work toward a conservative socialism.
@Qwerty byzantine? I think that's a massive anachronism. And Sanders is not a socialist
@@belakovacs7013 Thanks for your comment. I completely agree with you. Even in standard economic models, which only work when there is perfect competition, monopolies are not optimal. It follows that it makes more sense for monopolies, like the utilities you mention, to be nationalised or regulated.
I also agree with you about progressives in the West. I don't think social policy should be liberalised. Conversely the problem with Conservatives in the West is that they are actually liberal when it comes to economics. So both left and right are inconsistent in applying their ideology. I don't want liberalism in either social policy or economic policy. I want guidelines for social and economic behaviour to ensure the good of society as a whole - whether they be State legislated, social norms or both. Sometimes I think American Catholics have caught this cavalier, "every man for them-self" attitude from America's Protestant roots. The radical individualism you find in America is at odds with Christian social teaching just as much as communism is. It's interesting and disturbing to see some American Catholics flirting with libertarian philosophy and the radical individualism we find in libertarian ideology.
It is considered a grave sin when one does not render to their laborers what is due. Capitalism can go wrong here on occasion (sweat shops in Asia, etc for instance). It is easy to see why some are ready to criticize capitalism when CEOs earn a lot more than the laborers. However, at least to me, I do not care how much the richest people are as long as I can earn what is necessary to survive and provide, and by and large capitalism has made it possible for even most poor people to live a higher standard of life than medieval kings.
In socialist countries EVERYBODY works in a sweat shop.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh There are no purely socialist countries. PURE socialism is an idea that when manifested in reality turns into kleptocracy quickly. But elements of socialism can and should be incorporated into capitalism. Do you like having an interstate highway system?
@@TheRealShrike There are a few things government does better than private enterprise, like the armed forces, the police, and the fire departments. Building roads? Usually the government will contract with private firms to do that kind of work, don't they?
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh Sure, but the US government more or less owns the Interstates, no?
@@TheRealShrike Like I said, there are a few things that government does better than private industry, but the list of these things is short. And government is famous for hiring private contractors.
I trust the U. S. government to run the Army, the FBI, and the interstate highway system. I do not trust the government to make cars, boats, airplanes, clothes, apple pies, chocolate doughnuts, or to provide doctors, lawyers, plumbers, or refrigeration repairmen.
Catholic social teaching is the most beautiful part of Catholicism, it truly is the answer to the excesses of our age.
That is not the most beautiful part of the Faith, Werd.
paxcoder Well, I’m Eastern Orthodox, so it’s the best thing about Catholicism in my mind.
@@drewmann856 I agree with you Werd, and I'm Roman Catholic. Christ's sermon on the mount is our (yours and mine) social teaching. This show is today's typical generalization and side taking. It synthesizes schisms and absolutes instead of understanding (or even discussing) the necessary complexity and mixture of approaches of a moral economy, for a shared quality of life, and salubrious brother and sisterhood. Instead we are to take two gentlemen ganging up on a word (or term) and battle against it, and like a boxing match aiming to throw scoring punches at the other shadow. Worse they succeed at gathering a following crowd who carry on the shallowness of their vanity. I know these comments may be great torrent of maligning, hate and discontent. But know that we walk a narrow road in faith, hope, and in practice of those two, charity. Yours in Christ, Joe
@@JoeCiliberto I really don't see that in the show. They were careful to discuss the ways unfettered capitalism is also immoral. It's one thing to acknowledge complexities, but the Church at times also needs to clarify lines between right and wrong.
As long as you convert to people to Christ that Capitalism will work. Business must be able to freely help their customers and workers. Not through regulations.
Lutheran here Brothers and Sisters, remember that feeding the poor isn't just continuously giving your hard earned bread to suffering beggars, but to radically change the systems of the world so that beggars cannot exist.
Lutheran? Nobody listens to you. 400 years of hairsplitting. Go to mass.
Sorry, there is no need to change the system, you just need to help a poor man to get a job and then he is no longer poor.
Matt, you should speak with Tom Woods. He's an economist, historian, political commentator and a Catholic.
Hi Anthony, thanks for that comment I'm going to check into him.
I had a question regarding international exchange rates and outsourcing. How is it that outsourcing jobs has become the norm? I understand labor is cheaper offshore. But how is the same work just done by non-citizen cheaper? How did we get the current economic model?
What allowed 1 dollar to equal ~70 rupees ? Is this model a morally sound one?
Where can I read about these things? Do you know of any authors that speak on this?
@@dumboxthomas6758
Start with Tom Woods first. He can lead you to the answers of your questions.
A few good economists are Ludwig Von Mises (a nobel prize winner for economics), Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman (another nobel prize winner).
I also enjoy Thomas Sowell, his writings are very clear and easy to understand and gives very good analogies as well.
If I may put my own 2 cents in. Getting off the Gold Standard was bad for the world. The U.S. dollar is now the standard and all currencies adjust their monetary system based on the value of the U.S. dollar.
In poorer countries, labor comes cheaper than in industrialized nations simply because people are willing to work for lower wages and because there are no to minimal or marginally enforced labor laws.
Anthony Burke okay interesting. Appreciate the recommendations! Thanks!
@@dumboxthomas6758 you should read Rupert Ederer’s review of Tom Woods’s work, it’s on the Culture Wars Magazine website
Conservaatives pushing their political beliefs as religious facts are extremely silly. What did Bernie propose that was so against the Christian faith? raising taxes? providing free healthcare. it's insane to say that these are anti-christian things
The history of capitalism in the United States is an affront to Catholic Social Teaching. We must always be mindful that usury and the abandonment of the safety of workers, both of which thrive in the United States market economy, are sinful. As St. JP II tells us in Laborem Exercens, the right to a family/livable wage, paid vacation and leisure, and the ability to form, join, and support unions are necessary for the health of an economic ethic that promotes dignity over capital.
Man over economy, not economy over man.
Alexander J
Yes!!!!!
I appreciate this discussion, but this is clearly a little overly apologetic toward capitalism compared to Church teaching
Louis Jones 🤦🏽♀️🤦🏽♀️🤦🏽♀️🤦🏽♀️
I agree. Christ or the Church do not favour any specific economic system, and condemm the excess and worldliness of all of them. Intent in favouring others is the root of all teaching. You can be socialist or capitalist as a Catholic, as long as God and neighbour truly come first. And despite the fact that socialist has traditionally been atheistic at its root.
Boom! Louis gets it!
