Whenever I do a commentary on socialism, people always object saying that I'm conflating socialism with communism and that not all socialist states fit my descriptions. When I use the term, I'm talking about socialism as it was used by people like Marx because he and other similarly motivated thinkers and writers are the root of socialism and so defined what it is. Subsequent attempts to rebrand socialism as something more innocuous than the murderous regimes of the 20th century is, in my opinion, nothing more than a polemical branding exercise. You don't get to redefine a word because of its horrific historic baggage and before you claim that certain prosperous countries are socialist, you should double check to see if they show up on this list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
You're wrong. Socialism only has baggage for the side that already disdain it. By allowing no corner for the weed to grow can you finally confront it. I'm a Christian Socialist that rejects the one sided materialist Marx. You see that is why communism never works... it's missing the other half. Besides being truthful (material vs metaphysical world), the useful idiots (no disrespect since I was one once) are more willing to listen if you walk among them as equal in the 'fight' for not just justice but the Truth as well.
Historically, socialism emerged as a movement entirely separate from Marx. It has its origins in British Nonconformist Christianity. What is called 'Municipal Socialism' brought about slum clearance and replacement by decent housing, hospitals, schools, road improvements, supply of clean water and drainage systems, electric tramways - none of which had been delivered by the private sector. The London County Council, for example, was an excellent example of this kind of socialism. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Marx or Marxism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_County_Council The conflation of Marxism with socialism is confusing and historically incorrect.
I absolutely testify the reality of what your saying. I live in Venezuela I'm 34 years old so I was 14 when Chavez came to power I remember the country I had before Chavez, Venezuela wasn't a first world country but the average Venezuelan had his basic necessities met and as a matter of fact between 1930 and 1970 more than a million of Europeans migrated to Venezuela, mostly from Spain, Portugal and Italy. So the country was at least in a better economic state that those 3 Europeans countries during that time. Chavez was a product of one group of our corrupt local elites, who wanted to remove the old corrupt political class from power and to achieve that they gave Chavez television time, promoted him and support him, once Chavez came to power he used the state as his personal political tool to expropriate and confiscate the industries of his political enemies (all in the name of socialism) now the country is in ruins literally in ruins all major industries are closed (they were nationalized to you know "help the people" because for sure the state will treat you better than a private business owner ) the state is the only big employer and because of that the salaries are ridiculously lows (there are no other competitors). I have seen people eating from the garbage can it's a devastating reality check, my younger brother had to leave the country in search of better live standards (he now lives in Mexico city) sadly a pretty common thing amont Venezuelan families, we were once a country of inmigrants now we are a country of emigrants. Before Chavez arrived Venezuelan had high regard for 3 instituions of sociaety, the first was the Catholic Church, the army and the media, now a days the Catholic Church is the only respected institution in Venezuela, the Church has served as a social safety network in a country facing a starvation level poverty, there are charity lunchrooms in almost every parish located in poor neighborhoods and now if you ask the average Venezuela they will be ok if the US invades the country and remove the socialists from power. To that point has reached the desperation of the people in my country
HT03 okay. Slow down buddy. Spain and Portugal were fighting socialists and communist, yeah, not Jews. And Jews were never associated with socialism. I know this since I'm a Portuguese. We're catholic, not antisemites
@@joaodealbuquerque8819 The International Brigades were the main soldiers defending the Spanish Republican government and consisted of Jews from all over the world. They looted the Spainish gold reserves and fled to the USSR when they realized the war was lost. This is a fact.
It depends on what we mean by socialism. By the definition used by many socialists (worker control over the means of production) distributism would be a form of socialism, specifically market socialism.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 - "Did it not belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How could you conceive such a deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God!” You're missing the point. It was totally voluntary. No one HAD to give anything. Ananias and Sapphira could have kept all of their money. BUT they misrepresented their generosity in order to appear as being far more generous then they had actually been. In doing so they lied, and not just to the others but to God! God took care of this lie in a speedy manner. The rest of the Church got the message not to try to fool God. He sees everything and today there are many who try to make themselves appear more generous in order to appear more holy. The message is clear - they may not fall dead the instant they do this, but in an attempt to come across as what they are not, it is clear what God's view of them is. No one HAD to give ... it was a strictly voluntary gesture to give and how much to give. A far cry from socialism.
If we stay entrenched in definitions and theories as they were proposed in 1891, then we will truly get nowhere when discussing modern competing ideas for establishing the common good of society. Even towering theological intellects like Pope Benedict XVI recognized the value of the emerging systems of democratic socialism, and knew that, as a competing theory, there could be benefits to such a theory: “But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.” There are few examples of (what today could be referred to as) totalitarian socialism, which is a close relative to the Communism you describe. It sure is easy to offer a negative critique of something when you use the worst offenders of a particular system as your primary examples.
You're right, it is easy to list more mass murderers than saints among socialists. Socialism is sold to people using Christian ideas but atheism is the only belief system allowed in your system. It's not correct to say English Catholics were socialists in the 16th century but they do share some beliefs. It would be more accurate to say the Protestants were bc some reformers abolished property rights. Who cares though, right? We know it ends in mass murder if the revolution doesn't go as planned. To even consider trying it again makes me suspicious of you. It's not worth the risk.
Ok Catholics what are the best examples? I personally don’t think it has ever really existed except for a few small communities (Mondragon Corp comes to mind).
@@soulfuzz368 Best examples of what? Btw, 'Mondragon Corp', the wiki article on it was an interesting read, especially the remark of Pol Pot's BFF Naom Chomsky. "Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others." 'It's in a market system', 'it still exploits', 'do things ... harmful to society', 'ignore negative externalities', what a load of projection coming from such a piece of *** who never met a massmurder ssytem he didn't like as long as it is anti-Western. It quit makes me like 'capitalism'. However, I think he is right in that Mondragon is indeed a part of 'capitalism'. The term 'Capitalism' is elastic enough to encompass an organisation like that.
let me tell you a little story about socialist communist state, my father lived in one, yugoslavia..He lived in small town, he was catholic, in whole state christmas eve and christmas were not holydays, they were working days, kids had to go to school on christmas! So my father was just a kid, he went to midnight mass, local secret police service were sending their spys to mass so they could see and report who went to mass.. Mass would be over at 2am, my father had to be is school in 8am, you can imagine how tired was he as a kid. And than, on christmas day few teachers would exam him and only those who were at mass, he would get a lot of Fs on christmas day, no matter how his knowledge was...
these are all good points but what would you say to one of bernie sanders followers when they say they dont want socialism but democratic socialism like what they have in norway or sweden. I look to those country's and they seem pretty socialist and very very well off and I would ask you how you would react to that counter point they throw at you?
