7 ms·

I hope this Pope does not go with a similar approach. This encyclical, in the face of challenges of the Industrial Revolution, focuses almost explicitly on how

by cgio 1y ago

I hope this Pope does not go with a similar approach. This encyclical, in the face of challenges of the Industrial Revolution, focuses almost explicitly on how socialism is unnatural (note that he does not even try to call it unchristian). The argumentation hinges on an appeal to emotion with the iconography of the poor father who worked years for a small parcel of land. The solution proposed is let the rich get richer, let’s just ask them to be fair, with some intervention from the church, which is ipse dixit just to protect a convenient and isolated principle of natural order.

TheFreim 1y ago
> The solution proposed is let the rich get richer, let’s just ask them to be fair... This is not accurate. Leo XIII explicitly calls for state action to protect the rights and interests of the working man. Leo says that the public authority—i.e. the state—has a duty to "prevent [the violation of rights] and to punish injury" (Rerum novarum 37). He proceeds to make note that the poor—unlike the rich, who have means of shielding themselves due to their wealth—depend upon the state to a higher degree and therefore should be "specially cared for and protected by the government". Furthermore, Leo states that the working man has, "has interests in which he should be protected by the State," namely their spiritual and physical well-being (Rerum novarum 40). In the following sections he argues for restrictions to be put in place to ensure that workers have appropriate time for rest in accordance with their work. Suffice it to say, Pope Leo XIII absolutely does not envision a world where the wealthy are merely "just ask" for fairness. He certainly places limitations on proper government action in his refutation of socialism, but it is completely wrong to portray this as a rejection of state protection of workers in its entirety (this becomes much more obvious when reading his work in line with prior teachings pertaining to state action). Having re-read Rerum Novarum within the last week, what you are saying is reductive to the point of not accurately portraying the contents of the encyclical. I would encourage you and others to (re)read the encyclical with an eye towards getting a more full and accurate understanding.
- cgio 1y ago
  It is at best reading a humanistic call, no spiritual content at all. I wonder how the reference to Nature works as an argument for the law of the strongest essentially but not e.g. for homosexuality. Why is the argument that we have to be better than our nature not applicable in the context of economics? These are the things that would give depth to a position. I am as reductionist as he himself when he argues with the straw man of “socialists are coming to take your houses”. We all see in the Western world who came for our houses after all. I would dedicate more time to a position that is substantial even if not agreeable. Full disclosure, I am a believer, one though who has also seen socialist economic structures applied in practice in monasteries. This is not a spiritual position I am reading, it is a second class political manifesto with Latin dressage for impressionability.
  - kulahan 1y ago
    > Why is the argument that we have to be better than our nature not applicable in the context of economics? This is an extremely common theme across the Catholic Church, though?? It’s one of the primary reasons the church is against Socialism - it reduces people to their economic status and strips them of their inherent human dignity through that process. Agree with it or not, it’s absolutely ignorant to imply the Church doesn’t apply its moral teachings to economic scenarios.
    - cgio 1y ago
      This is because dignity is somehow naturally aligned with property, indirectly power? I give an example where it does apply moral teachings to economic scenarios myself, e.g. monastic life. If you mean that the natural property argument is to be considered a moral teaching then I don’t see how morals and not mere power dynamics are required for this model. Can you give an example so that I can assess if my implied ignorance refers to other scenarios? I would argue that any economic system concerns itself with human as an economic agent, capitalism and socialism alike. Is church against capitalism too? If yes, that’s not what this circular reads like.
      - arrosenberg 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 1y ago
> This encyclical, in the face of challenges of the Industrial Revolution, focuses almost explicitly on how socialism is unnatural It...does not. It follows the basic structure: 1. There's a problem with the present condition under industrial capitalism 2. Socialism is the wrong solution. (There are lots of problems with this part, including that it makes the very common error of misinterpreting the socialist opposition to private property—ownership of the non-financial means of production separated from the workers whose labor is applied to those means of production—as an opposition to individual human property generally; the latter may be a feature of some schools of socialism but is not a general feature of socialism.) 3. Laying out what Leo XIII saw as the Catholic solution. The first part takes 3 paragraphs. (1-3) The second part takes 17 paragraphs. (4-20) The third part takes 43 paragraphs. (21-63) It is simply wrong to take the second section is the main focus, and it is equally incorrect to describe the solution taking up the vast majority of the document as nothing more than "let the rich get richer, let's just ask them to be fair, with some intervention from the church."
- cgio 1y ago
  I wanted to be more fair and less dismissive, even though from my perspective the problematic second part is the main focus. But I did spend more time on the third part, and has it made it even worse? First some generalities about how poor people should not care about money and some protection of rights (which was a previous achievement already). Then a call to action, with expedience at that to quoting "it is expedient to bring under special notice certain matters of moment. First of all, there is the duty of safeguarding private property by legal enactment and protection. Most of all it is essential, where the passion of greed is so strong, to keep the populace within the line of duty; for, if all may justly strive to better their condition, neither justice nor the common good allows any individual to seize upon that which belongs to another, or, under the futile and shallow pretext of equality, to lay violent hands on other people's possessions." And then even worse still "When work people have recourse to a strike and become voluntarily idle, it is frequently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave inconvenience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial measures; for such paralysing of labor not only affects the masters and their work people alike, but is extremely injurious to trade and to the general interests of the public; moreover, on such occasions, violence and disorder are generally not far distant, and thus it frequently happens that the public peace is imperiled. The laws should forestall and prevent such troubles from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts between employers and employed. " So stop industrial action immediately and in the future try to remove the causes! Thank you for convincing me to read it further, it gave more gravitas to a hastily formed opinion on my end, but did not change it. Back to my message, I hope this is not what we get from Leo XIV on the new challenges, even though the fact that he chose his name on the basis of Leo XIII is not very promising. Actually, I respect more something as honest as: Ἀπόδοτε τὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος τῷ Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ.
AnonymousPlanet 1y ago
Please keep in mind that the word socialist in this text probably doesn't mean what you think it does. Given it's age, the meaning is very likely more akin to this [1] definition. It means socialism as a form of economy where all means of production are in the hand of the state, not as the current American use of the word meaning anything that isn't extremist capitalism. 1: https://archive.org/details/websters_202301/page/1094/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/websters_202301/page/1094/mode/2...
- int_19h 1y ago
  On the contrary, at the time Rerum Novarum was written, "socialism" was not understood narrowly as "whatever Soviets did". Anarchist socialists of various kinds in particular were still a very active movement, rivaling Marxism in both number of adherence and public prominence.
  - AnonymousPlanet 1y ago
    Let's see what kind of socialists the encyclical actually argues against. > 4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. > 5. [...] Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. This sounds exactly like the definition I referenced. > 15. [...] Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. (sic!) I guess this is part of the argument the poster I replied to was talking about. In the last years I have seen more and more posters here, especially American, abuse the word "socialism" to describe anything implementing social institutions or worker's rights, even calling very capitalist countries like Sweden "socialist". For a person who has experienced first hand what actual socialism is like, this gets old very fast. The parent sounded like they had misinterpreted the text's reference of "socialism" in exactly this way. That is why I placed this little reminder.