Christian Sandoval nope
Killan Orji yup
This needs to be taught in schools, Catholic or otherwise.
To me, one of the inherent flaws of socialism is that it hinges on the belief that the government can be more charitable than the constituents. People are essentially saying 'I don't trust other people that have things to be kind and charitable towards those that don't, and only the elected officials can be kind and charitable to others'. If this were in fact true, then the elected officials would not all be in the upper class. They have excess compared to most citizens and they choose not to give most of it back to the poor so how can we expect them to do a better job with our money than theirs? The most direct and cost effective way to help our communities is to give willing of our own time and money directly to our community rather than be forced to give it to the government to give to someone else to give to someone else to give a small amount back to the community.
Your opinion does not scale well at all to things like health care, interstate highways, etc. Churches cannot provide $1,000/mo insulin pumps to diabetics, for example. Churches cannot build roads. We already have socialist elements to our country.
US American? Right? What in US is called "socialism" (by mostly populists), is norm in Europe. The social system in US would in Europe be called primitivism if it would be politically correct to say it load. Redistribution of wealth through the state 1. IS better working in comparison to the model in the US. That is a pure fact. Just look at Your streets. Beggars, prostitutes, junkies etc. Visit Finland and try to find one Finnish beggar. 2. This European social system has nothing to do with kindness or charity (to constitute the state social system as state charity is already perverse and ideological), but with social JUSTICE. Free access of all to market has nothing to do with justice ("all have the same set of rules"), because in no point in history all participants have the same starting point. It is like You would say `lets do a fair 100 miles race`, all go the same route, but some have a Ferrari and others bicycle. Guess who will be winner and who loser. And guess if the reason is that those with bike are lazy. And guess if the distance between them is going to increase or decrease during the race. And 3.: the next level of perversion is the arrogance to dare this American model even connect with Catholic teaching or even go so far and question if a catholic can support "socialism". This manipulation is the definition of sin.
Acts 5
Do you know what Democratic centralism is?
@@imatrOlda not primitivism, but protofascism. Primitivism was known for the peacefulness and care that humans had for each other then.
The knowledge about socialism, capitalism, feudalism, state capitalism, etc in this piece is _severely_ lacking and very misrepresented.
Yup. He says the “state” controls the economy in communist societies when a state doesn’t exist at all in communism
Exactly
It’s easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle rather than a rich man go through the gates of heaven…so L + ratio
The Italian friar's name is Luca Pacioli (lu-ka pa-cho-li). Accountant here and I love your show! God bless your ministry!
If a Catholic (christian) can’t be a socialist, can’t either be a capitalist. Haven’t read the book, but have read political/economic books and this analysis is very vague and translates capitalism as market which it’s not the same.
A Catholic capitalist is more possible than a Catholic socialist.
Depends on your definition of socialism and capitalism.
@@jamesmerone You can't be serious. Capitalism is literally a system built upon exploitation. It goes against nearly all of Christ's teachings.
I’m gonna call BS on this
2:00 is a fallacy. Socialism is where the WORKERS have control over the means of production, not the state. Also, not all socialism is a central planned economy. There can be a free market socialist countries with workplaces being controlled democratically.
“The people” have control over the means of production. That means the state. Of “the people”. If in doubt, watch a court hearing where the state is prosecuting (hint: the people vs...).
@@robertnorris8831 I'm sorry, I was talking about the complete democratic control over the workplace. Sorry about the confusion.
Yep. Catholic priests started Mondragon. The most successful worker co-op in the world. No state involvement whatsoever.
I agree with what he said. But it seems that in the USA (especially) any attempt of the gov. to interfiere with the inherent injustices of Capitalism (e.g. braking monopolies, charging fair taxes, providing help to the poor via social programs etc.) is label as socialism. That is a strawman argument of corrupt powerful people to discourage any attempt to correct the game. The catholic teaching is clear and must be laud as Pope Francis is doing and I as a Catholic applaud more than ever. The economy must be in service of the people, not people being in service to the economy. Doing otherwise, would be making the Market your God.
Francis is Globalist who supports open borders. He is more concerned with progressive/marxist talking points than with saving souls. I guess you dont mind that he was McCarricks pick for Pope. The predator class in the church elected their guy. To bad the lid was blown of the lavender mafia. Read infiltration by Dr. Taylor Marshall. You'll get a better understanding of what's going on in the church.
Absolutely right
I can't give my time of day to watch a video by someone who is so misinformed that they think Bernie Sanders is a socialist.
So disappointing.
@Qwerty He's more than a little bit, but he isn't actually a socialist. Just because I generally agree with conservatives on guns doesn't mean I'm suddenly a Republican. He's a Democratic Socialist, which has some seriously meaningful distinctions.
@Qwerty The main, big, huge colossal difference is that in straight Socialism, the workers/community own the means of production. Democratic Socialists are okay with continuing the Capitalist trend of private ownership of businesses. In Bernie's case, the big exception is healthcare. But he's not gonna take Walmart, or fuel companies, or shoe stores or whatever. It basically works within the confines of the current system rather than throwing the whole thing out. It's basically democratically expanding on social programs that we already have like SNAP, Medicare and Social Security, for example.
@Qwerty Bernie does not admit to being a "socialist," but a democratic socialist.
7:05 "violates man's right to private property". And where is the right to private property in the Bible?
You can argue that "socialism doesn't work", but that's not a sufficient reason for why Catholics can't support it. Trickle down economics doesn't work; but that's not a reason for Catholics to be unable to support it.
"Up to the 16th century, usury was condemned by the Catholic Church". This is one of the most anti-capitalist stances one could have. And since this is "Pints with Aquinas", let's look at what he thought: "St. Thomas Aquinas, the leading scholastic theologian of the Roman Catholic Church, argued charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to "double charging", charging for both the thing and the use of the thing."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
The thumbnail showing Bernie Sanders is misleading since he is not a socialist, but a democratic socialist (I would even argue a social democrat).
If Jesus was anything, he would most closely align with socialsim.
Matt 19:21 "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A21&version=KJV
Trent Horn appears to be a died in the wool libertarian. Buzzwords like "take by force" and "voluntary exchange" are the telltale signs. Here's a thought experiment. If I hold a gun to your head and ask for your wallet - and then you hand your wallet to me, have you voluntarily given me your wallet? I think we would both agree that the answer is "no" and that you have been coerced. Now replace the gun (threat of death) with the threat of eternal torment.