I think this has more to do with the fact that a lot of Americans don’t really know what socialism and communism are and how they are different from one another.
They both have the same materialistic and flawed roots. So their differences don't matter to anyone outside of that camp. Remove the root, the tree dies.
@@sasi5841 The economic system referred to as 'capitalism' is grounded on usury and private ownership of what is God's creation. Christians would not describe themselves as capitalists or supporters of capitalism if they understood this.
@@henrybn14ar private ownership yes. Usury not necessarily! Some variations supports usury, others no. I am pretty sure stealing is considered wrong. I private ownership doesnt exists nothing can be stolen. So, it would be redundant to mention anything about stealing. Things can be stolen if and only if they previously had an owner. Consider it says not desire what doesn't belong to you, and definitely not to steal, it indirectly supports the concept of private property. I am pretty sure plenty of philosophers expanded upon this topic. Even from a practical perspective, not having private property is a bad idea. Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons.
@Carson Phillips social programs are a bad idea for many reasons. It encourages bad faith actors, disincentivizes people from working, breeds envy, etc. It sets up a mentality of entitlement. Private charity is better, for all its faults, at least it doesn't encourage any of the aforementioned things, at least not to the same extent. Also, since private charity is selective, it would necessarily encourage better behavior towards their neighbors. Since, those who arent well behaved, don't get help. For example, pretty much every govt run welfare system supports abortion. Those who are against it, their opinions get ignored. But if people had no such support, they would have care about what others think and avoid being promiscuous.
Damn, you are good Brian :-) I was born in Poland while it was still a communist country. It was a strange one in that respect, because that ideology was forced on us by Soviets and not something people inherently believed. At the same time we were deeply catholic nation. Needles to say that the ruling class wanted to eradicate religion. They failed. I would dare to say that religion was one of main reasons why they did. I totaly agree with your analysis that many ideologies are based on trivial assumptions and they disregard human nature. Another example I've seen recently is the idea of 'Secular Humanism' promoted by some atheists. Same simplistic and false asumptions and believe that we are so perfect that we don't need God for establishing etical system. I wonder how many people would need to die again to prove it wrong...
LOL, like we need an imaginary daddy in the sky for ethics... I can improve on the ten commandments in 5 seconds.. Drop the first 3 as narcissistic rule and add: Thou shall not Rape, Thou shall not Torture and Thou shall not Enslave. There, so much suffering avoided ! Easy to have BETTER ethics than "God" And with rational debate we can adjust the rules as needed. improve them, contrary to " Divine edicts " Just like Science has tools to revise itself as we are gathering evidences, contrary to 'God''s zealot who ignore new knowledge, and cherry pick new evidences and ignore other to keep the conclusion of 'divinity'
Socialism and capitalism are buzzwords... they vaguely insinuate "more markets" or "more state economy" but it seems like everyone picks one to mean "everything good" and use the opposite as a mere scare word. I have no doubt Jesus was not a proponent of Stalinism, but I doubt he would be comfortable with the idolatry of free markets, even to the detriment of family values, as has been the tendency of recent history. There are self-describedsocialist movements in Latin America that have been more or less friendly to the church,, but I think that the terms are so polemically tainted it's difficult to reason with them in the abstract
Also Marx didn't want to "distribute wealth equally" but he wanted workers to own the means of production or the means by witch something is produced. And if they produce that thing, that they have a right to sell it or keep it.
You get it, you truly get it. Thank you for uploading this. I have subscribed and shared. I am hoping this video finds fertile ground in the minds of those I have shared it with!
Great video, what about anorcho syndicalism?, Like Catolonia (a state in spain the only place where anarchism has worked in a big scale), 'cause anarchy, mostly ancho syndicalism, adresses all of the crtisism that you make, again great video
I don't think I have ever met someone who recognized that Thomas Moore's Utopia was satire and an intentional misspelling, though Marx would go on to use the word Utopia. The original Greek Eutopia means "a better place"; Moore's spelling of Utopia was a satirical reorganizing of the affix that translates to "not a place."
The very early church did have a commune like economic model that in some ways resembles proto-communism centred on jesus. Were members gifted their wealth to the church to be shared amongst its members through peter's leadership, for example, Barnabas selling his land and giving the money from its sale to the early church . Also consider Ananias and Sapphira following Barnabas' example who sold their land but secretly withheld a portion of the proceeds and because they did so by lying under oath were struck down by the holy spirit.
There's a critical difference. Everyone in that economic situation (100% of the participants) were living that way voluntarily. There was no coercion. No enforcement. No, pay your taxes which will be given to someone else or go to jail. Socialism sounds nice, but it only works if everyone buys in and not everyone will. So what do you do with those who don't want to participate in that type of economic system? You force them... which is an injustice and not something that the Church would ever agree with.
@@BrianHoldsworth I completely agree with that point and I really wasn't inferring otherwise. My family grew up communist country so I fully know the horrors of it. My point is though the very early church had a collectivist approach in which wealth was shared for the good of the church [and wider community], it didn't matter how much someone came into the church with, like in the case of Barnabas they was expected to be fully used for God's work.
@@BrianHoldsworth "Socialism sounds nice, but it only works if everyone buys in and not everyone will. " That's the problem ^^ with literally every human method of grouping or teaming people, not a problem specific to socialism. You're exhibiting binary thinking. There's just as many problems with capitalism as there are with the (quite actually communist) socialist scenario you are imagining. Bottom line is we all want a fair society where people can make a decent living and where the less fortunate are taken care of. You can call it capitalism with socialist tendencies for the poor (and for medical care) or you can call it socialism with a capitalist economy. Call it whatever you want. You're getting hung up on words. America already is a socialist country. The only argument is over where to draw the line. We simply cannot go back to early 1900's American capitalism, though. That would be appalling.
@@BrianHoldsworth Church very well forced people to not take part in usury for around 1500 years. As for taxes, it was always used for public welfare for thousands of years since the Roman rule.
