07 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'd need to have a proper read of the text you quote, which I'll try and do this weekend.
In John Paul's encyclical Centecimus Annus (1991), on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor (1891), John Paul describes what the fundamental error of socialism is, "the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature ......... ".
1991.05.01
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/e ...[text shortened]... odied in the Sowjet Union of Socialist Republics and its satellite states in Eastern Europe.
Only things I'd say for now are
- the USSR and its associated states weren't socialist by any means. They were state capitalist economies, which is very different.
- the Catholic church criticises an ideology for taking away an individual's free choice (which I'd dispute anyway). Seems to me a case of pot and kettle.
More considered reply to follow if I get the time.
07 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikeMaybe you should explain why they were state-capitalist.
I'd need to have a proper read of the text you quote, which I'll try and do this weekend.
Only things I'd say for now are
- the USSR and its associated states weren't socialist by any means. They were state capitalist economies, which is very different.
- the Catholic church criticises an ideology for taking away an individual's free choice (wh ...[text shortened]... ). Seems to me a case of pot and kettle.
More considered reply to follow if I get the time.
Lots of people won't know what you are on about.
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe*bump*
In John Paul's encyclical Centecimus Annus (1991), on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor (1891), John Paul describes what the fundamental error of socialism is, "the fundamental error o ...[text shortened]... ocialist Republics and its satellite states in Eastern Europe.
In John Paul's encyclical Centecimus Annus (1991), on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor (1891), John Paul describes what the fundamental error of socialism is, "the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature ......... ".
1991.05.01
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html
..........
13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own", and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html
It would be interesting to hear some serious thoughts from serious debators about this criticism of anthropological reductionism in socialism uttered by someone, John-Paul II, who was one of the initiators to cause the downfall of Real Socialism embodied in the Sowjet Union of Socialist Republics and its satellite states in Eastern Europe.
11 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeJoe,
*bump*
In John Paul's encyclical Centecimus Annus (1991), on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor (1891), John Paul describes what the fundamental error of socialism is, "the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature ......... ".
1991.05.01
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j ...[text shortened]... odied in the Sowjet Union of Socialist Republics and its satellite states in Eastern Europe.
It is redundant. I have always said that it is our "chimpness" that causes this need to subjugate. The pope just used the word "anthropological' instead of "chimness", but the result of his discussion and mine are identical.
We are just big old chimps who need to be right more than we need to be good.
Isn't that what growing beyond politics is all about?
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI would like the socialists on this site to give a serious comment on this rather fundamental criticism. Untill now there have not been any reactions of importance from our socialist friends.
Joe,
It is redundant. I have always said that it is our "chimpness" that causes this need to subjugate. The pope just used the word "anthropological' instead of "chimness", but the result of his discussion and mine are identic ...[text shortened]... be good.
Isn't that what growing beyond politics is all about?
11 May 05
The answer is simple: the Pope was wrong. The idea that collectivism eliminates the concept of the individual is a classic misconception: collectivism is about empowering the individual within society as a whole. Monopoly capitalism is about preaching individualism in theory while weakening him greatly in practice: the fiction of the "free and equal" contract is at the centre of this mythopoeia.
And for the American anti-collectivists in this thread: I'm assuming you benefit greatly from a collectivized sewage system, or do you just crap in a bucket?
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteHow does sicking secret police on a village empower an individual?
The answer is simple: the Pope was wrong. The idea that collectivism eliminates the concept of the individual is a classic misconception: collectivism is about empowering the individual within society as a whole. Monopoly capitalism is abo ...[text shortened]... om a collectivized sewage system, or do you just crap in a bucket?
Or did you really mean something else? If so... how do you change the basic nature of man (greed) to a socialist, ie, one willing to sacrifice his all for the benefit of the commune?
11 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyFirstly, the secret police have nothing necessarily to do with genuine socialism, any more than the A-Bomb is necessarily a product of capitalism - secondly, I really have to question the reductionism of the category. Are we talking about guild socialism here, or Marxist-Leninism? Wiliam Wilberforce socialism? Fabians and market socialists? Owenism? Fourierism? Parecon?
How does sicking secret police on a village empower an individual?
Or did you really mean something else? If so... how do you change the basic nature of man (greed) to a socialist, ie, one willing to sacrifice his all for the benefit of the commune?
