Let's begin by laying some groundwork.
When it comes to it there is a difference between Socialism and Communism, although some may say it's it just a case of semantics.
In W.D.P. Bliss' Handbook of Socialism (1895), Bliss devotes chapter one to the definitions of socialism as defined by various Utopian Socialists, Socialists and Marxists but I feel that the Century Dictionary definition presents the most concise, "Socialism is any theory or system of social organisation which would abolish, entirely or in great part the individual effort and competition on which modern society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action; would introduce a more perfect and equal distribution of the products of labour, and would make land and capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the members of the community.is that principle of society according to which the community as a whole, fraternally organised, should collectively own and co-operatively operate land and capital for the equitable good of all." In chapter 2, Bliss goes on to define "What Socialism is Not" and says, "Socialism is not Communism" because while, "Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common. Communism makes less of existing political institutions as instruments ; Socialism would very largely use them."
In a later publication by Victor L. Berger (July 9, 1898), he says, "The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.” While Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption."
Finally, there will be those who throw around the word "Communism" and will cite the The Manifesto of the Communist Party (Manifesto) with "great authority" neglecting to mention or cite what Frederick Engels had to say in Preface of the 1888 English edition, "Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto (my emphasis) . By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems...."
With the meaning of Socialism defined lets take a look at idea that Pope Francis insists that his concern for the poor and critique of the global economic system isn't some novel, communist-inspired ideology but rather the original and core "touchstone" of the Christian faith.
Some U.S. conservatives have branded the first Latin American pope a Marxist for his frequent critiques of consumerism and focus on a church "that is poor and for the poor." But in an interview contained in a new book, Francis explains that his message is rooted in the Gospel and has been echoed by church fathers since Christianity's first centuries. (Yes it has, BUT the charity is from the individual, not from the STATE, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." When the STATE takes money just to redistribute it to the poor that is NOT charity, that is mandated, thus SOCIALISM...OM)
"The Gospel does not condemn the wealthy, but the idolatry of wealth, the idolatry that makes people indifferent to the call of the poor," Francis says in "This Economy Kills," a study of the pope's economic and social teachings, excerpts of which were provided Sunday to The Associated Press.
Specifically, Francis summarized a verse from the Gospel of Matthew which is the essential mission statement of his papacy: "I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was in prison, I was sick, I was naked and you helped me, clothed me, visited me, took care of me." (This mission is laudable, AND if the Church wants to give money to help the poor, then so be it. BUT using the power of the State to take money from its "wealthier" citizens just to "help" the poor does not constitute charity it constitutes a tax. Maybe the pope should remember that ""Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." After all, how many trillions of dollars has America wasted on the "War on Poverty" and all that has been accomplished is the development of a dependent class of citizens living in a government controlled cage who do not know what Freedom is except what the government tells them it is....OM)
"Caring for our neighbor, for those who are poor, who suffer in body and soul, for those who are in need: this is the touchstone. Is it pauperism? No. It is the Gospel." (Yes it is, but does it say anything about the STATE doing it?...OM)
He cites church fathers dating to St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom as expressing the same concerns, and noted somewhat wryly that if he had said the same "some would accuse me of giving a Marxist homily."(As long as the pope insists on taking money from one group of individuals just to give it to another group, I feel he is....OM)
"As we can see, this concern for the poor is in the Gospel, it is within the tradition of the church, it is not an invention of communism and it must not be turned into some ideology, as has sometimes happened before in the course of history," an apparent reference to the Latin American-inspired liberation theology.
ADDENDUM:
Although Pope Francis has called for more regulation of financial markets, he STILL rejected suggestions that his criticisms of unbridled capitalism smack of Marxism.
In the same interview published in La Stampa newspaper on Sunday (11 January) he said, "Markets and financial speculation cannot enjoy absolute autonomy," calling for greater ethics in the economy and a better distribution of the earth's resources.
"We cannot wait any longer to resolve the structural causes of poverty in order to cure our society of an illness that can only lead to new crises," he said. (Now, I have to ask, are these statements any different from: Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Or Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.[Manifesto]...OM)
Conservative Catholics, particularly in the United States, have criticized some of his past pronouncements on the economy, with several openly calling him a Marxist. (Considering the Pope appears to believe in the same things that the Progressives/Socialists of America do....OM) But the Argentine pope said he was just stating Church teachings. (Although I am not Catholic, I do not remember ever hearing that the Church saying that government should control of production and distribution....OM)
"If I repeat some sermons by the first fathers of the Church in the second or third centuries about how the poor must be treated, some would accuse me of preaching a Marxist homily," he said. (BUT didn’t the first fathers of the Church & even Jesus believe that it was up to the individual, NOT the STATE to take care of the poor? After all weren’t there “Poor Houses” and forced labor in Europe during the middle ages and wasn't the PEOPLE that changed the sysyem....OM)
He has condemned huge salaries and bonuses, calling them symptoms of an economy based on greed and also said speculation in food commodities was undermining the global fight against poverty and hunger. (Its called CAPITALISM, if one has the God given skills to earn a huge salary or bonus, then who but God can tell the person what he can or can not do with his earnings....OM)
This interview is also from a chapter of an Italian book called "Pope Francis: This Economy Kills," to be published this week by two seasoned Vatican reporters, comes out this week in Italian.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/11/pope-says-concern-for-poor-is-gospel-not-communism/?intcmp=latestnews
Addendum source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/07/us-usa-congress-gastax-idUSKBN0KG25X20150107 with Reporting By Philip Pullella; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky
No comments:
Post a Comment