@@karmayeshengondrubs4594 LOL. I'm not even Catholic.
Brian Dill
That’s funny! I liked your presentation, that’s why I responded . Your analysis was well thought out.
@Qwerty but usury is the epitome of capitalism yet I have never seen a video about how Catholics can't be capitalists. One one expect this before one against socialism - especially from a channel or segment with "Aquinas" in the name.
@Qwerty what it is outside of Christianity (or Catholicism) is irrelevant. The point is them condemning socialism on weak grounds, yet with the clear case of usury they have more evidence to make a video saying that Catholics shouldn't support capitalism.
@Qwerty It's not a heresy, it's an observation. I think Brian Dill is right on the mark.
$2USD a day in 1820 is like $50 now, which is a lot less, but you needed less money in those days. Most people in the world still live in poverty, governments and organisations just keep moving the goalposts
"[God] said "love yourself before you love your neighbour" - Where is Trent getting this idea from?
"Love your neighbor as yourself" at least appears to presuppose that self-love precedes and informs one's love of others.
Augustine writes that this command includes one must love them self as well otherwise you could hate yourself and then it would mean you would have to hate your neighbour.
There is a charitable organization in Germany that is devoted to reducing food insecurity in the United States. They advertise here on RUclips. I find that shameful as an American. Note that Germany has a mixed economy (both capitalist and socialist), also known as democratic socialist. Germany's food insecurity has remained at about 2.5% per capita for years. Ours is more than 10%.
I would be interested to know when and why the Church jettisoned the example of the Apostles and first believers as noted in Acts 2:42-47: "They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers. A sense of awe was felt by all for many wonders and signs were performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and owned everything in common. They would sell their property and possessions and distribute the proceeds to all according to what each one needed. Every day, united in spirit, they would assemble together in the temple. They would break bread in their homes and share their food with joyful and generous hearts as they praised God, and they were regarded with favor by all the people. And day by day the Lord added to those who were being saved."
Also in Acts 4:32-35: "The entire community of believers was united in heart and soul. No one claimed any of his possessions as his own, for everything was held in common. With great power, the apostles bore witness to the resurrection[g] of the Lord Jesus, and they were all greatly respected. There was never anyone among them in need, because those who were the owners of lands or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and lay them at the feet of the apostles, to be distributed to any who were in need."
This way of life, inspired by the Holy Spirit, appears to have been mandatory and approved/enforced by St. Peter, whom the Lord backed up with this miraculous sign, as recounted in Acts 5:1-10: "There was a man named Ananias who with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property. With the approval of his wife, he held back some of the proceeds, and he brought the remainder to the apostles and laid it at their feet. Then Peter asked, 'Ananias, why has Satan so gained control of your heart that you lied to the Holy Spirit and retained part of the sale price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not belong to you? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds yours? What caused you to contrive this scheme? You have lied not to men but to God.' When Ananias heard these words, he collapsed and died, and a great sense of fear seized all who heard about it. The young men came forward and wrapped up his body. Then they carried him out and buried him. After about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for this much.” She replied, 'Yes, that was the price.' Then Peter asked her, 'Why did the two of you agree to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Listen! The footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will also carry you out.' Instantly, she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in, they found her dead. And so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And a great sense of fear seized the whole Church and all those who heard of this."
The Church was able to send missionaries all over the known world at the time, spreading the Gospel at a wonderfully alarming rate. They were able to provide relief to those under persecution (such as St. Paul while he was in prison). There are historical accounts of the earliest Christians reaching out to both believing and unbelieving earthquake and plague victims. This was way more than throwing money into an offering plate on Sunday, and it must have taken incredible discipline that could only have been accomplished with the help of the Holy Spirit...but there was clearly great joy in it. Back then, becoming a follower of Jesus was to leave *everything* behind, *as He taught*. When the Church stopped this way of life, everyone kind of drifted off into the lonely individualism that we see in the Church today...both Catholic and Protestant alike. One can attend church with people for years and never even learn their names.
I really do hope that the Church, in condemning socialism, isn't just defending rich people and their wealth. St. James was clear about how the Church is to regard the wealthy vs. the poor. Why is all socialism condemned as bad, when, like capitalism, it can be rightly used or abused? Do you have the money to hire your own personal fire or police department? Can you build your own interstate highway, bridges or local roads and sidewalks? Can you raise your own personal military or build your own personal hospital complete with doctors, nurses and medical equipment?
Most Americans I see on the internet use the word 'socialism' as if we still lived in the 1890s.
Socialism means that the (working) people own and control the means of production. That's the opposite of "the (undemocratic) state taking over". Also, this simple definition of Socialism doesn't say all people are payed equally no matter the amount of work.
Keep in mind that back in the day you couldn't successfully run a big company because of lack of infrastructure (phones, planes, internet, computers), thus it was also difficult for a Government to run the "means of production". But as we have more and more technology, both multinationals become doable and thus Governing becomes doable.
Hey Matt, please invite Ryan T. Anderson on your show. Of course, he’s famous for his thoughts on gay marriage and transgenderism, but his doctorate navigates a middle road between liberalism and libertarianism, so he’s great for discussions on the role of government, the common good, social doctrine, etc.
Liberalism and libertarianism is inherently anti catholic.
@@dukeofmonmouth1956 why do you think he said “a middle road” 🤦♂️
@@dukeofmonmouth1956 how so ?
When we say 'capitalism' we usually mean free enterprise (most small businesses and entrepreneurs don't start with large capital but with ideas, innovation etc). As a conservative reasonably concerned about the increasing popularity of 'Socialism', I wish we'd say free enterprise. Mostly I'm just pleased to watch this - Catholics and Christians (including your current Pope IMO) can be misguided about this. Christian charity is not the same as government redistribution, in fact it's the opposite. Just my opinions.
There is a distinction between personal and private property within socialism that is entirely glossed over here
A distinction that is arbitrary and nonsensical.
It should be said that the School of Salamanca. A Catholic school, had ideas on economics and in favor of a market even before Adam Smith.
This video represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism is. Socialism is in fact more responsive and democratic than the political-economic system that currently exists in the United States.
@Dan by the standard of accounting for the needs of the most amount of people
frankly i need no other reason to oppose socialism but that every major socialist tradition is anti-church to its every bones. There is no reason to shill an ideology or work with people that oppose me.
@@ikengaspirit3063 there have been many forms of religious socialist movements, especially ones that are Christian.