by cgio 1y ago

TheFreim 1y ago

> The solution proposed is let the rich get richer, let’s just ask them to be fair... This is not accurate. Leo XIII explicitly calls for state action to protect the rights and interests of the working man. Leo says that the public authority—i.e. the state—has a duty to "prevent [the violation of rights] and to punish injury" (Rerum novarum 37). He proceeds to make note that the poor—unlike the rich, who have means of shielding themselves due to their wealth—depend upon the state to a higher degree and therefore should be "specially cared for and protected by the government". Furthermore, Leo states that the working man has, "has interests in which he should be protected by the State," namely their spiritual and physical well-being (Rerum novarum 40). In the following sections he argues for restrictions to be put in place to ensure that workers have appropriate time for rest in accordance with their work. Suffice it to say, Pope Leo XIII absolutely does not envision a world where the wealthy are merely "just ask" for fairness. He certainly places limitations on proper government action in his refutation of socialism, but it is completely wrong to portray this as a rejection of state protection of workers in its entirety (this becomes much more obvious when reading his work in line with prior teachings pertaining to state action). Having re-read Rerum Novarum within the last week, what you are saying is reductive to the point of not accurately portraying the contents of the encyclical. I would encourage you and others to (re)read the encyclical with an eye towards getting a more full and accurate understanding.

