Pope warns Latin American Christians against Marxism
From Ekklesia
15 May 2007
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against both Marxism and unbridled capitalism,
seeing them as twin problems for the future of Latin America. His comments came at the end of his visit to Brazil, where the pontiff, head of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics, also condemned "pro-abortion politicians" and warned drug dealers that they "would have to answer to God". Benedict said that Catholics should stay away from Marxism. He commented: “The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit."
His comments are being seen as the latest in a long line of public hostility towards the political Left in both politics and religion. As Cardinal Josepth Ratzinger, Benedict was known for his tough stance against liberation theologians and political clerics who championed social justice. He has also championed a moderate critique of capitalism developed within Catholic Social Teaching. But the Pope's alternative is to reinstate the power of the Church and of Christian Democracy, rather than to support radical Christian initiatives and a post-Christendom people's power approach. Marx is a controversial and at times much derided figure in religious circles. Jordan Tchilingirian, researcher for the religious thin-tank Ekklesia, commented today that peoples’ views of Marx “are clouded by popular spin, misreadings of his work and mythology.”
He said: “It is a mistake to confuse Marx’s essentially moral protest against the injustices of capitalism with his misappropriation by those who perpetuated the evils of Soviet and Eastern European totalitarianism. The Pope is correct; much done in the name of Marx has been terrible. But this is also true of what has been done in the name of Christ and the Gospel.” Tchilingirian added: “Binning everything about Marx is ridiculous. His critique
of the dominant ideology has parallels in the way Christian scripture speaks from the perspective of the poor and Jesus condemns 'Mammon'. You don’t have to buy Marx’s precise economic prescriptions or his philosophical positivism to acknowledge this.”
Marx has at times been described by some academics inside and outside the churches as ‘the last great Hebrew prophet’, because his attack on injustice parallels those of the Old Testament prophets. But his appropriation by 'command communism' and the violent and oppressive legacies of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky have put him 'out of bounds' since the
collapse of the Eastern bloc.
The theologian Jose Portifa Miranda is among those who have written on the Bible and Marx as twin critiques of oppression. He also sought to reclaim Marx for a humanistic Christianity in a book called Marx Against the Marxists. Liberation theologians have been accused by Christian conservatives of being Marxists in disguise. But the leaders of the movement deny this, pointing to the evidence of their writings and action which indicate that they are critical and selective in their use of Marx, and that they are restoring the theological underpinnings he denied.
[Almost makes me want to start reading Marx.... grin].
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
10 comments:
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against both Marxism and unbridled capitalism
Almost makes me want to start reading Marx.... grin
Why not Mises? At least, unlike Marx, he was right. :)
Viva unbridled capitalism!
scott said: Viva unbridled capitalism!
Oh... I think that most people *really* wouldn't like unbridled capitalism.... I have a feeling that it would be quite... revolutionary.
Bah, most people would love it. The only ones who wouldn't are Corporate CEO's and politicians. Too bad those are the people who make the laws for the rest of us. Hence, no unbridled capitalism.
:(
Scott said...
Bah, most people would love it. The only ones who wouldn't are Corporate CEO's and politicians. Too bad those are the people who make the laws for the rest of us. Hence, no unbridled capitalism.
If we all started out more or less equal, unbridled capitalism has the potential to lead to paradise or to the pits of despair. If you want to see what happens when capitalism is LESS bridled than it is in modern Canada, the USA and the EU, see what is being done by the capitalists of the major corporations of America in third world countries. Reportedly, there is even institutionalized rape and torture in some multi-national factories. The terrible thing is, conditions are so bad in those areas that women still compete for jobs after being told there it is almost certain that they will be used as occasional sex playtoys and that people put themselves in hock to bribe company officials to hire their children so that they will have a better life. I can't even count the ethical corners of that trash-ball.
As it is, companies can and do buy the government that they want, both here and abroad. You're right that they're in it together, but I do not understand how doing away with laws about monopolies, control of the media in certain areas, laws on working conditions and the use of minors, etc., would make things better.
Respect,
Ken
scott said: Bah, most people would love it.
Really? I find that most people don't like bridled Capitalism, never mind the un-bridled version.
In fact (apart from Kens comment regarding well documented Capitalist abuses in the 3rd World) the only time I am aware of when Capitalism was unfetted was during its earlist days in 18th & 19th Century England.