@@FriarJoe66 I said major. Aside from some medieval movement like the diggers that modern socialists claim, every Christian socialist movement has been minor and temporary(like the Socialists among the Christadelphians) or one person(like Leo). So aberrations
And Liberation theology isn't Socialist.
@@ikengaspirit3063 how do you define major?
I think there is definitely a balance between the two. For example, I would still have free markets with certain protections for workers, the environment, etc, as well as a couple of socialized industries like medicare for all; especially if it's a life-threatening situation.
A whole discussion of Catholicism and capitalism, and not one mention of usury. Very typical of the modern Catholic attitude.
Well, I would say it's the modern attitude of many, but I do agree with the lack of discussion among the problems found with capitalism when it lacks christian principles such as usury, promotion of credit to replace lack of market opportunities, punitive measures taken against those who fall behind on their mortgages and credit card payments, student loans to some degree (this was not much of an issue 20 years ago. Universities have become a business where loans are passed off without an afterthought and a highly inflated education, but the students who end up holding the bill are the ones that pay dearly). Capitalism becomes unbridled as JPII once mentioned. It can become totalitarian in a way, the letter of the law that kills the spirit. I think if capitalism had christian principles there would be far less of those wanting to join of the ranks of Socialism. I also think many follow due to anger on what they perceive as injustice. The thing I find ironic is the stance that socialism takes with regards to abortion. There's the biggest injustice ever perpetuated against humanity.
Its on Catholicism and SOCIALISM
By Horn's definition of socialism, China is not socialist.
Read Ha Joon Chang, "23 Things they don't tell you about capitalism". Capitalism only works by shortchanging workers. Thie level of this talk is more than usually disgraceful. This man is no political philosopher, why ask his opinion?
This guy is a simpleton...A simp author. Does he know that in reality Benie Sanders is more of a social democrat. Does he know what social democracy is? Does he know that even the "communist" countries said they were Socialist and paid different wages depending on occupation...You could change jobs, etc. Does he know how communism defeated fascism and let to massive gains for the working masses? It's all relative...most people chose communism over fascism.
“The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist.” The Brothers Karamazov
If we’re treating capitalism as tool, it would be nice if we treat socialism as a tool too. Both doesn’t have to be on the extremes, they just have to make it work to create bigger welfare for everybody. If this means mandating taxes that exponentially multiplies social wealth when given as subsidy or amelioration to the poorest, then so be it. They are management of strings in an increasingly universal locality.
The rich pay nearly all the taxes. You’re basing your reasoning on envy which by the way is one of the 7 deadly sins.
Please explain if Catholics can support Capitalism. I don't think Jesus would be happy where the goal is to make the most money, everything else be damned.
God didn't say love yourself before you love your neighbour; He said love your neighbour AS YOU love yourself.
"As" you love yourself would suggest emulating the same love you tend to have for your self so he's not wrong I guess
How could the hosts write a book, and then host a podcast on the topic, specifically note Rarem Novarum, and even take a question about "distributing" and never ever even once mention Distributism? It's completely baffling. Distributism is the economic theory that came out of Rarem Novarum and it specifically was designed to address the failings of socialism and capitalism.
I may be in vain in trying to academically respond to this video, but hey.
Most of the disagreement behind Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communism can be attributed to semantics, especially definitions. The definitions in this video used to describe Communism and Socialism is not the same definition that many Socialists and Communists use to describe their own socioeconomic ideology. For example,
Trent Horn states in the video around 2:00 that Socialism and Communism say, "An economy should be planned by a central authority, and so the means of production should be owned by the state, and so the state should be the one to produce goods and services, and then allocates those goods and services based on need."
This is a definition of Socialism and Communism (two different things, which Trent Horn seems to not be able to differentiate between in economic terms), but Socialists and Communists would probably take much issue with this definition. For example, Communists might say that, and rightly so, according to Karl Marx, the arguable founder of the socioeconomic ideology of communism, it describes a "classless and stateless society." If Karl Marx is to be trusted as an authority on Communism (and if he cannot be trusted as an authority on that, what can he be trusted as an authority on?), Trent Horn's definition of Communism being a system in which a State makes and allocates resources would be insufficient in describing the ideology that Communists follow, since it is not stateless. What then occurs is that Horn argues against this definition of Communism that he has proposed, but which is not the definition that Communists subscribe to. So has Horn really proven that Communism is against Catholic values by arguing against a version of Communism that Communists do not subscribe to? I don't think so.
As for Socialism, there is such a broad range of Socialist theories (Communism being one theory of Socialism) that grouping them all in with Communism under the aforementioned definition would be dishonest. Horn argues against State Socialism, in which the State owns the means of production, and since the State is an elected and representative organ of the people, the people, in a sense, own the means of production. Most Socialists are not State Socialists. More commonly today, there are market socialists or democratic socialists, which subscribe to different ideals than State socialists. A Market Socialist would apply the free market to a socialist business structure, such as a Worker Co-Operative, where workers are the owners of their own business, as opposed to a CEO, which is the Capitalist business structure. A democratic socialist is a socialist who attempts to institute socialistic ideals into the government via democratic means (as opposed to revolutionary means). Neither of these are inherently anti-Catholic, however, but Horn does not seem to address them.
I mostly agree. I would add, though this may be slightly beside the point, that even communism itself is a broad range of related ideologies. Marxism-Leninism, the most common and influential form of Marxist communism throughout the 20th century, essentially discarded the orthodox Marxist view that a capitalist economy was even necessary in order to transition into socialism and finally communism. Maoism, or Mao Zedong Thought as the CCP calls it, perhaps the most influential strain of Marxism in the world (if not the western world) today tries to circumvent that inconsistency by essentially placing the state under the Leninist principle of the vanguard party in charge of the transition to capitalism before the economy can transition to socialism and finally communism - which runs counter to the claim often heard in media and popular discussion today that China has abandoned its ideological roots, as the development of the Chinese economy today IS largely in line with the Maoist viewpoint. Neither one of these currents conforms to orthodox Marxism as laid out by Marx in the Communist Manifesto or Capital.
Again, that may be slightly beside the point, but as the general sentiment of your post seems to be that we need to have a thorough understanding of what we are criticizing (which I strongly agree with) and that to do otherwise and to lump things together that don't belong together in pursuit of a narrative that's easier to consume would be intellectually dishonest, I thought I'd add them.