cgio 1y ago
It is at best reading a humanistic call, no spiritual content at all. I wonder how the reference to Nature works as an argument for the law of the strongest essentially but not e.g. for homosexuality. Why is the argument that we have to be better than our nature not applicable in the context of economics? These are the things that would give depth to a position. I am as reductionist as he himself when he argues with the straw man of “socialists are coming to take your houses”. We all see in the Western world who came for our houses after all. I would dedicate more time to a position that is substantial even if not agreeable. Full disclosure, I am a believer, one though who has also seen socialist economic structures applied in practice in monasteries. This is not a spiritual position I am reading, it is a second class political manifesto with Latin dressage for impressionability.
- kulahan 1y ago
  > Why is the argument that we have to be better than our nature not applicable in the context of economics? This is an extremely common theme across the Catholic Church, though?? It’s one of the primary reasons the church is against Socialism - it reduces people to their economic status and strips them of their inherent human dignity through that process. Agree with it or not, it’s absolutely ignorant to imply the Church doesn’t apply its moral teachings to economic scenarios.
  - cgio 1y ago
    This is because dignity is somehow naturally aligned with property, indirectly power? I give an example where it does apply moral teachings to economic scenarios myself, e.g. monastic life. If you mean that the natural property argument is to be considered a moral teaching then I don’t see how morals and not mere power dynamics are required for this model. Can you give an example so that I can assess if my implied ignorance refers to other scenarios? I would argue that any economic system concerns itself with human as an economic agent, capitalism and socialism alike. Is church against capitalism too? If yes, that’s not what this circular reads like.
    - arrosenberg 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 1y ago

> This encyclical, in the face of challenges of the Industrial Revolution, focuses almost explicitly on how socialism is unnatural It...does not. It follows the basic structure: 1. There's a problem with the present condition under industrial capitalism 2. Socialism is the wrong solution. (There are lots of problems with this part, including that it makes the very common error of misinterpreting the socialist opposition to private property—ownership of the non-financial means of production separated from the workers whose labor is applied to those means of production—as an opposition to individual human property generally; the latter may be a feature of some schools of socialism but is not a general feature of socialism.) 3. Laying out what Leo XIII saw as the Catholic solution. The first part takes 3 paragraphs. (1-3) The second part takes 17 paragraphs. (4-20) The third part takes 43 paragraphs. (21-63) It is simply wrong to take the second section is the main focus, and it is equally incorrect to describe the solution taking up the vast majority of the document as nothing more than "let the rich get richer, let's just ask them to be fair, with some intervention from the church."

cgio 1y ago
I wanted to be more fair and less dismissive, even though from my perspective the problematic second part is the main focus. But I did spend more time on the third part, and has it made it even worse? First some generalities about how poor people should not care about money and some protection of rights (which was a previous achievement already). Then a call to action, with expedience at that to quoting "it is expedient to bring under special notice certain matters of moment. First of all, there is the duty of safeguarding private property by legal enactment and protection. Most of all it is essential, where the passion of greed is so strong, to keep the populace within the line of duty; for, if all may justly strive to better their condition, neither justice nor the common good allows any individual to seize upon that which belongs to another, or, under the futile and shallow pretext of equality, to lay violent hands on other people's possessions." And then even worse still "When work people have recourse to a strike and become voluntarily idle, it is frequently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave inconvenience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial measures; for such paralysing of labor not only affects the masters and their work people alike, but is extremely injurious to trade and to the general interests of the public; moreover, on such occasions, violence and disorder are generally not far distant, and thus it frequently happens that the public peace is imperiled. The laws should forestall and prevent such troubles from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts between employers and employed. " So stop industrial action immediately and in the future try to remove the causes! Thank you for convincing me to read it further, it gave more gravitas to a hastily formed opinion on my end, but did not change it. Back to my message, I hope this is not what we get from Leo XIV on the new challenges, even though the fact that he chose his name on the basis of Leo XIII is not very promising. Actually, I respect more something as honest as: Ἀπόδοτε τὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος τῷ Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ.

AnonymousPlanet 1y ago

Please keep in mind that the word socialist in this text probably doesn't mean what you think it does. Given it's age, the meaning is very likely more akin to this [1] definition. It means socialism as a form of economy where all means of production are in the hand of the state, not as the current American use of the word meaning anything that isn't extremist capitalism. 1: https://archive.org/details/websters_202301/page/1094/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/websters_202301/page/1094/mode/2...

int_19h 1y ago
On the contrary, at the time Rerum Novarum was written, "socialism" was not understood narrowly as "whatever Soviets did". Anarchist socialists of various kinds in particular were still a very active movement, rivaling Marxism in both number of adherence and public prominence.
- AnonymousPlanet 1y ago
  Let's see what kind of socialists the encyclical actually argues against. > 4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. > 5. [...] Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. This sounds exactly like the definition I referenced. > 15. [...] Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. (sic!) I guess this is part of the argument the poster I replied to was talking about. In the last years I have seen more and more posters here, especially American, abuse the word "socialism" to describe anything implementing social institutions or worker's rights, even calling very capitalist countries like Sweden "socialist". For a person who has experienced first hand what actual socialism is like, this gets old very fast. The parent sounded like they had misinterpreted the text's reference of "socialism" in exactly this way. That is why I placed this little reminder.