"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God...anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." (John Adams)
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government, that is not a just government,...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has...is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." (James Madison)
***
1. I believe in property.
2. I believe in the rights of private citizens to own property.
3. I believe in the rights of private citizens to own, not only property, but also the tools of production.
4. I believe that the principal foundation of true social and economic freedom is the ownership of private property.
5. I believe that the right to own private property and the tools to production is not only economically expedient, but is also one of the inalienable rights of man.
6. I do not believe that any economic system can be truly successful where property and the tools of production are wrested from the hands of private citizens, placed into the hands of the State and controlled by State appointed officers or committees.
7. I do not believe that Socialism is good.
8. I believe that Socialism carries within itself an inherent element of totalitarianism.
9. I believe that Socialism is morally unjustifiable, and leads to various moral abuses.
10. I believe that Socialism arises naturally from the abuses of Capitalism as an obvious but falacious antidote.
11. I believe that the State control of insurance, property, production, transportation, and all manner of industry opens wide the door for the enactment of laws which are opposed to the morals and consciences of private citizens.
12. I believe that the State control of communication and media tends automatically to propogand and dishonesty-- to the control of the minds of individuals.
13. I believe that practically speaking, Socialism is little different from Capitalism. Both dispossess the private citizen of property. Both require us to lean on the justice and charity of a select few for our health, food, economic security, and our futures.
14. I believe that Socialism reduces personal incentive and breeds laziness.
15. I believe that Socialism, by reducing the individual to a mere element or particle of society, and by subjugating his/her personhood to the State, constitutes an affront to human dignity and freedom.
16. I do not believe that Socialism is the antidote for the abuses of laissez-faire, mega-corporate Capitalism.
17. I do not believe that Socialism is in keeping with humanitarian goals.
18. I do not believe that Socialism and true freedom can coexist.
19. I believe that Socialism is altogether opposed to the mind of the Church and the true exercise of religion.
20. I believe that Socialism is an utterly pernicious political theory.
***
Before proceeding, let me define what I mean by the word Socialism. In my previous post on Capitalism I used Communism and Socialism interchangeably, and promised an explanation in a future post. Here is that explanation.
Let me offer first the words of Hilaire Belloc: "Socialism is a political theory according to which people would be happier and better if the means of production....belonged to the Government instead of belonging, as they mainly do now, to private citizens and private corporations. This is the only exclusive meaning of Socialism. All the other wobbly ideas that have been tacked on to it by its enemies or by its friends-- that it is "atheistic", or that it involves sexual "immorality", that it is "progressive", that it is "Christian"--have nothing to do with the one proposition which alone distinguishes it from all other policies." (An Examination of Socialism)
Herein lies the key point: control of the means of production by the State. While I am fully aware that it would be a great error to assume, for example, that Fabian Socialism and Marxist Socialism are the same, or that Canada and China share the same political atmosphere, yet this one key factor, this "one proposition", pertains to all Socialist theories. Now it is important to add, as Belloc does a little further on in the paper cited above, that nearly all Socialist states allow some ownership of private property. However, that is generally little more than luxury items, or non-productive property. Thus, the control of productive property, or the means of production, by the State is the corner stone of Socialism.
We also must not confuse the Catholic idea of social justice with socialism. While both ideologies may share many common goals and sentiments, they are at root radically opposed to one another. Socialism would place the control, application, and administration of social justice solely in the hands of the State, that most treacherous of caregivers.
It is with great interest that I note that many of my personal heroes who were staunch foes of liberal Capitalism were as equally dedicated to defeating Socialism. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Pope John Paul II--all these men were unequivocal in their condemnation of both laissez-faire Capitalism and Socialism. They also all happened to be Catholic. In fact, Pope Pius XI had this to say in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: "We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after if has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth." (Emphasis mine)
From what source then springs this dual opposition to Capitalism and Socialism among so many Catholic thinkers? And why the Church's strong condemnation of Socialism, which after all, only seeks to more efficiently advance the cause of much of the Church's own teaching on social justice?
I think that perhaps the most simple answer to this question consists of just one word--PROPERTY.
It is here that Church first collides with both Socialism and Capitalism, and it is here that the similarity between the two systems begin to become apparent. I know that it is generally assumed that Capitalism and Socialism are two radically different political and economic theories, yet in practice they share a similar result. Both lead to the dispossession of the private citizen of property and the tools of production. Capitalism tends to automatically vest the control of the vast majority of productive property into the hands of a few wealthy and powerful individual or corporations, creating vast numbers of wage slaves, or a proletarian state. Socialism vests the control of productive property into the hands of the State and State officers. Chesterton once observed that the problem with Capitalism was not that it created too many Capitalists, but that it created too few; and one might also observe that Socialism does not make fewer proletariats, but more. Both systems dispossess the worker of freedom, property, and the tools of production, and make him utterly dependent upon either a corporations' wage, or State distribution. Socialism and Capitalism are not so radically different at all. Which would you rather choose to trust with your freedom, healthcare, financial security, retirement, food, shelter, clothing,etc.-- the Corporation, or the State?