1) you can’t equate radical communism and socialism. In Britain we have had some good socialist governments who aren’t about taking all power and wealth and becoming demonic crazed despots like Stalin 2) Russia under Stalin is often used as example of communism being awful but a) without communism is hardly in a good place now. Maybe it’s better now but hardly good. . B) it’s simplistic to use examples like soviet Russia which was an extreme revolution away from a terrible oppressive and unequal monarchy led society that still I think had feudalism etc. It went from one extreme to another, Stalin was just the typical unfortunate dictator type like hitler etc who was able to exploit the turbulent backdrop for his own tyrannical , obsessive ends. Lumping in leftie politics (which are about more even wealth distribution and a fairer deal for the poorest ) with the extreme and misused forms of communism in unstable and democratically inexperienced regions like russia are as unfair as lumping in all right wing parties ( who are about the freedom and right to keep wealth in certain pockets without government interference) in the world with the extreme right wing experiments in the extreme times (after the catastrophe of WW1) of Germanys fascism.
TFW two kings of Hungary is named along with a saint of a Hungarian royal dynasty (Saint Stephen, Blessed Karl of Austria was also king of Hungary, and Saint Elizabeth from the same dynasty as St. Stephen)
The same could be said for runaway capitalism, just go to most cities in the US to see how ‘fair’ capitalism can be. I’m not a ‘socialist’ per sé, however in my part of the world we have free healthcare, free education and the state looks after you from the cradle to the grave, and as much as some people harp on about ‘the evils’ of socialism, there is a healthy balance that can be struck.
Indeed, you’re going to find sin in any society that isn’t the Kingdom of God. Greed is a constant whether in socialism or capitalism. The paradoxical thing about capitalism is that greed becomes a motivator to help the poor: “I want money, so I’ll make something that you want/need to get it.” It is quite evident that the increase of free markets has greatly increased the quality of life all over the planet. Doesn’t mean it is without it’s faults. The big difference between the two systems is that in capitalism, a greedy man is required to continue delivering value to others in voluntary trade; in socialism, greed doesn’t have the same incentive to provide since one just has to be in power to get rich. The logical end of socialism is equality, but it almost invariably ends with equality in poverty. To draw from symbolism in LOTR, look at the White City of Minas Tirith vs Barad-dur or Orthanc. The former is a healthy pyramidal hierarchy of 7 stages whereas the latter are towers where the one rules from an unattainable height with everyone else on ground level.
But you are breaking God's commandment when the government is funding your "free" education and healthcare. It's wrong to steal from others to "help" others. And those cities sin US are socialist in their policies.
@@johnpglackin345 "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render to God, the things that are God's". Healthcare for all is not about stealing one's money and giving it to someone else, it's a moral obligation of any society as a whole to contribute towards a healthy society, just like it is a moral obligation of society to contribute for the running of the Police/Army.
@@christobabu798 And we help those less fortunate by charity not by government programs. Those who steal from others by using taxation are breaking God's commandment thou shalt not steal. Many "Catholics" are guilty of breaking this Commandment since the 1930's. And we don't need a healthy society, just a moral society. What you propose is evil and against God's will.
@@johnpglackin345 well, your individual efforts at charity, would help only a few people. There is no organisation that can reach out to an entire country than the govt. You bring in a false premise that all taxation is stealing. Any govt has the moral obligation towards the welfare of its citizens. And it's a God-given obligation. You are fine with taxation for police and army, because they specifically serve you. Whereas it's difficult for you to pay taxes to ensure the poor get timely and cheap healthcare, because it doesn't benefit you. Well, anyways, I have long ago understood that it's pointless arguing this with American capitalist Catholics. They think they are holier than the Pope, because the Pope slightly leans on the socialist side😂
Well done Sir. Your comments here only add to the effectiveness of your vid arguments. It’s interesting that the countries with which Marx had firsthand experience were protestant. IOW, the Catholic influences on those holding wealth had been mostly dismantled.
In nineteenth century Catholic countries, Russia, and Scandinavia, land ownership was concentrated into the hands of an aristocracy. Outside the cities, people were treated like serfs. Russian and Denmark had land reforms later in the nineteenth century. Marx was not a sound economist; he failed to draw on the works of the Physiocrats, Smith and Ricardo. That task was left to Henry George, who came to the same conclusions as the French Physiocrats, though at the time of his earlier writings he had not yet heard of them. Marxist economics is based on a set of confusions and bogus ideas. I have described them elsewhere in these comments.
I drink and I know things. Jokes aside, I love your work!.I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples and bastards and broken things. Tyrion Lannister jokes aside. Keep it up
Please consider doing a video on your opinion of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), the Militia Templi, and the Ordo Militaris Catholicus (individually of course).
Great review, Brian. Your focus was on the moral temptation for power, wealth and fame, but there is also the flip side to man’s broken nature which is the temptation to do less than one ought. Acedia and moral sloth are the swamps on which apathetic societies are built. I’d like to hear you do a review of this. You do such a great job and I’m lazy!
I do aggree that Marx and hardline communism or socialism are not the ways to govern the world, but neither is hardline capitalism. The middle road would be the best one to take, in my opinion. Regulated capitalism with decent social security, reasonable taxation that places the heaviest burden on the strongest shoulders, and good, free/cheap public healthcare. This can be done and is being done in most of western europe
I agree completely it doesn’t make sense to call yourself a communist or a socialist and be religious and i am super left but don’t call myself communist for a reason: every communist & socialist govt had to a certain extent repressed religious people & especially religious minorities
I'm not not a socialist either. I'm a registered Democrat, and teach sociology psychology, English as a second language and fine arts. Master's Degree. I don't like labels. They just hurt people. God bless you, Brian! Religious education, honestly likes to label people, too. It's just as hard for us whether Protestant or Catholic. Keep on teaching and preaching! You are going to be interviewing Bishops someday soon!
My exact thoughts. That mathematical thing he tried to do was also completely off. It isn't about equal distribution, but about distribution according to needs. You don't have to do more than read the Marxism wikipedia page to know that.
