Pope preaching "pure Marxism"

[Vizardlorde]

It's true though. The problem with modern capitalism isn't in the theory itself it's in the practice.

The theory of capitalism is based on the assumption that ANYBODY can do the winning.

So let's just say Mr. Richman opens up a pizza shop, and holy shit, he's makin the dough while he's makin the dough. So I try his pizza and say fuck that, it's a delicious pizza and I can make a Pizza just like that.

So theoretically I should be able to sell the exact same Pizza for the exact same price and make the exact same profit. Hell, I could put a sign that says "Richman's Pizza" on the outside so that customers know what they are getting. Sounds silly. Because we're trained from the day we're born to look at a situation like that and scream bloody murder "LIAR, FAKE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THIEF! BURN HIM!"

But then we have laws that say "no, you can't open a pizza shop, and you have to pay for all these permits and pay to meet all these compliance standards you can't meet."

"But Mr. Richman didn't have to."

"Well that's because he built his Pizza shop before he had to, but he later came up to compliance. Compliance is easy, all you need is lots of money."

So then I'm boned. I can still make a pizza just like Richman's pizza, because he hires me to make his pizza for him for 8 bucks an hour. So there I am running his pizza kitchen, while he goes off and builds second, third, fourth, fifth restaurants. So suddenly he has an empire of Pizza restaurants rolling in wheelbarrows of cash to him. And I'm not saying that owning a bunch of restaurants wouldn't be hard work, but there's 2 things to consider:

#1. Mr. Richman can now afford to hire personal assistants to accelerate the building of his empire.
#2. If there was no law, the restaurant managers would probably use the money in the register to buy a gun, and they would point it at Mr. Richman when he came to collect his profits.

The wealthy are only able to form these vast empires BECAUSE of government meddling. In a completely dog-eat-dog world the natural social order would be for strong people who covet his assets to take them by force.

So it's ironic when the uber-wealthy complain about government intervention, because without government intervention they'd have taken a bullet in their face long before they ever became billionaires.

Yup the fimlsy concept of the sword of Damocles is flimsier than ever before.

[Gheld]

Yup the fimlsy concept of the sword of Damocles is flimsier than ever before.

Well It's more like Dionysius now sees Damocles as a piece of crap and has barred all such peasants from entering the palace, which is now protected by a perimeter of dangling swords.

[Vizardlorde]

Well It's more like Dionysius now sees Damocles as a piece of crap and has barred all such peasants from entering the palace, which is now protected by a perimeter of dangling swords.

I must have missed the point of the story then I thought he was making Damocles think that being wealthy was more dangerous and risky than it truly was. Going by that I thought being rich back then did have the risk of being betrayed or assassinated, but now a days people are pretty well protected by the law and unless you do some really messed up stuff no one can touch your assets and depose you of your riches.

[Gheld]

I must have missed the point of the story then I thought he was making damocles think that being wealthy was more dangerous and risky than it truly was.

I thought it was a combination of that, as well as the fact that just letting Damocles sit in the chair and bone the royal bitches didn't convey the fear of insurrection that Dionysius faces every day.

[Rukentuts]

Francis was once a bar bouncer.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/1...cer/?hpt=hp_t2

Could you see him tossing out drunk people?

[RicardoZ]

Seeing that the majority of the Pope's followers live in countries with socialist-leaning governments, it is good business for him to align himself with their political tendencies.

As those societies become more open in terms of contraception, reproductive rights, and homosexuality, you can watch the (albeit very gradual) shift in the Vatican's opinion on those issues as well.

Gotta keep the folks in the pews or you go bankrupt. Morality, ethics, and the fundamentals of your beliefs mean little when compared to keeping your job, especially if you're in as good as the folks at the Vatican who wield 1/4 of the planet's wealth.

[Payday]

As those societies become more open in terms of contraception, reproductive rights, and homosexuality, you can watch the (albeit very gradual) shift in the Vatican's opinion on those issues as well.

