Charity in Truth

[Bud Struggle]

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI called Tuesday for a new world financial order guided by ethics and the search for the common good, denouncing the profit-at-all-cost mentality blamed for bringing about the global financial meltdown.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/07/world/AP-EU-Vatican-Encyclical.html

In this world Capitalism is not just the most efficient way to create wealth, it is the only way - and the only way to reduce poverty is to increase wealth. In order for capitalism to function to that potential end, it requires the individuals involved to have a sense of ethical behavior, both during the production of profit and in its subsequent use.

Unfortunately, the argument all too often becomes an argument against capitalism itself, rather than an exhortation for capitalists to operate ethically. All too often, the call becomes one to eliminate or severely restrain capitalism, through government restriction, and a call for a "forced ethic" to be achieved through government intervention and redistribution. The problem here is that no government in history has shown itself capable of operating any more ethically than a private individual. Attempts at government imposing an ethic always leads to failure and just as much corruption, misdirection of funds, and unethical behavior and outcome - more, actually - than if the efforts remained solely within private sector/individual efforts.

The Church's call to reduce poverty and suffering in the world must recognize the need for increasing wealth in general, and the best means of achieving that; while calling for a more ethical behavior on the part of those involved in the process. It doesn't achieve the stated goal to want to turn the power over into the waiting hands of government, whose efforts would only make things even worse.

Benedict hit a home run here.

[Robert]

Good for Benedict.

Now, how do we get there? I think that a very strong and powerful figure needs to somehow lead by example. I don't mean politicians legislating that other people's money be raised through taxes and redistributed, as that just breeds resentment.

We need something equivalent to one of the medieval kings I remember (or maybe it was a pope:confused:) who actually helped in the physical construction of a local cathedral. I want to say it was the great Henry IV of France, who is credited with coining the "chicken in every pot phrase" that's unfairly attributed to the Herbert Hoover presidential campaign.

It was Henry IV who said:

“Si Dieu me prête vie, je ferai qu’il n’y aura point de laboureur en mon royaume qui n’ait les moyens d’avoir le dimanche une poule dans son pot!
(If God spares me, I will ensure that there is no working man in my kingdom who does not have the means to have a chicken in the pot every Sunday!)

We need a latter day "bon roi Henri."

[Kronos]

Benedict hit a home run here.

Benedict can't even pick up the bat, much less swing it.


In this world Capitalism is not just the most efficient way to create wealth, it is the only way - and the only way to reduce poverty is to increase wealth.

"Wealth" is a conveniently loaded term which is meaningful only from a capitalist economic perspective, and therefore, a misnomer in the context it is used here.

The way to reduce poverty is to allocate resources properly. Resources are present prior to the ideology of "private ownership", therefore they are not comprehended as a form of "wealth", as "wealth" implicitly denotes ownership.

The loaded definition here persuades one to think of the distribution of wealth as the only way to end poverty. But, it is the distribution of what "wealth" is only a political symbol of...not what only exists in the form of private property.


In order for capitalism to function to that potential end, it requires the individuals involved to have a sense of ethical behavior, both during the production of profit and in its subsequent use.

"Ethical" here is vague, as it is intended to be in such context. Again, a term is conveniently loaded to fit a manipulated scheme of meaning. The very foundation of capitalist ideology is based on individual rights warranted from individual productive capacities. This is the ethical edifice upon which it rests. To challenge the fundamental assumption that "ethical" acts are anything but these principles in action is to modify the foundation itself. If this happens, then a new definition of "ethical" may arise which means "owning private property is unethical", or "exploiting a wage worker is unethical". If that happens, then the issue shift to "capitalism itself is unethical" rather than "capitalism is ethical, but some of its consequences are not."

Really you have a language game here, a narrative designed to pacify and distract political and philosophical introspection from fundamentally changing anything at all.

Case and point:


rather than an exhortation for capitalists to operate ethically.

But nowhere does it say that capitalists have to be charitable, and that fact will be the element which is used in defense of capitalists. What follows is an effort to make the state responsible for a welfare system, which, in turn, cannot function without taxing. Now, we have a society which is produced by one class, the proletariat, in which that class is categorized as the least wealthy, and in which that class must pay additional money to support a welfare system organized by the state which taxes them.....to take care of them because they are exploited by the capitalist class...which does nothing in the chain of production, but owns everything.

Further, if a capitalist "gives to charity", he is basically giving back what he took from those who require that charity to survive, in the first place. This is where the process becomes laughable. You have the capitalist make a profit from the working class which he then can give back to them, pretending as if he has done some honorable deed.

He has done nothing. Every cent of the money he gives to charity is generated by the very people who need it. The solution is to eliminate the capitalist- the extraneous step of charity is not necessary.....unless the parasite capitalist wants some publicity from the public- the facade of being a generous person.

I wouldn't expect a "pope" to say anything sensible in the first place. Anybody who wears such a ridiculous garb cannot be taken seriously.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In this world Capitalism is not just the most efficient way to create wealth, it is the only way - and the only way to reduce poverty is to increase wealth. In order for capitalism to function to that potential end, it requires the individuals involved to have a sense of ethical behavior, both during the production of profit and in its subsequent use.
For a moment there I thought those were Benedict's actual words, which would have made this the first time a Pope ever showed explicit support for "capitalism" - and would have led me to lose whatever shred of respect I have for Benedict.

Fortunately, those were your words, and Benedict was more diplomatic - though I have no doubt that he agrees with you.

The problem is, you are are both wrong, and either painfully naive or deliberately trying to mislead the workers. You can wish and exhort and call and cry for ethical behavior on the part of capitalists all you like. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The powerful will never be kind and ethical to the powerless. The only solution is to ensure that no one is too powerful.