I'm not quite clear on what people in North America define as socialism. Communism, simple, I think we all get it, and hopefully, many of us see that not only is it evil, but it has never worked and never will work. But the thing is I do see a lot of forms of what I understand to be socialism going around. Countries (like the US) subsidize whole branches of the economy (like agriculture) is a form of socialism. Anything public (like schools, firefighters, hospitals etc...) can be seen as a form of socialism. The Canadian healthcare system is a form of socialism. Nationalizing industrial sectors (like transport, the postal service, or even banks) are forms of socialism, yet De Gaulle did this and he was quite far from being a socialist. Can't one even state that taxes are a form of socialism, since it's taking money form the wealthiest to redistribute it? So do people in North America only understand socialism as it being the marxist definition? I really don't get it. And every time I see people from North America talk about socialism, I'm quite confused. What is the North American definition of socialism?
The Soviet Union was called "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Clearly, socialism has had a broader application than what some want to limit it to, and it was broader than North America. I'm not so sure that welfare capitalism is really socialism...it seems like more of an in-between option between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism.
You don't have to be a socialist to know that socialism and Marxism started as two different streams of thought. Marxists gradually infiltrated socialist movements, in Europe before WW1, in Britain not until the 1970s. Brian needs to do a lot of reading before he touches this subject again. It is not his strongest area.
@@andrewsheedy4513 If welfare capitalism isn't based on socialism, then what is socialism? It doesn't matter what a country calls itself, what matters is the economical and political application. Otherwise North Korea is a democracy and a republic.
@@nerdanalog1707 welfare capitalism is the result of special intetests lobbying the government for entitlements and privileges. This has always happened since the day after government was created. In a free society these special interest are free to assemble and petition the gov. Socialism is where the state decides who gets the favours, its top down rather than bottom up.
Brian, do you think healthcare is a human right or a commodity to be purchased? And, regardless of your answer, how should a healthcare system be funded?
@@levisando lol, at the end of the day, this is what it comes to. While the arguments you guys give against a socialist state makes sense to a large extent, but then, you also don't want to acknowledge that healthcare is a basic right. Just like a society requires the police/army for the society's best interests, a healthy society is also in the society's best interests.
Hey, I have an idea for you. I'm mexican, and although I respect and admire the Christian values I'm also meztizo (like most Mexicans are). The Indigenous community suffered from the holy Inquisition for a long time in the name of envagelism and that left the country to become mostly catholic. Here you mentioned that saying you are a Christian Socialist is like saying your a Jewish Nazi, wouldn't the same be for people to call themselves Meztizo Christians? The same could be said by anyone who comes from a place where Christianity caused a lot of suffering. Could your address this? Is there a solutions to the irony? I just find it a very interesting topic. Thanks for the vid though :3
Adrick Entertainment I’m curious as to which countries you’re referring to when saying Christianity caused suffering? Not picking a fight, genuinely curious.
I would say the contradiction comes from the content of the conflicting beliefs. Let's take the Nazi/Jewish example. We obviously know that being a Nazi and being Jewish at the same time is ironic. But why is this? We know that Nazis killed millions of Jewish people, but why is it that they did so? Was being okay with the killing Jewish people part of being a Nazi? It seems from what we know that to be a Nazi, you had to be ok with some sort of "ethnic cleansing" targeted at Jewish people. Thus, not only did Nazis kill Jewish people, but they also held to the idea that Jewish people ought to be persecuted, tortured, and killed. It wasn't that some Nazis had an extreme view of Naziism. Instead, the content of the Nazi ideology involved and even required the persecution and murder of Jewish people. Now, I am no history buff, but I will acknowledge that persecution and murder on a grand scale took place on the indigenous communities in the "New" World (I am only saying I am no history buff because I know some people like to argue around this history, for whatever reason). A lot of the violence was used to justify the cause of, as you said, evangelization and Christianization of indigenous people. However, is this actually a Christian view? Can we imagine Christianity, as an ideology, without the views of those who misused their faith to persecute indigenous peoples? I think that the answer is yes. These views were a perversion of Christian tradition and doctrine. Persecution is a direct contradiction to Christianity, even if some Christians tried to justify its place at some point in history. Those who called themselves Christians and justified murder were bad Christians (they weren't Christian in my opinion). To sum it up, I guess I would just respond with a question: Is someone a Nazi if they believe that persecuting Jewish people is wrong, or is this an essential view to have if you are a Nazi? Substitute Christian for Nazi and Indigenous peoples for Jewish people in the question and I think you will answer the question very differently. So calling yourself a Meztizo Christian is not like calling yourself a Jewish Nazi.
For more on socialism and communism from a traditional Catholic perspective (abandoned by the Vatican II popes) see the first 5 chapters of this very important book, one that is relatively unknown because widely suppressed by the Masters of Discourse, i.e., The Plot Against the Church, holywar.org/txt/pinay/default.htm. You'll learn a great deal from the other chapters as well. As one reviewer wrote: "Too few people understand how historically significant this book really is. "Maurice Pinay" was the pseudonym of 12 conservative members of the college of cardinals who were opposed to the foreseen planned hijacking of Vatican II. The Plot Against the Church was their attempt to expose the real historical context of Vatican II. In doing so, it tells the tale of history as Europe's native clerical elite has perceived it-- a tale that's been all but lost, which we MUST NOT LOSE. "Though these cardinals' goals were frustrated, their book is still a fantastic catalog of Lost History. For this reasons alone, The Plot Against the Church is one of the most immensely important books of our time. The scholarship is also quite good, especially since the cited works are usually excellent historical sources written in languages other than English (Spanish, Italian, French, German, Russian) so you don't see them cited much in English-language books dealing with the same subjects."
This video has so many nonsequiturs and wrong assumptions that it was hard to watch. Hell, the title is "Why I'm Not a Socialist" and the video is "Why I'm Not a Communist"... Yet I don't think you are engaging in bad faith and you sound really sincere in your beliefs. I would like you to have a debate/discussion with Vaush about socialism and with Rationality Rules about Christianity, I think it would be really fun to have those types of conversations in good faith.
Thank you for putting my vague thoughts into words. I knew I wasn't either capitalist nor socialist but couldn't express the reasons why. God bless you and your ministry.
Socialism is not the act of redistributing wealth. A socialist society isn’t one of heavy taxation and welfare programs. It is one in which (necessary) industries are publicly owned and the fruits of these industries are not produced for profit, but for the good of everyone. In the current model of capitalism, houses are primarily built in the prospect of turning a profit. It it didnt turn a profit no private company would build housing. In socialism, houses will be built for the purpose of housing.