Agree. Denial of education is another sign of communism, fascism
There’s nothing wrong with Socialism as an idea. It’s right there in the Gospels and in Christ’s teaching. I would say pure socialism in unworkable unless we are all close to perfect. And we are not. We should not confuse Socialism with Communism, which is a whole different thing. Many European countries practice a degree of socialism and it works just fine. I would say no Catholic should support unfettered Capitalism. And the Gospels would back me up.
I had hoped for better from this channel (I am a conservative Catholic who also believes that social justice is an integral part of our faith). The message here is against the moral teachings of the Catholic Church as well as intellectually dishonest & spiritually repugnant. To anyone watching this: this is NOT what the Catholic Church stands for!
Sorry, the message here totally misses the boat on the Church's teaching on structuring society according to the principle that all people have the right to receive *universal common goods & services* regardless of wealth (stuff like security, clean water, basic nutrition, basic housing, education, etc). This is basic Catholic social teaching. There are well over a 100 such *state controlled & managed services* in existence in modern society. In no way would it be morally right to divvy these services up into multiple private businesses all competing against each other, and distributing them according to whom would pay the highest price.
If the absence of private ownership is morally acceptable in the case of these social services (for the sake of common good per Catholic social teaching), then that contradicts the premise of this video that private ownership is intrinsically moral in *all* cases.
Sorry, a very disappointing video, which is totally contradictory to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
A non-exhaustive list of these social services is as follows: military, police, fire fighters, courts, public schools, highway/road/bridge design & management, sewage treatment, potable water service, parks (national, state, local), libraries, public transportation, and many socially beneficial gov regulatory agencies (EPA, GI bill, FDA, USDA, OSHA, FEMA, Soc-Sec, Medicare, basic nutrition and housing programs, etc, etc).
I dont understand how does this contradict catholic teaching while the Popes themselves were and are also against it? I mean, for general view, as basic ground, socialism as a system is just not it. But it should not necessarily be translated as absolute extended to particular things like examples u provided. I mean, even in China, they exclude certain things, deviate the basic ideology after realizing it wont work. The very tennet of capitalism is: free competition. But as just like any competition, certain things can be exempted. On the other hand, in socialism, the competition itself doesnt exist.
This is an incredibly American centric argument. I don’t know if anybody in the Netherlands where are my parents were born that says you can’t be a socialist and be a Catholic because the country has a lot of socialism in it. It’s only in America were the constant fear of the socialist bogeyman raises its head.And by the way what I mean by socialism is free healthcare in college. That’s what pisses people off it makes them say that socialism is evil in the United States.
By your fruits shall ye know them. How's the death count for socialism in the 20th century?
@@ryan.1990 Socialism as applied in The Netherlands? Or communism? Because if you want to play the “who killed more” game then capitalism under the United States killed far more than socialism in The Netherlands
Socialism isn’t just when the government does things for the people. And socialism is explicitly condemned by Catholic teaching
"Communism means a centralized state that controls the means of production." Ancom left out as usual. Also, you mentioned it's a classless system based on equality, but forgot to mention it's also stateless and moneyless. And Marx never advocated for equality as a goal, his popularized phrase was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That doesn't scream equality, does it?
Of course, none of the previous communist regimes ever came close to that utopic ideal, probably none ever will. I'm not saying Catholics should be communists, far from it. But you fall on so many misconceptions that it's hard to take the discussion too seriously. If you wanna be able to better refute communism or at least Marxism I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Program.
Also, Bernie is in the thumbnail but he isn't even a socialist lol, he's just a social democrat which means capitalism but high progressive taxation and a social safety net - universal healthcare among other things. Which is actually pretty close to Church social teaching, except for abortion, of course.
“Democratic socialists” state that they hate capitalism, so not sure how you can reconcile that with the above opinion. “Millionaires should not exist”. Even if, as Catholics, we believe that the wealthy should give as much as they can to help those in need, it doesn’t mean we must necessarily support socialism (state control over the means of production)
@@robertnorris8831 Social democracy is capitalism with universal welfare state. It's not the same as democratic socialism.
jacurutu then I think we agree if you support social democracy, that there should be systems to help people in need funded by wider society. I would only make the point therefore that Bernie should rethink some of his talking points, namely “capitalism has failed” and the like. Capitalism has lots of room for improvement would be better IMO.
@@robertnorris8831 Yes that is at the core of social democracy, working within the system of capitalism to alleviate its excesses by redistributing wealth generated by the free markets, through progressive taxation and other means, into public institutions of universal healthcare, education, transportation and the like. It doesn't even mean government pays everything, it often involves cooperation with private companies, but in the end every citizen should be covered through a combination of public healthcare and private insurance. Take a look at Norway's system, for instance: www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/denmark
If I understand correctly Bernie proposes an even more extensive option, but it eliminates the option of private insurance. I think he goes too far in that regard. The mixed European model seems to be working alright.
It depends what you mean by Socialism. Is it what the right calls Socialism or actual Socialism?
Holodomor is depressingly understated in today's dialog and it's reassuring to hear these perspectives on socialism; liked and subbed!
Much of the Holodomor was a lie created by Nazi aligned people; there was a starvation because of Famine- not even comparable to the damage like the pestilence the English caused to the Irish.
Id love for this conversation to continue with Elizabeth Breunig. Trent and Elizabeth both cite catholic social teaching for their positions yet they are on opposite sides of the argument.
God has made us a social species. For the most part, we live in social groups and a great deal of God’s law and church tradition are in that context.
Socialism, on the other hand, is a political system of enforced government control of Production, Distribution and Exchange. It is inherently coercive, depending on force and the threat of force to regulate what people do, what they can buy and what they pay for it.
I’m European and I enjoy my free healthcare and free education, thank you very much. And whilst I’m no expert in US politics, I believe Bernie Sanders is a Social Democrat, which hardly makes him a ‘Commie’.
He praised the Soviets and Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez. He’s a total commie.
How are your taxes?
Listening what Bernie says, he is "Commie"... you know: looks as a duck, walks as a duck, quacks as a duck...it's woalla duck! Bernie, if it was on him, doesn't mind to take 90% of somebody else's income/work's outcome and let the government decide what to do, how to spend that money! I am also European, I didn't pay for my university, but it was not free! Somebody else had to pay for it! ...as my parents and other people in taxes. If you have/had it free: somebody else paid for it, or somebody else is paying for it, or somebody else is going to pay for it. Noting, NOTHING IS FREE!
Bernard honeymooned in the former Soviet Union, and is an advocate of taking the overwhelming majority of income (90%) from the highest tax bracket.