Wouldn't somebody have to rewrite the book, then? I feel like the window on the excuse of "oh well people believed in crazy stuff back then" is closing faster and faster these days, and won't be as easy for the next generation to use. And you can only "change the interpretation" so many times until the message is just completely lost.

[ringpriest]

Preaching self-accepted poverty and charity does not make Christianity a marxist philosophy. Marxism is all about historical materialism (everything in history is moved by the economy), materialism (all that exist is physical), atheism (no God or gods) and dialectical materialism. It upholds the idea of the struggle of the classes. The workers form the bulk of society and have nothing, while the bourgeois are very few and have all ressources, all means of production. This contradiction is solved by the revolution by which the workers take hold of all means of production and riches. They then install the dictatorship of the proletariate, a phase of socialism in which the State, controled by the workers, owns all the means of production. Most "communist" countries stopped there and failed. The final state is communism : the people destroys the State itself, and everything is owned by everyone.

I fail to find anything marxist in Christianity. But I agree that Christianity is not very capitalistic either.

In the minds of many, 21st Century America is a black and white place: you can either worship at the altar of Captialism or you're a heretic and thus a "Marxist".

[Vizardlorde]

In the minds of many, 21st Century America is a black and white place: you can either worship at the altar of Captialism or you're a heretic and thus a "Marxist".

In the land of the free Carl Marx is the devil the anti christ and the worst person who has ever been born.

[Deleted]

You should read what you quote first, and know what you're talking about really is.



Since the first Council of the Vatican in the 19th century, when that doctrine was defined, it has been used only twice. The ordinary way to define a doctrine in the Church is through councils. And they don't happen often. Most things the Pope says in interviews or even encyclicals are his opinion (unless he quotes a doctrine already defined and upheld by the Church). You don't have to agree with it.

I have read it, and you have failed to disprove anything I have said. It hasn't been used often, but if it is then Pope's word cannot be wrong. End of story.

[BLCalliente]

I used to shill for Lessaiz faire but recently I've kind of come to realize that the supposed benefits of letting the market "correct itself" are kind of like Santa Claus and Unicorns.

The fact is that before modern workplace standards were written into law people even in the 'civilized western world' were working 6 days a week 16 hours a day for barely enough to feed their families while a handful of wealthy and powerful individuals owned all of the land.

And the only reason that changed was because the 'po folk started getting violent. Not because of "free market correction".

And that's exactly where we're headed right now.

- - - Updated - - -

Technically, the Pope is only infallible in matters of faith. If he says the sky is green he's not automatically correct. You could argue things like economic policy aren't really matters of faith.

When you're talking about trickle down economics they are....

[RicardoZ]

Wouldn't somebody have to rewrite the book, then? I feel like the window on the excuse of "oh well people believed in crazy stuff back then" is closing faster and faster these days, and won't be as easy for the next generation to use. And you can only "change the interpretation" so many times until the message is just completely lost.

I totally agree. You either believe what the Bible says, or you do not. If you go back and study Biblical texts in their original languages, it's pretty obvious where something is figurative and where something is literal.

These new waves of Christians are generally drawn in by an adherence to political philosophy among their clergy. For example, the neo-cons flock to people like John Hagee and Pat Robertson, both of whom are noted Republican mouthpieces, because they want to hear somebody justify the parts of their worldview they know to be sinful, such as love of money and greed. To the other extreme, you have these folks that want the same thing, only they want to hear that homosexuality and abortion aren't sins and Jesus would vote for Obama.

Then you have these false prophets spreading about this "prosperity" gospel scam, such as Benny Hinn or Kenneth Copeland who put on these big shows and prey on the poor by convincing them that if they send in their money then God will bless them in return, like some kind of divine pyramid scheme.

The role of the Catholic Church in this equation is what I said earlier, only they have it a bit harder because they have to appeal to a much larger base. Most of their adherents live in places that have socialist leanings politically, so that's the side they play to from the pulpit.

Scripture always has the answers on these things, as we're told in 2 Timothy 4:3 "For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear."