Secondly, clearly you don't. What you're describing is indeed a form of utopian socialism, but the idea that socialism proclaims the perfectibility of man is very nineteenth century, just as the idea that every conservative is a Spenglerian pessimist died out in the 1950s. Most ideological conservatives (take Mrs Thatcher, or Ronald Reagan) are now the ones proclaiming unfettered market penetration posited on the belief that the individual can always be trusted to act in the collective good: they have inherited the utopianism to which you're alluding. That kind of wilful economic naivete was astonishingly destructive in the eighties, and continues to be so today.
11 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeApologies for not picking this up sooner – we’ve had a general election here, so I’ve had higher priority things to do, like re-acquanting myself with my partner….
*bump*
In John Paul's encyclical Centecimus Annus (1991), on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor (1891), John Paul describes what the fundamental error of socialism is, "the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature ......... ".
1991.05.01
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j ...[text shortened]... odied in the Sowjet Union of Socialist Republics and its satellite states in Eastern Europe.
I’ve not really had a proper attempt to read this fully, but I’ll attempt a reply.
Firstly, can I say that, despite the ravings of SVW and some (more coherent) others, the USSR and its satellite states were not socialist.
Having a party in power which proclaims itself socialist is not the same as achieving socialism:
-just because they call themselves socialist doesn’t mean they actually are;
-even if they are socialist, just being in power isn’t enough. The whole society needs to be transformed (economically and socially) before you’re even close to achieving socialism;
-even if they are socialists, and they’re attempting to transform society in all the right ways, it is debateable if socialism can exist in a single (or even a small group of) states.
So, the USSR got to the stage of getting a party in power, which proclaimed itself socialist, and for a while they aspired to do the correct things, but, imho, they never really got out of the ‘war communism’ mentality following their civil war. And the succession of Stalin was a disaster.
In terms of JP2’s criticisms of socialism, I suspect they are bound to be coloured by his experiences his experiences in Soviet-controlled Poland. As I’ve said above, this wasn’t socialism.
For example, the idea that a person’s free will is somehow removed in a socialist economy is presented as a given. How is this the case? Is this any more so in a socialist economy than at present under capitalism?
Of course, socialism rejects religion, so it rejects the notion of choosing between good and evil, but that’s not the same as taking away free will. Also, without religion, ‘man is reduced to a series of social relationships’ – but that’s the case under any economic system where there is no religion.
On the issue of property, it really depends how you look at it. Most people have a different idea of what socialism will actually ‘look like’. It is quite a difficult thing to imagine. But as I said above, as well as economic changes, there will be social changes, including changes in attitude to things like property. These will take generations. At the end of the day, what is perceived as the individual ‘owning’ no property can also be seen as the community owning all property. Depends how you look at it.
In any event, once we have socialists in power in a large part of the world, and we’re on the way to transforming society, confiscation of every individual’s personal possessions isn’t going to be a priority! (OK Comrade, hand over that pencil, it is now the property of the collective….)
The last sentence, about a person realising their dignity etc, I strongly disagree with. In a socialist economy, people will use their initiative, and there’s no reason why work won’t be rewarding.
In summary, the criticisms of socialism are more criticisms of how the USSR’s failed attempt at socialism ended up, rather than criticisms of how socialism would actually look.
I’m sure I’ve missed some of the points in the original post, but as a basis for further debate it will hopefully suffice.
11 May 05
Originally posted by AmauroteThe secret police have everything to do with socialism. Without them, the ambitious escape. Without them, the lazy don't work. Without them, there is no fear. Without fear, there is no chance of changing the basic GREEDY nature of all humans into loving, caring, sharing socialists.
Firstly, the secret police have nothing necessarily to do with genuine socialism, any more than the A-Bomb is necessarily a product of capitalism - secondly, I really have to question the reductionism of the category. Are we talking about guild socialism here, or Marxist-Leninism? Wiliam Wilberforce socialism? Fabians and market socialists? Owenism? Fourier ...[text shortened]... ul economic naivete was astonishingly destructive in the eighties, and continues to be so today.
Or are you a blind fool? Why has every commie state employed secret police, mass killings and terror to force people into the "citizen" that they are not by nature?
Or do you deny it?
11 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeYea. That is why they called themselves the "United Soviet Socialist Republic". Not socialist. Geez. How did I miss that? USSR. Geez. I am such a dork. sorry I missed that.
Firstly, can I say that, despite the ravings of SVW and some (more coherent) others, the USSR and its satellite states were not socialist.
Killed any babies today Redmike? that will reinforce your nepoleon complex and make you powerful in your own mind. Which ain't much. But What the hell. We all need a domain. Be it ever so tiny.
It is also why boobs like you supported their killing for sixty years. Boobs unwilling to study history. Unwilling to see the evil of forcing people to be "angels" when they are just chimps.