I choose neither.
I choose property.
Let me note here that the ownership of private property is of immense concern to the Catholic Church, and is considered an integral facet of human rights and dignity. From St. Thomas Aquinas to Pope Benedict XVI the Church has declared the necessity of widespread ownership. This reason alone would be sufficient to understand the Church's condemnation of Socialism, but there are many more reasons.
In a future post I hope to lay out several of the more crucial of these reasons. But let property suffice for now, and let us remember that most of the other problems associated with Socialism could be righted by the widespread reestablishment of private ownership.
"The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person-- every person --needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need....In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialistic conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live 'by bread alone'--a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human." (Pope Benedict XVI Deus Caritas Est)
.Let me offer first the words of Hilaire Belloc: "Socialism is a political theory according to which people would be happier and better if the means of production....belonged to the Government instead of belonging, as they mainly do now, to private citizens and private corporations. This is the only exclusive meaning of Socialism. All the other wobbly ideas that have been tacked on to it by its enemies or by its friends-- that it is "atheistic", or that it involves sexual "immorality", that it is "progressive", that it is "Christian"--have nothing to do with the one proposition which alone distinguishes it from all other policies." (An Examination of Socialism)
Herein lies the key point: control of the means of production by the State. While I am fully aware that it would be a great error to assume, for example, that Fabian Socialism and Marxist Socialism are the same, or that Canada and China share the same political atmosphere, yet this one key factor, this "one proposition", pertains to all Socialist theories. Now it is important to add, as Belloc does a little further on in the paper cited above, that nearly all Socialist states allow some ownership of private property. However, that is generally little more than luxury items, or non-productive property. Thus, the control of productive property, or the means of production, by the State is the corner stone of Socialism.
We also must not confuse the Catholic idea of social justice with socialism. While both ideologies may share many common goals and sentiments, they are at root radically opposed to one another. Socialism would place the control, application, and administration of social justice solely in the hands of the State, that most treacherous of caregivers.
It is with great interest that I note that many of my personal heroes who were staunch foes of liberal Capitalism were as equally dedicated to defeating Socialism. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Pope John Paul II--all these men were unequivocal in their condemnation of both laissez-faire Capitalism and Socialism. They also all happened to be Catholic. In fact, Pope Pius XI had this to say in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: "We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after if has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth." (Emphasis mine)
From what source then springs this dual opposition to Capitalism and Socialism among so many Catholic thinkers? And why the Church's strong condemnation of Socialism, which after all, only seeks to more efficiently advance the cause of much of the Church's own teaching on social justice?
I think that perhaps the most simple answer to this question consists of just one word--PROPERTY.
It is here that Church first collides with both Socialism and Capitalism, and it is here that the similarity between the two systems begin to become apparent. I know that it is generally assumed that Capitalism and Socialism are two radically different political and economic theories, yet in practice they share a similar result. Both lead to the dispossession of the private citizen of property and the tools of production. Capitalism tends to automatically vest the control of the vast majority of productive property into the hands of a few wealthy and powerful individual or corporations, creating vast numbers of wage slaves, or a proletarian state. Socialism vests the control of productive property into the hands of the State and State officers. Chesterton once observed that the problem with Capitalism was not that it created too many Capitalists, but that it created too few; and one might also observe that Socialism does not make fewer proletariats, but more. Both systems dispossess the worker of freedom, property, and the tools of production, and make him utterly dependent upon either a corporations' wage, or State distribution. Socialism and Capitalism are not so radically different at all. Which would you rather choose to trust with your freedom, healthcare, financial security, retirement, food, shelter, clothing,etc.-- the Corporation, or the State?
I choose neither.
I choose property.
Let me note here that the ownership of private property is of immense concern to the Catholic Church, and is considered an integral facet of human rights and dignity. From St. Thomas Aquinas to Pope Benedict XVI the Church has declared the necessity of widespread ownership. This reason alone would be sufficient to understand the Church's condemnation of Socialism, but there are many more reasons.
In a future post I hope to lay out several of the more crucial of these reasons. But let property suffice for now, and let us remember that most of the other problems associated with Socialism could be righted by the widespread reestablishment of private ownership.
"The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person-- every person --needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need....In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialistic conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live 'by bread alone'--a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human." (Pope Benedict XVI Deus Caritas Est)