During those heady days we had riots, massacres, deportations, widespread disease and starvation - as well as appaling housing conditions in all of the major cities. We also saw the emergence of the first Trade Unions (which the Capitalists attempted to repress) as well as the emergence of Liberalism and Socialism along with - my personal favourite from the period - The Luddites.
This was not exactly a happy time for the people at the bottom of the totem pole as I suspect the modern version of unbridled Capitalism will be no different.
Things such as Employment Law, Unemployment benefits and state Education and Health provision are counter-revolutionary by nature. Take these things away and people will take them back - by force if necessary. It's already happening in Africa and other places. I'm afraid that Capitalism - briddled or not - will not lead to Paradise or anything close on its own.
So . . .
He's against Marxism. He's against capitalism. What is he FOR, then?
I see the out. He's against "unbridled" capitalism, whatever that is. What the fuck does that MEAN?
I'm afraid that Capitalism - briddled or not - will not lead to Paradise or anything close on its own.
No, of course not, and the free-market thinkers have never claimed anything of the sort. The world is an unequal and unjust place, in which some are born into wealth and some into hunger and misery. Free market capitalism doesn't try and fix the world, it doesn't try and change human nature, it’s simply is the best system to produce prosperity for the greatest number of people in the natural state of things. It’s the only system that uses no coercion; unlike its enemies on the Left it does not try and alter man’s nature.
Much of what we think of capitalism is based on myths and intentionally misrepresented information. Stuff like this:
Reportedly, there is even institutionalized rape and torture in some multi-national factories. The terrible thing is, conditions are so bad in those areas that women still compete for jobs after being told there it is almost certain that they will be used as occasional sex playtoys and that people put themselves in hock to bribe company officials to hire their children so that they will have a better life. I can't even count the ethical corners of that trash-ball.
Such sensationalist smear campaigns about something that is happening half a world away reminds me of the propaganda campaigns by the British regarding the supposed Belgium Atrocities prior to their involvement in World War I. Fact is, independent reports have shown that conditions and pay in supposed “sweat shops” are significantly better than alternatives in the countries they are in. You know, alternatives like working for the non-capitalist State. They’re just bad compared to developed nations.
Furthermore, the fallacy that these companies that own these sweat shops are “capitalist” companies and therefore capitalism causes these atrocities is prevalent. Most, if not all, of these companies are not owned by capitalists, but rather mercantilists. Mercantilism, or protectionism, is the mode of production we have in the “free” World. Mercantilism is exactly the mode of production that free market thinkers. The leaders of these countries are, of course, eager to point out the virtues of the free market system, all the while installing tariffs, heavy taxes, and excessive regulations. For instance where as the computer industry is highly technical the average consumer can afford new and innovative technology due to a less regulated market, but the medical market is highly regulated (it costs ONE BILLION to get a new drug approved by the FDA) and the average consumer can no longer afford it.
the only time I am aware of when Capitalism was unfetted was during its earlist days in 18th & 19th Century England. During those heady days we had riots, massacres, deportations, widespread disease and starvation - as well as appaling housing conditions in all of the major cities.
You also had massive amounts of war and a HUGE population boom throughout Europe. Just listing those things without showing how they did not exist BEFORE the supposed flood of free market capitalism, then showing specifically how laissez-faire destroyed them proves little. Plus I would argue that free market capitalism is the natural result of true liberalism.
Economic freedom does exist, and where it is the most prevalent, the most is owned by the middle and lower class.
All this just begs the question I asked first. Why not read Mises? Why do our Universities still push the work of the guy who was WRONG?
He's against Marxism. He's against capitalism. What is he FOR, then?
Good ol' central economic planning!
scott said: it’s simply is the best system to produce prosperity for the greatest number of people in the natural state of things.
Even taking that as true(which is debatable) at what cost does it do this and is that cost an acceptable one? Capitalism is most definitely a great way of producing a ridiculous level of prosperity for a vanishingly small percentage of the population. We are all probably 'richer' materially because of Capitalism (at least us in the West) but just look at the damage to the Environment for one thing.... There is *so* much wrong with the system despite it being the 'best' we've come up with - so far.
"Free market capitalism doesn't try and fix the world, it doesn't try and change human nature, it’s simply is the best system to produce prosperity for the greatest number of people in the natural state of things."
Nothing about human social relations is "natural." That sounds like a copout to me. "well, the world is fucked anyway, so I may as well sit on my big fat ass, do nothing about it and earn my share. Changing things for the better would be too fucking hard..."
Soooo..... no one reading Mises then. Got it.
Post a Comment