In America if we create a system where people are paid to not work or less-skilled employees are promoted above more-skilled employees (such as with DEI or fem equity) then a rational argument forms in the minds of the skilled workforce that socialism/communism is the lesser of the two evils in the near term, because then at least they are paid as much as the substandard population. We are at a culturally precarious moment and it reeks of top-down strategy.
Distributism was a movement which never addressed the need to set out the concrete legal and fiscal framework to put their principles into practice. When it was pointed out to the leading members of the movement at the time that the ideas of Henry George were precisely what was needed, the message never sank in. One of the problems was that the main guidance from the church at the time was _Rerum Novarum,_ which is confused about what it misleadingly refers to as 'property'; like 'assets, it is a weasel word which includes many different categories of thing.
@@suem6004 agreeing with the video, poverty and other social problems do not disappear just by having the "good" economic system. In capitalism you also have selfishness, greed, desire to dominate others etc. Denying this is just disingenuous.
@@suem6004 Yea. sovereignty to lead people into wars. The consequences of which many of us are facing now, while the actual ones who ffcaused it had their coffers full.
If you’ve read Marx, or just any classical political economist, you’ll know the equation for capital is M-C-M’ or Money invests in a good, worked upon through human labor, to increase its value to produce more money, or M’. Marx states that M’ (M prime) is theoretically infinite, and so the quest for profit is unquenchable. What social and spiritual effects it has the subject of investigation for Marx. If you don’t believe me, read the Philosophical and Economic Manuscripts of 1844, Capital Vol. I for starters. As much I love Brian’s channel, I think he’s misinformed about Marxist theory.
Marxist economic theory is based on at least three fundamental flaws. 1) Land is conflated with capital, which itself is never precisely defined. Land and capital have different attributes, have different origins and have different price-setting mechanisms. 2) Marx's Labour Theory of Value. Marx correctly observes that value comes from labour, but fails to observe that not all value comes from labour. He also, incorrectly, argues that the value of an object is derived from the amount of labour that went into its production. The second of these errors led to a great deal of mischief, as its obvious absurdity gave rise to a widespread view that denies that there is any connection at all between labour and value. 3) Having myself studied classical economics, the M-C-M notion is not something I would think a classical economist would even recognise. 'Money' is merely a medium of exchange. Credit is used for the purchase of physical capital (buildings, machines, etc), which are placed in favourable locations for production. Labour is applied to this physical capital to add value and produce goods. These goods are then worth more than the raw materials that went into them. The produce is then sold and the receipts for the sale are then distributed. The recipients are the providers of the credit and raw materials, the workers, paid at the going wage rate, and the government, though taxation. Any surplus is collected as rent by the land owner. This is the standard economic analysis developed by the French Physiocrats, Smith, Ricardo and George. 'Profits' is another uselessly vague term which can mean reward for labour, payment for credit, or rent of land; it is a book-keeper's measure which has no place in serious economics theory.
I had read that “utopia” was derived from Greek “eutopia” meaning “good place”, but you got me to verify, and I got schooled: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia#Etymology 👍🏻
It’s the Institution of state government (men) vs institution of God (The Church). Christians didn’t give up all their things to the government of the country, but to the Church. They trusted the Church that much, but to the state government that’s instituted by men- no, they just gave “to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.”
@@gabepettinicchio7454 Distributism did not work. Its proponents never formulated the political, economic, fiscal and legislative framework which were necessary to lift it from being a mere theory. They were hampered by being stuck with the muddled concepts in _Rerum Novarum._
the Seventh Commandement "You shall not steal" implies that God expected people to have private property, therefore communism goes against God. but in a Capitist world we violate the First Commandemnt " because we idolize as gods our material world"
Communism and socialism are fully materialist world views with some tendencies to idealism. Christianity is fully idealistic. Christianity: building better world with better people (saints) on their way to Paradise. Communism: building paradise on Earth with sinful people. You can't build a paradise for mortal sinners, it ceases to be Paradise in a second. That's why we, sinners have to complete the journey and become better before getting to paradise.
Just one comment: The subject heading is not in anyway misleading. You are making it clear that you are giving us your opinion. Other subjects are also clearly you opinion, but often the heading seems to imply that you are supplying a more authoritative view. Why The Youth Want Tradition, Sexuality is a Choice, How to Dress for Church, The Valitidy of Vatican II (Vatican II Valid?), The Idolatry of Modern Art (How Modern Art Leads to Idolatry), The Reason the Youth Leave the Church and probably the whole 'Ecclesiastical' play list. I get that this is no simple thing and I have no problem with a headline that draws you in, but IMHO, a lot of these headings suggest a kind of personal authority and rely on lots of contestable assumptions yet are still based, to a large extent, on hunches or unsupported conclusions. This is fine if you want to build a narrow like-minded audience, aka, preaching to the choir. The danger is that it becomes an ego thing rather than a genuine attempt to 'take the message to the world'.
Hey Brian, thanks for this video, it's a topic I've been struggling with myself. While most of the content currently out there criticize socialism based on concepts such as it's disregard for personal property, I love how you pointed out the fragility of human will to do good and the deficiencies of a materialist only approach. Would you happen to have any recommended readings for this?
The Pope and Church dogma on reproductive freedom make them incompatible with socialism. Male labor can not be free as long as women in labor are chained to their biology.
All the problems you talk about regarding socialism and it’s incompatibility with Christianity are also true for Christianity and capitalism. Christianity is not political, capitalism fails when people are depraved and socialism fails when people are depraved. This is why religion is necessary and separate from politics
You are wrong on the definition of socialism. You're going off based on tropes. Your description of a system where a small amount of people accumulate all the wealth and share it with their friends is an apt description of capitalism. Socialism is not Statr ownership of property - it is collective ownership of property, communist regimes of the past believed that this could be done through the state acting as a representative of working class interests. Socialism doesn't have to be brutal or oppressive. Bob Moore voluntarily gave ownership of his company to his employees before passing away a few days ago. If you look at the model his company, Bob's Red Mill, as well as other worker owned cooperatives which are quite successful and offer an alternative to shareholder driven interest model of capitalism that originates in the United States. Socialism is an answer to the cultural decay that is happening all over the world because of capitalism. The glorification of drug use, atheism, sex, and other forms of negative behavior are an outcome of the system we live in. Denying this is illogical and in opposition to common sense. If you studied Marxism as a theory though, you will find that as a model is fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism due to its material mode of analysis. Alternate forms of socialism compatible with Christianity are possible however, and I would argue that distrubutism is one step away from socialism.