Unfortunately, that's pretty much the game that most of Christianity is playing right now. It's pretty hard to find any church that really makes it their business to teach the totality of Christian doctrine instead of cherry-picking the parts they like and the parts they want to interpret differently. It's definitely something that all denominations needs to work on going forward.

Christ's message was pretty clear, it's only read differently by different people with different agendas.

[Deleted]

It's about time! Capitalism is COMPLETELY incompatible with the tenets of Christianity and Islam!

It is also completely incompatible with a strong central power.

Near the end of the exhortation, Francis notes that the state has a responsibility to promote the common good through “the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.” The key concept of subsidiarity in Catholic doctrine rejects Marxism and command economies, teaching that “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order” (paragraph 1883). - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column....mna68Xcr.dpuf

So stop trying to make it seem like socialism and communism is something the Church even wants or teaches.

[BLCalliente]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country

Then scroll down and look at the list. You'll see most are "developed".

Why even bother to dispute what that guy says? He just makes false claim after false claim and then when refuted doesn't acknowledge it.

[Deleted]

Seeing that the majority of the Pope's followers live in countries with socialist-leaning governments, it is good business for him to align himself with their political tendencies.

As those societies become more open in terms of contraception, reproductive rights, and homosexuality, you can watch the (albeit very gradual) shift in the Vatican's opinion on those issues as well.

Gotta keep the folks in the pews or you go bankrupt. Morality, ethics, and the fundamentals of your beliefs mean little when compared to keeping your job, especially if you're in as good as the folks at the Vatican who wield 1/4 of the planet's wealth.

Stop trying to make things up. The Church does not like strong Governments.

[rohendar]

People still listen to this guy? I mean Limbaugh obviously, not the pope.

[Rukentuts]

Stop trying to make things up. The Church does not like strong Governments.

Unless of course when they're in (or are) the government.

[Deleted]

I totally agree. You either believe what the Bible says, or you do not. If you go back and study Biblical texts in their original languages, it's pretty obvious where something is figurative and where something is literal.

These new waves of Christians are generally drawn in by an adherence to political philosophy among their clergy. For example, the neo-cons flock to people like John Hagee and Pat Robertson, both of whom are noted Republican mouthpieces, because they want to hear somebody justify the parts of their worldview they know to be sinful, such as love of money and greed. To the other extreme, you have these folks that want the same thing, only they want to hear that homosexuality and abortion aren't sins and Jesus would vote for Obama.

Then you have these false prophets spreading about this "prosperity" gospel scam, such as Benny Hinn or Kenneth Copeland who put on these big shows and prey on the poor by convincing them that if they send in their money then God will bless them in return, like some kind of divine pyramid scheme.

The role of the Catholic Church in this equation is what I said earlier, only they have it a bit harder because they have to appeal to a much larger base. Most of their adherents live in places that have socialist leanings politically, so that's the side they play to from the pulpit.

Scripture always has the answers on these things, as we're told in 2 Timothy 4:3 "For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear."

Unfortunately, that's pretty much the game that most of Christianity is playing right now. It's pretty hard to find any church that really makes it their business to teach the totality of Christian doctrine instead of cherry-picking the parts they like and the parts they want to interpret differently. It's definitely something that all denominations needs to work on going forward.

Christ's message was pretty clear, it's only read differently by different people with different agendas.

Cept for the fact that the Pope also stated...

Near the end of the exhortation, Francis notes that the state has a responsibility to promote the common good through “the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.” The key concept of subsidiarity in Catholic doctrine rejects Marxism and command economies, teaching that “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order” (paragraph 1883). - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column....mna68Xcr.dpuf

[Frontenac]

I have read it, and you have failed to disprove anything I have said. It hasn't been used often, but if it is the Pope's word cannot be wrong. End of story.

No. Not end of story. What you said was that you always have to agree with the Pope if you're catholic.

The Pope is sorta like a King. What he says pretty much goes. Or in other words, he is always right.

That proves you do not understand what papal infaillibility is all about. Since it has been used so little, then he is not always right. Therefore, you usually don't have to agree with the Pope.

[Masark]

Could you see him tossing out drunk people?

The dude on the right? Possibly.