It would destroy the economy for an unproven theory, so yeah he's quite the old commie.
Also, socialized healthcare and education are not free by any means.
Very oversimplified, especially what the populace is defining as socialism. Note how many Popes have supported healthcare for all. (Which is suddenly being considered socialism.). Look to our magistirium for guidance.
@Qwerty you are correct, and everyone understood the facts we would be better off. In today's age of relativism, and misinformation though, ideas misunderstood and applied incorrectly cause pains for us all.
That is a false debate regarding faith.
The U.S. military is socialism. Libraries are socialism. The U.S. Postal Service is socialism. Social Security is socialism. Corporate subsidies are socialism. And didn't Jesus say, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Let me ask you a question: Is Scandinavia socialism? If not, why can't America be more like Scandinavia? Is it because universal healthcare is socialism? Then why do all the most successful healthcare systems have a single-payer system?
This was an extremely banal analysis of socialism and to say you can’t be catholic and socialist is just abusing your faith to push forward your own political biases. I’m not a socialist, but don’t use God to fight for your own politics. You absolutely CAN be socialist and catholic as well as capitalist and catholic. Don’t try to guilt trip people into your own political party by using God as the excuse. “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, render to God what is God’s.” Jesus was not a capitalist just FYI. Nor was he catholic. He was the son of God who died so that all who believe in Him can have eternal life. (This is all coming from a catholic capitalist by the way. I’m just not going to pretend that God is anti socialist simply because I wish he were - which I don’t).
One would have thought both knew better than the understanding they are displaying but unfortunately they fall short of what it is that they are talking about. Book selling is it not it, how would you not destroy socialism in the expense of capitalism
This video just crossed a huge line. The greatest commandment does not say “love yourself before you love your neighbor”, it says “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Holy smokes. God, I want to throw up. Did that just happen??!! 🤢🤮 Quite the ideological superimposition there pal.
I have always enjoyed your show and respected the honesty and freshness of your inquiries. With all due respect, though, I will now be unsubscribing. When one closely follows politics in this lamentable year 2020, the media is filled with a daily smorgasbord of outrageous enough sights these days..but the sight of my beloved senator from my home state of Vermont, Bernie Sanders, with the word ‘evil’ near his head, as I see in the title picture for this video...it is too much to endure. He is a good and compassionate man, a man of integrity, which is is hard enough to find in a human being at all these days, let alone a politician. Yes, he is a Democratic Socialist. He wants a single payer health care system. I fail to see what is inherently irreligious or immoral or anti- Catholic about fighting for Medicare for All, when 21,000,000 Americans lacked health insurance in the most recent statistic I could find...and that was before so many Americans lost their jobs due to the economic fallout of the pandemic. According to a study by Harvard Medical School, 45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of insurance. Is there some hidden, inherent moral good in this? If so, I surely would like to be enlightened on what exactly it is. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you were born and raised in Australia, were you not, Mr. Fradd? Your country utilizes a single payer health care system, does it not? How, therefore, am I failing to be an ardent Catholic if I aspire that my son might someday benefit from the same health care system that you had access to, growing up?
Hello from Australia. Yes our health care system is pretty good even though we pay through our nose in tax. There can be a happy medium with capitalism and redistribution of income to the needy (socialism).
I'm sorry that you worship a man and politics than you do God, Laura. For shame!
Sanders is a horrible person who hates the global poor.
He probably wants to show he's more 'American' than the NRA
I hate to be critical but this is shameful behavior. for one, don't you see how awful it is to admit you're unwilling to hear someone who simply has a different opinion on a single issue? especially someone you otherwise enjoy. to just reflexively reject them because they expressed a general opinion that you don't like? he didn't even say anything about bernie sanders. but anyway, more importantly, your whole conception of these issues is missing the point. what is it exactly that you don't understand about this? can you think of a single occasion when Jesus advocated using the violent force of the state to steal people's money and spend it elsewhere? he advocated voluntarily giving and total pacifism.
any form of statism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. you can't be a christian if you advocate a system of government that uses force for anything other than self-defense, defense of basic human rights. charity NEVER involves the use of force. "fighting for Medicare for All" is just another way of saying "lobbying the government to force some people to give up their possessions for the benefit of other people (and for the benefit of an ever-growing class of bureaucrats who waste most of the money anyway)."
if you truly care for other people you will give freely of your own time and your own possessions. you didn't see mother theresa wasting her time marching for socialism. on the contrary, she spoke out against it, and worked her fingers to the bone providing for the neediest people she could find. why? because that's exactly the example that Jesus set, and the commandment that he gave us.
Capitalism is human nature absent socialism. As evidence I point to the market system flocked to when people want to eat, the black market.
I am a farmer. I grow what I want, on my land, and sell it to people who want it, at a price that is agreeable to both of us.
That is how the free market works.
I challenge anyone claiming that Socialism isn't inherently coercive and controlling, to tell me how they are going to let me keep doing what I want, under their system.
Depending on your definition of socialism you are a socialist.
@@christophersnedeker2065 …. Only if your definition is dishonest.
@@peterwebb8732 Many socialists define socialism as the workers having power over the means of production.
@@christophersnedeker2065 …. Then they don’t know what Socialism means or how it functions.
State control of the means of Production, Distribution and Exchange are foundational to Socialism. Socialism ASSUMES that the “working class” will rule the State, but in practice it never works that way.
People like me are amongst the first put up against the wall or sent to the gulags. Not only do I own my own land, but I sell on the free market and expect to keep and enjoy the profit therefrom.
I'm Catholic and live in the Uk. The NHS is wonderful and has been there for me and the people I love since before I was born. It's a product of a socialist idea and I fully support it. I however (for the record) wouldn't consider myself a socialist.
Same here. I'm also British and grateful to the NHS and our welfare system. However I fully agree with Pope Pius XII who condemned Marxism-Leninism as intrinsically evil. Later JPII echoed Pius teaching.
Title says socialist, picture shows Sanders??? Lol. Sanders is not a socialist. People really need to get their definitions right. Anyone even remotely left wing is considered socialist in the US.
Gumbi1012 THANK YOU! exactly
Yes. These guys seems to not know the difference between socialism and social democracy and / or a "mixed economy" as we have here i Scandinavia for example.
Merchants can also keep prices low to remove competition then get market share and price however they wish.