Hopefully a helpful criticism; Marxism the sociological science behind communism and socalism is Materialistic. That being it looks at the material conditions that affect how society and people are formed. In socalist countries, or former socalist countries, Christianity was seen as part of the ruling class or part of a colonial power forced upon a population. The Russian revolution saw the wide prosecution of Orthodoxy as the Russians, Stalin himself formerly being a devout Christian (almost joining the Orthodox Church) saw the Church ignoring the needs of the peasantry, ingratiating themselves with nobility and hoarding unbelievable wealth that could have been used for socail goods. When the revolution started, the people of Russia had little sympathy for the church that had so neglected them and in a violent war, the mob saw fit that they were not spared. This is a tragic tale, it lead to state atheism (inspired by Marx) but it was only possible because of the material conditions of the russian people. China for its part saw Christianity as a cancer forced onto them by colonialists such as France, England and Portugal. Which was not an incorrect belief. So when the cultural revolution occurred, a tragic time that the modern Chinse government has admitted, it saw Christianity and Colonial powers prosecuted. Since then however China has rebuilt church's and even declared many as a heritage site. I make no apology for the awful atrocities committed in these revolutions, but to denounce socalism based off of this is silly. Akin to decrying catholisim for the sacking of Constantinople and persecution of other Christians. We are subject to our material conditions and without faith to guide us we fall into barbarity. If we can guide socalist principles, of charity, unity and cooperation then I think it could be the greatest system the world will ever see. Anyway God be with you ❤
This is not even accurate historically, and I belong to a church where many suffered under Marxist regimes. A am as opposed to Marxism as Brian but this is not one of his better efforts.
Indeed, socialism has little regard for the individual subject, who is abstracted away in favor of the generic group and objective 'scientific rule'. It is the ideology of the machine, where even moral decisions are made technically. This is where we find ourselves today. Human perceptions and experience are being denied, in favor of the camera, so that real life can become substituted with virtual techno-socialism. Equality will not be reached until we abolish the human being. As you point out, this also makes it blind against human corruption and personal accountability.
There is a huge difference between volontarily give some of your wealth to charity or even better give your TIME to dress the undress or visit the inmates... And take with force money earned honestly by people FOR YOU to then redistribute according to your good sense. I don't agree either that it's moral to redistribute money or wealth, I think it's moral to help others. But we can't force people to do what we think it's right, can we?
It is pointless saying you are or are not a socialist. Some things such as public health need to be socialised and not be the object of private profit. Other things such as the production of consumer goods are best left in the hands of the private sector. The black and white ,one or the other argument is unhelpful and polarising and will never lead to social harmony or a better society.
I very much disagree with you. No one in their right mind would call what occured in the USSR socialist. One of the Primary tenants of socialism is workers control of the means of production. People gesture to failed "socialist" and I always ask. 1. Was the state democratic? 2. Did the workers own/control the means of production? If these two conditions are not met than what you are describing is the Use of Socialist rhetoric to promote a transfer of power. The thing about socialist rhetoric is people love hearing it. It is easy to rile up revolutionaries with socialist vocabulary even if you have no intention of instituting socialism.
Socialism works perfectly, for ants and bees but humans have individual identities and these differences lead to the corruption of the USSR and the Chinese Communist Party
This is attacking a Soviet straw man here. Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship and not communist. In communism there’s equal governance-not a dictator. They were on their way to socialism and had moved to the dictatorship of the proletariat but it failed and became state capitalist economy because other revolutions-especially Germany’s-failed and socialism cannot work in isolation without global change. In essence, what Pius XI denounced is not what socialists mean by socialism. Catholic communism would be something such as, “Communal living among members who share equally in the community’s goods.” One doesn't have to be a Marxist to be pro-socialism. This false idea about what socialism is is consistent throughout the entire video and it is exactly why discussions of things like Acts 4:32 are dismissed with saying things like, “It’s the same as the difference between voluntarily giving your money to charity and having government seize your income to distribute it as they see fit. Just because the early Christians chose to live communally because they were rejected by most other elements of Jewish and Roman society doesn’t mean they were mandated to give up all their private property (Trent Horn, 2020).” Yeah, and if there is a STATE seizing property, there is NO socialism to be found. Full stop. Saying that human nature will always prevent the goodness of socialism is de facto absurd vis a vis Christian grace and the ontological change that accompanies it. To say that socialism has only brought murder, starvation, etc. is to ignore successful manifestations of it, its incorporation in mixed economies, welfare states, and first and foremost to continue to name state capitalists and dictators socialist. The same exact horrors that you inscribe to socialism are exactly the products of capitalist economies. Socialism happens when the people uniformly and collectively desire it or when the state withers away because it is no longer necessary. I can name out a ton of very respected Catholics who are socialist leaning. Nearly all our brothers and sisters living monastically are living proof. My favorite go to would be Dorothy Day.
Catholic socialism might be something like life under the rule of St Benedict. But this is voluntary and draws on the grace of God. Communism as it has manifested in communist regimes is inherent in the programme set out by Marx himself. Incidentally, his economics is bogus, which does not help. As regards private property, this is a topic bedevilled by confusions over definition. Neither man nor the state can legitimately own that which is the free gift of God, which rules out both communist and capitalist systems of economic organisation as being anti-Christian. Democratic socialism covers a range of systems. As a Swede, I have to say that our system has left a legacy of problems which we are not dealing with very well.
@@henrybn14ar Communism must be voluntary because there is no state in communism. Any talk of Marx or consequences of his thought is superfluous to my comment.
@@AnthonyThomason14 The fatal allure of Marx and his ideas has not gone away. Russia is inevitably what it leads to. Voluntary communism eg in religious communities, is a separate issue. This is about the organisation of the political economy. We have two false systems competing against each other.
Please consider quoting Marx to prove that you’ve read him, because, from what I can tell, you haven’t. I get equally frustrated with atheists that take shots at Pascal without actually citing what he said.