If the Church's effort to reduce poverty and suffering in the world is restricting to asking people to be nice to each other, then the Church is criminally stupid. You Catholics, of all people, should know better than to imagine that any problem can be solved through the inherent goodness of man.

Look, Tolkien was a Catholic. Learn from him, and stop asking people to use the Ring responsibly.

[Pogue]

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI called Tuesday for a new world financial order guided by ethics and the search for the common good, denouncing the profit-at-all-cost mentality blamed for bringing about the global financial meltdown.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/07/world/AP-EU-Vatican-Encyclical.html

In this world Capitalism is not just the most efficient way to create wealth, it is the only way - and the only way to reduce poverty is to increase wealth. In order for capitalism to function to that potential end, it requires the individuals involved to have a sense of ethical behavior, both during the production of profit and in its subsequent use.

Unfortunately, the argument all too often becomes an argument against capitalism itself, rather than an exhortation for capitalists to operate ethically. All too often, the call becomes one to eliminate or severely restrain capitalism, through government restriction, and a call for a "forced ethic" to be achieved through government intervention and redistribution. The problem here is that no government in history has shown itself capable of operating any more ethically than a private individual. Attempts at government imposing an ethic always leads to failure and just as much corruption, misdirection of funds, and unethical behavior and outcome - more, actually - than if the efforts remained solely within private sector/individual efforts.

The Church's call to reduce poverty and suffering in the world must recognize the need for increasing wealth in general, and the best means of achieving that; while calling for a more ethical behavior on the part of those involved in the process. It doesn't achieve the stated goal to want to turn the power over into the waiting hands of government, whose efforts would only make things even worse.

Benedict hit a home run here.

I shit on your pope.

[danyboy27]

I shit on your pope.

is it really necessary to insult other people belief?

[Pogue]

is it really necessary to insult other people belief?

Yes, sometimes it is. Fuck the Pope, the fucking ****.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Fuck the Pope
I am fairly certain it has been a few centuries since the last time anyone did that.

[Kronos]

You don't know that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phYyyYrfaeM

[danyboy27]

Yes, sometimes it is. Fuck the Pope, the fucking ****.

so much for that so called respect of other you guy preaching all day long, equality, respect of other, freedom. At the end if some body dont share the same values or belief than you, fuck him right?

[Robert]

I shit on your pope

Reallllllly? Oh, child, the things you could have said. :lol:


The only solution is to ensure that no one is too powerful.

Well, I'll drink to that. But you think that's where the revolution will end up KH, with "no one too powerful"?

It's hard to understand how you can foresee that as a possibility, much less a likelihood.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, I'll drink to that. But you think that's where the revolution will end up KH, with "no one too powerful"?

It's hard to understand how you can foresee that as a possibility, much less a likelihood.
Most past revolutions have produced societies in which the new ruling class was less powerful than the ruling class that existed prior to the revolution. It's only a matter of taking this process to its logical conclusion.

[Plagueround]

I shit on your pope.

As anyone who's ever read De Sade can attest to, the pope is probably down with that. :laugh:

[Plagueround]

Good for Benedict.

Now, how do we get there? I think that a very strong and powerful figure needs to somehow lead by example. I don't mean politicians legislating that other people's money be raised through taxes and redistributed, as that just breeds resentment.

We need something equivalent to one of the medieval kings I remember (or maybe it was a pope:confused:) who actually helped in the physical construction of a local cathedral. I want to say it was the great Henry IV of France, who is credited with coining the "chicken in every pot phrase" that's unfairly attributed to the Herbert Hoover presidential campaign.

It was Henry IV who said:

“Si Dieu me prête vie, je ferai qu’il n’y aura point de laboureur en mon royaume qui n’ait les moyens d’avoir le dimanche une poule dans son pot!
(If God spares me, I will ensure that there is no working man in my kingdom who does not have the means to have a chicken in the pot every Sunday!)

We need a latter day "bon roi Henri."

How very...Leviathan.

[Robert]

Hey, Plague, that's nothing. You shoulda seen the recommendations I made before editing! Or can you imagine, given my avatar?:lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Vive l'Empereur! ;)

Mais le règne de Napoléon a été possible seulement grâce à une révolution, et je croyais que tu n'aimes pas les révolutions.

[OneNamedNameLess]

I am fairly certain it has been a few centuries since the last time anyone did that.

Oh come on! We all know what goes on behind closed doors in the Vatican. Beer and wine, tits and coke and the like.

[OneNamedNameLess]

And little boys hee hee :D

[Rascolnikova]

For anyone interested in the contents of the OP, I recommend Slavoj Zizek's depictions of the "liberal communists" from On Violence. The book is a fast and interesting read, and describes this phenomenon with excellent insight. . . not that Marx didn't also cover it pretty well, considering when he wrote.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, sometimes it is. Fuck the Pope, the fucking ****.

Not that I mind what you say--but you were certainly pretty darn touchy when I joined IWW and wasn't respectful of what you thought was important.

I thought I was pretty decent when you asked me to resign the brotherhood.

I may re-assess.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

With more transparency available by the global media, we might see a better church come about, one even dedicated to exercising the ideas that Jesus laid down instead of preaching them. I mean, the care of lepers is good and all, but why not let Jesus be known more with the manuscripts they have locked away?

[Robert]

Mais le règne de Napoléon a été possible seulement grâce à une révolution, et je croyais que tu n'aimes pas les révolutions. Son règne ne me fascine point. La force de sa personnalité et ses vêtements? Oui, vachement!

J'accepte la necessité de la révolution de temps a autre, dépendant de la vision et de l'humanité de ses auteurs. Mais, ce qui a suivi, par exemple, les révolutions cubaine et iranniene? Celle que tu prévois?

Non, merci.

Passe-moi le grey poupon.