Trent and Matt. You had those definitions correct in the beginning when defining socialism as a midway point between Captialism and Communism. There after, the definitions errored. Socialism involves government control of large industries. Healthcare System, Airlines, Utilities. Those within an economy that naturally grow into monopolies. Most don't don't this, but some do. Socialist governments don't plan an entire economy. They heavily influence those industries described above. Communism plans an entire economy. The USSR and China topics brought up, are examples of Communism. Anyone interested in learning the definition of communism, read the Marx Communist Manifesto. That refers to the classless society. Europe is a great example of socialism. Did the popes have an issue with Italy, Spain, France, England, Germany on this economic issue with their current economic structure?
A great read on Economic Growth is the book, "The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created". The 5 pillars of economic growth are- Hypothesis of Wealth, Property, Reasom, Capital, Power/Speed/Light, and Synthesis of Growth.
Society Europe had a large part to play in this development. Matt Fradd and Council of Trent need to redefine their definition of socialism.
Catchy title. But an accurate title for this clip should be, Why Catholics can't be Communists.
It's hard because theres many different definitions of socialism. The one you mentioned is one way to go about socialism, but there's other ways suggested by other people. Personally, I think many of those European countries are not communist or socialist, but have capitalist and socialist elements like most governments.
@@u.s.citizen9933 Yeah the definition of socialism I go by is different than that which they use.
The problem is people apply the word socialism to things like welfare, regulations of industry and taxing the rich and think if they are against Soviet gulags they must be against people like Bernie Sanders
@@christophersnedeker2065 agreed. For me, I don't like soviet gulags or Bernie Sanders' views lol because I lean libertarian. What he suggests sounds like more government power and more taxes as a result.
I understand some will say that we might have more security due to government power and taxes for programs, but I like think the, "government which governs least governs best" in most situations. A henry David Thoreau quote. What's even funnier is that I'm a catholic, and the 2 seem to oppose each other but they can actually fit quite nicely in many situations and even support each other in some regards.
From my experience, almost all forms and definitions of socialism and communism involve giving up some power for the expectation that the community or institution as a whole will benefit together. I dont like that, because that often leads to the opposition of freedoms.
Acts 2:44
“All believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to everyone as he had need.”
Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and money.”
Matthew 19:24
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God.”
Luke 6:20
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.”
Luke 6:24
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already found your comfort.”
I could quote more passages but this will suffice.
I thought communists hated religions.
@@meme._.mensch Hey you’re calling it communist.
@@meme._.mensch Satan
This entire video confuses socialism and communism with Marxism and the way the terms are defined within that ideology. It is impossible to be a Christian Marxist since Marxism is an atheistic ideology, but the question of whether a Christian can be a socialist more generally is different.
Socialism is a practice that stems from Marxism
@@androidaw7927 That is not historically true.
@@jackparker8759 yes, it is. That is the governmental appliance of Marxism.
@@androidaw7927 that's true if you pretend like Marx's definition of socialism is the only definition of socialism.
@@androidaw7927 Sociaism can be applied socially, to society, or to economics. Socialism is a condition preceding communism and has different assumptions about who owns the means of production. This is best exemplified by Poland vs Russia where Poland was socialist, while Russia communist.
However morally via teaching I dont think a catholic can be socialist in the economic sense. However social socialism is a concept that was popularised in 1930's germany. And in itself has some philosophical failings that have been rectified in more competent theories since then
I thought Jesus didn't like rich people, but I guess it's up for interpretation that fact that a camel can't pass a needle eye
What about anarchism and other forms of decentralized systems?
The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.” Pope Leo XIII
So no, he never said “society should help” or “we should help each other” he specifically states the government should help, and government cannot do that without both implementing taxation and having the power to impose force to ensure compliance in paying said taxation. A very gross misreading of “Rerum novarum” just so you can plug your pseudo libertarian ideology into it seems intellectually dishonest to me. Do you gloss over Adam Smith’s harsh criticism’s of the Landed gentry too?
As a "socialist" myself, I was surprised at the amount of propaganda in this video. Putting my personal objections to Trent Horn's definitions and analysis aside, let's see what the Bible teaches. In the Acts of the Apostles, we find clear examples of Christian communes and socialistic organization:
Acts 2:44-45, "All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need."
Acts 4:32-35, "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."
Not to mention the timeless quotes on the impossibility of serving two masters (God and money), or Matthew 19:23, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Or 1 Timothy 6:10, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." And so on and so forth, many more examples could be provided which clearly illustrate the ethic of the New Testament being against relentless profiteering and the individual profit motive promoted by capitalism.
Finally, I advise all curious truth-seekers here to read the history of Soviet Russia and China for themselves. These were totalitarian command economies which deviated immensely from any kind of "socialism" (which is much more than just centralized state control). In fact, the countries we call developed/industrialized today became that way by violating free-market, capitalist principles and pursuing protectionist policies.
No hard feelings here, just hoping to stimulate the conversation and give my two cents. Peace to everyone!
The communal sharing by the early Christian communities were voluntary.
Exactly. To me anyone who brushes off all of socialism or communism as "centralized state" has only read or learned about the historically dominant interpretation and needs a lot more education on the matter. Which is fine, because it's always good to learn more stuff. But as someone who leans anarcho-syndicalist, I always cringe when I hear someone talk about left wing politics as big centralized government. Eh, I'm used to it though.
@The Last Stylebender Communist regimes have been completely atheistic. That doesn't mean in political theory all interpretations of socialism need to be atheist in nature. Please educate yourself more, read more about politics and learn to have more civilized discussions without resorting to insults. You'll find it's a lot more fun that way
@The Last Stylebender Read my comment again, dude.
@The Last Stylebender Yeah, if you can't even have a conversation or a discussion there's no point. Read my comment again lol
The national socialists in Germany didn't abolish private property. So, his definition wouldn't apply there. Just some input to add.
You can read a good quote from Hitler on how his economic system differed from international socialists
Just FYI this has nothing to do with the democratic socialism that Bernie supports. (he's in the thumbnail) Social democracies are some of the most successful countries on the planet. They are capitalist in nature but support a strong safety net for equality of opportunity.
Every American uses and benefits from democratic socialism. Rich and poor. If churches don't believe in socialism, then they should quit dodging taxes. They just don't like socialism for others.
Trent horn wrote a book discussing some of these topics and he demonstrated a huge ignorance in what socialism actually was. Within a few pages, he was using simple narratives and mixing up ideologies from communism and different types of socialism.
I gave up on him then.