Yes but any system of organizing humans will be susceptible to human moral failings.. What about socialism makes it more susceptible to greed than capitalism? In capitalism greed is actively incentivized.. I am really looking for good arguments to challenge socialism.
In case you didn't see it, he has another video released around this time called "Why I'm Not a Capitalist." Maybe he'd agree that socialism is more susceptible to greed than capitalism, but he's not saying that capitalism is, all things considered, better than socialism. If you asked me, I'd say that socialism and capitalism are both susceptible to greed but in different ways. Greed becomes a problem in socialism when the people in charge start abusing the system, but hopefully there are safety measures in place to address that. Greed becomes a problem in capitalism when people collude to prevent customers from shopping around for the best deal, but again, hopefully there are safety measures in place. Like you said, any system is susceptible to human failings.
A critique to the beginning of the video, communism/socialism are economic ideologies, while Nazism is not. You CAN be a communist/socialist and Christian, because communism and socialism have nothing to do with religion, only economy, only money. I would say I am a socialist Christian, but I recently converted to buddhism.
> You CAN be a communist/socialist and Christian, because communism and socialism have nothing to do with religion, only economy, only money. I think a lot of people would say that you can't, because communism and socialism have economic teaching that aren't compatible with Christian teaching.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 I was sceptical about Ayn Rand but despite her atheism, she has some useful insights if you take the trouble to listen to what she herself says.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 than don't buy anything from that company. That's how it's supposed to work. Same thing if you work for the company and either don't like the working conditions or you don't think you are getting paid enough you find another job. It's that simple. Don't make it more complicated.
Your definition of socialism doesn't really adequately explain the idea of a workers state, I don't really think you have a lot of experience in understanding what socialism is outside of the standard red scare talking points. And you point out issues of a centralized state controlled heavily bureaucratic economy which is also heavily criticized by many socialists. Socialism is extremely varied, even within marxist thought and it's fine to criticize it but this is criticizing an inaccurate caricature instead of the actual aspects. This completely ignores the multiple religious socialist movements that disagreed with marx's take on religion which was more based on the idea that organized religions serve to legitimize capitalist oppression. Because if you truly care about people you would see the inherent oppression that is required and encouraged within capitalism.
So a guy makes a video explaining why he doesn't hold certain opinions, and your response is that there's other opinions that could be given the same label, and therefore he doesn't truly care about people? Great comment!
No, you do not present Marx's thought correctly. He did not say that the wealth should be divided equally. This is very widely spread mistaken understanding of Marx. Marx gave us understanding of how social systems in history substitute each other, how inside one system new forces grow and finally become strong to create a new system. For example, how inside feudal system new capitalism grew up. One needs to read real Marx's works and do not listen to interpretations.
im going to try and be respectful because you seem genuine, but communism nor socialism are focused on simply distributing wealth, furthermore a state is antithetical to communism, and it’s not even inherent to socialism. communism - a stateless, classless, moneyless, communal society, in which private property does not exist, but personal property does. socialism - a system in which the workers own, or control the means of production, and private property is abolished, but personal property still exists (your house, car, phone, etc.) neither of these require an oppressive state to function, the regimes that most often called themselves communist were state socialist regimes, that claimed to have the goal of eventually eroding the state away to achieve communism which has no state. state socialism is contrasted with libertarian socialism which emphasizes a decentralized state where the workers control the means of production, the point is, an oppressive state is not inherent to socialism and its actually antithetical to communism. also there are many variants of socialism and communism that differ from Marx’s ideas, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, and Christian socialism are examples. what confuses me is that you’re critiquing socialism based on two things, the failures of socialist states, and marx ignoring the moral aspect to the issue as an atheist and, “not considering how man can be corrupted,” but at the beginning of the video you dismiss the idea of catholic and christian socialism, wouldn’t the religious aspect to those ideologies be the missing piece to the puzzle as they would resolve the issue of morality? i mean sure, leftists have historically fought catholics and christians, but the reason for that conflict is often deeper than they just hate religion, the Catholics and Christian’s you’re mentioning often had direct ties and supported the monarchies of those countries, or even the fascist / nationalist regimes like in Spain, socialism doesn’t have to be atheistic, as long as the church teaches love, and isn’t used as a tool to manipulate, divide, and control.
I sincerely hope and pray that the democrats and the pope, along with many in the hierarchy, watch this video and take it's messege to heart. Our problems will only be solved when we all come to Christ Jesus! They will not be solved through legislation or through contrived means of justice. In Christ, Andrew
Whenever I do a commentary on socialism, people always object saying that I'm conflating socialism with communism and that not all socialist states fit my descriptions. When I use the term, I'm talking about socialism as it was used by people like Marx because he and other similarly motivated thinkers and writers are the root of socialism and so defined what it is. Subsequent attempts to rebrand socialism as something more innocuous than the murderous regimes of the 20th century is, in my opinion, nothing more than a polemical branding exercise. You don't get to redefine a word because of its horrific historic baggage and before you claim that certain prosperous countries are socialist, you should double check to see if they show up on this list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
You're wrong. Socialism only has baggage for the side that already disdain it. By allowing no corner for the weed to grow can you finally confront it. I'm a Christian Socialist that rejects the one sided materialist Marx. You see that is why communism never works... it's missing the other half. Besides being truthful (material vs metaphysical world), the useful idiots (no disrespect since I was one once) are more willing to listen if you walk among them as equal in the 'fight' for not just justice but the Truth as well.
I wish you were poor, better yet poor in a third world country. You are blind to the people that Jesus came for. (Edit: see my clarification below)
@@dominusdevacore517 pretty sure being against private property is heretical.
Historically, socialism emerged as a movement entirely separate from Marx. It has its origins in British Nonconformist Christianity. What is called 'Municipal Socialism' brought about slum clearance and replacement by decent housing, hospitals, schools, road improvements, supply of clean water and drainage systems, electric tramways - none of which had been delivered by the private sector. The London County Council, for example, was an excellent example of this kind of socialism. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Marx or Marxism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_County_Council
The conflation of Marxism with socialism is confusing and historically incorrect.
@@glory4theking Except that it is historically incorrect to conflate the two.