Why not judge socialism by looking at socialist countries or talking to people from socialist countries
@@crossbearer6453 I'm not against that. I'm just saying trent horn wrote a book that was as unintelligible and unacademic as fiction
God bless you guys and your efforts! +
What in the world are you talking about? Jesus was a Socialist. If you are wealthy, what did Jesus say was your chances of getting into heaven???
@madrigaldude1781 aaaaah. Jesus said give away your wealth, not focus on accumulating it. That sounds pretty socialist to me. Not like hypocrites who accumulate wealth and abundance and hoard it, and then proclaim that God has blessed them.
God didn't say love yourself before you love your neighbor. He said love your neighbor as yourself (meaning equally). (At least I thought so?)
I like this channel but this particular video felt like I was in tenth grade again learning about simple ideas like capitalism and socialism. The Adam Smith reference is essentially the minimum of what you have to know to pass the Regents exam (or at least get one question right). I was looking for a deeper analysis.
This is like Joe Rogan, without all the swear words
"Democratic socialism"
Socialism with sprinkles on top.
So true
*sweden has entered the chat*
And arsenic dripped throughout
“Killing the rich but we ask the 51% if they think it’s ok to do so”
@@sawyersmith5242 Social democracy is not socialism.
This is funny since the most fervent catholic countries are socialist 😅
Such as?
Never forget Jesus' words in Matthew 25:31-46 were aimed at the Church, not the government.
John Florio Matthew 25: 31-46 wasn’t just aimed at the Church to teach but as a way God will Judge his Creations.
How can that be, when the passage explicitly refers to "All the nations"?
The Church has always condemned Marxism, not socialism in its entirety
Excellent. Thank you both.
Hladomor in slavic languages literally means "plague of hunger" ("hlad" meaning hunger and "mor" meaning plague). Hladomor simply means famine.
A good video, but one criticism is that modern Capitalism is reliant upon the state to enforce usury. Usury is condemned by the Church over and over again.
What are you talking about??? Have you seen resent interest rates???
Matt, thank you for all you do. I’m a huge fan of Pints With Aquinas and will continue to be one. I must say, this particular understanding of socialism is quite narrow to say the least. I say that because this is only a sliver of even the Marxist tradition itself. Let alone the entirety of leftist theory. I suggest to anyone interested in (or just looking to spy on “the enemy) leftist writing to look into the Anarchist tradition. Anarchists critique Capital and the State at the same time. Focusing the human person in a much more generous light then Marx. I’m reading “The Conquest of Bread” by Peter Kropotkin currently. It’s the anarchist equivalent to the Communist Manifesto but hold human dignity as a motivation rather then Hatred. Dorthy Day drew a lot from Anarchism within her work with The Catholic Worker. I would agree with many others here that Marxism presupposes atheism. But there are many many other for substantive traditions to draw from if someone finds their politics on the left.
Would you say that a Catholic can have National Healthcare? A lot of Americans believe that it is a terrible socialist and communist evil, yet some of the freest countries in the world, France, Australia and the UK have it, and definitely aren't socialist? Would appreciate an answer
Luke Hyland those countries are also significantly smaller in population size and have more doctors per capita
This was the craziest thing. I watched this video and then read my bible as I do before bed, and I’m currently reading Acts. Tonight I had Acts 4 to read and the last bit was this, “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.”
Acts 4:32-37
To me, this sounds EXACTLY like the communism that was discussed in this video. I’ve never seen communism as anti-Christian (in theory). Sure, when you loop together Marxist ideas such as “religion being an opium of the people”, or the horrors in Russia and China, obviously it would seem anti-Christian. But honestly, at least to me, being willing to share everything and live in communion with one another is one of the biggest ideals of Christianity. Isn’t that what Eden was in the first place? Just something to think about.
Praise God. No, The disciples and the people gave freely, whereas in communism it is forcibly taken, it is not charity. It is a disorded form. Read 2 corinthians 9: 6-7
6 Here is something to remember. The one who plants only a little will gather only a little. And the one who plants a lot will gather a lot. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give. You shouldn’t give if you don’t want to. You shouldn’t give because you are forced to. God loves a cheerful giver.
There is nothing wrong with being equal and stuff, it is wrong to steal/rob the rich of what they own. It should be given freely and from the heart. Communism has a good motive but is the wrong way to do it. E.g. Is it wrong to steal money of people because you are poor and want to help people who are homeless? The person here has a good intention but he is doing it the wrong way and so it become disordered and an evil intention.
It seems to me that the video is Republican propaganda masking as Catholic teaching.
@@whitevortex8323 As with many things, the secular world wants to find a material solution for what is essentially a spiritual problem. Poverty by itself is not the main issue, even though it is and will always, unfortunately, be an issue, at least as long as people don't overcome the main issue, which is the poverty of love. And by love, I mean wanting to experience and share the love of God, not the materialistic lust typical of the modern world, which leads to nothing more than strong passions supported by no values or principles to prop them up, and which inevitably end up in worse consequences.
Giving freely means you need to own something first, and be prepared to share it to your fellow man. Private property is simply put, a Natural law. Without the property, there is no giving.
But what do you own? As the passage you quoted testifies, you own what you plant and what you harvest. You own what is given to you for your effort.
The Eden-like idea of a community where all is shared is something that can only work as far as people do work together and share the fruits of their labor together, without jealousy or law that can force them to do so, emboldened by the love of God. In a sense, monastic communities represent this idea in the Catholic world very well, as they strive to be self-sufficient and share as much as they can between themselves. They will sell produce to the outside world in order to maintain themselves, but that is part of the necessity for sustenance. Without work there is no property, without property there is no sharing and no sustenance.
Redistribution of wealth is not theft from the rich - it is their salvation.
“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
And for those asking below whether a Catholic can be a capitalist-or who think capitalism is the inverted evil of socialism-here is an excerpt from Trent's book on that question: www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-a-catholic-be-a-capitalist
it would seem that socialism helps poor people while capitalism is inherently selfish. and the gap is getting wider. if this is not true, you will have to convince half of the world that it is otherwise
@Qwerty im not saying it is a fact but that is a perception that sells
@Qwerty for power grab
@Qwerty oh but the mask is very stubborn and insistent. like the dog that chases car tires
Depends on what we mean by socialism, by the Oxford English dictionary definition it is uncatholic but by some socialists definition distributism would be a form of market socialism.
This would have slightly more credibility if there wasn't a picture of Bernie Sanders on the thumbnail. As it is it serves to reduce your work to the level of those Republican shills over at Church Militant. I had thought you were better than that, Matt.