I absolutely testify the reality of what your saying. I live in Venezuela I'm 34 years old so I was 14 when Chavez came to power I remember the country I had before Chavez, Venezuela wasn't a first world country but the average Venezuelan had his basic necessities met and as a matter of fact between 1930 and 1970 more than a million of Europeans migrated to Venezuela, mostly from Spain, Portugal and Italy. So the country was at least in a better economic state that those 3 Europeans countries during that time.
Chavez was a product of one group of our corrupt local elites, who wanted to remove the old corrupt political class from power and to achieve that they gave Chavez television time, promoted him and support him, once Chavez came to power he used the state as his personal political tool to expropriate and confiscate the industries of his political enemies (all in the name of socialism) now the country is in ruins literally in ruins all major industries are closed (they were nationalized to you know "help the people" because for sure the state will treat you better than a private business owner ) the state is the only big employer and because of that the salaries are ridiculously lows (there are no other competitors).
I have seen people eating from the garbage can it's a devastating reality check, my younger brother had to leave the country in search of better live standards (he now lives in Mexico city) sadly a pretty common thing amont Venezuelan families, we were once a country of inmigrants now we are a country of emigrants.
Before Chavez arrived Venezuelan had high regard for 3 instituions of sociaety, the first was the Catholic Church, the army and the media, now a days the Catholic Church is the only respected institution in Venezuela, the Church has served as a social safety network in a country facing a starvation level poverty, there are charity lunchrooms in almost every parish located in poor neighborhoods and now if you ask the average Venezuela they will be ok if the US invades the country and remove the socialists from power. To that point has reached the desperation of the people in my country
Saludos de otro venezolano. Bendiciones.
HT03 okay. Slow down buddy. Spain and Portugal were fighting socialists and communist, yeah, not Jews. And Jews were never associated with socialism. I know this since I'm a Portuguese. We're catholic, not antisemites
@@joaodealbuquerque8819 The International Brigades were the main soldiers defending the Spanish Republican government and consisted of Jews from all over the world. They looted the Spainish gold reserves and fled to the USSR when they realized the war was lost. This is a fact.
Well, we lost Trump so we might be joining you in a way, soon.
Pray for us
It depends on what we mean by socialism. By the definition used by many socialists (worker control over the means of production) distributism would be a form of socialism, specifically market socialism.
I CRINGE when I see people say that Jesus was a socialist...
Do you not remember Jesus preaching about how you should force yourself on others?
Yes, I hate it too.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 - "Did it not belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How could you conceive such a deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God!”
You're missing the point. It was totally voluntary. No one HAD to give anything. Ananias and Sapphira could have kept all of their money. BUT they misrepresented their generosity in order to appear as being far more generous then they had actually been. In doing so they lied, and not just to the others but to God! God took care of this lie in a speedy manner. The rest of the Church got the message not to try to fool God. He sees everything and today there are many who try to make themselves appear more generous in order to appear more holy. The message is clear - they may not fall dead the instant they do this, but in an attempt to come across as what they are not, it is clear what God's view of them is.
No one HAD to give ... it was a strictly voluntary gesture to give and how much to give. A far cry from socialism.
socialism predates marx. Acts 4:32-35. and it wasn't voluntary. Ananias and Sapphira.
@Hellenback What coerced sharing are you referring to?
Growing up in China, I only need to see your title to like.
But China is extremly capitalist? Aka the opposite of 'communism'
@@whateverlikeda isnt that just hong Kong?
China, im pretty sure is communist and definitely anti catholic.
@@whateverlikeda China is communist and anti-Catholic. They have bulldozed churches at their own will and it's illegal to bring your children to Mass.
@@whateverlikeda they only embraced some elements of capitalism, like enterprenurialship, but everything is under regime od communist party
@@PhilosophyStrizsch no way... Good luck, being an idiot is legit
Greetings from Czech republic!
I am too from CZ :).
I loved visiting Prague. 🇨🇿
If we stay entrenched in definitions and theories as they were proposed in 1891, then we will truly get nowhere when discussing modern competing ideas for establishing the common good of society.
Even towering theological intellects like Pope Benedict XVI recognized the value of the emerging systems of democratic socialism, and knew that, as a competing theory, there could be benefits to such a theory: “But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”
There are few examples of (what today could be referred to as) totalitarian socialism, which is a close relative to the Communism you describe.
It sure is easy to offer a negative critique of something when you use the worst offenders of a particular system as your primary examples.
You're right, it is easy to list more mass murderers than saints among socialists. Socialism is sold to people using Christian ideas but atheism is the only belief system allowed in your system. It's not correct to say English Catholics were socialists in the 16th century but they do share some beliefs. It would be more accurate to say the Protestants were bc some reformers abolished property rights. Who cares though, right? We know it ends in mass murder if the revolution doesn't go as planned. To even consider trying it again makes me suspicious of you. It's not worth the risk.
Ok Catholics what are the best examples? I personally don’t think it has ever really existed except for a few small communities (Mondragon Corp comes to mind).
It does not matter, you cannot steal from others to "help" others. Only by charity can you help the poor.
I find 'Democratic socialism' to ultimately be as disastrous as any of the other forms of socialism.
@@soulfuzz368
Best examples of what?
Btw, 'Mondragon Corp', the wiki article on it was an interesting read, especially the remark of Pol Pot's BFF Naom Chomsky.
"Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others."
'It's in a market system', 'it still exploits', 'do things ... harmful to society', 'ignore negative externalities', what a load of projection coming from such a piece of *** who never met a massmurder ssytem he didn't like as long as it is anti-Western. It quit makes me like 'capitalism'.
However, I think he is right in that Mondragon is indeed a part of 'capitalism'. The term 'Capitalism' is elastic enough to encompass an organisation like that.
let me tell you a little story about socialist communist state, my father lived in one, yugoslavia..He lived in small town, he was catholic, in whole state christmas eve and christmas were not holydays, they were working days, kids had to go to school on christmas! So my father was just a kid, he went to midnight mass, local secret police service were sending their spys to mass so they could see and report who went to mass.. Mass would be over at 2am, my father had to be is school in 8am, you can imagine how tired was he as a kid. And than, on christmas day few teachers would exam him and only those who were at mass, he would get a lot of Fs on christmas day, no matter how his knowledge was...
He didn't have to celebrate chistmas, you know. Why idolize a person that died 2000 years ago? People should have no idols.
@@AnnoNymus you probably worship Fauci
these are all good points but what would you say to one of bernie sanders followers when they say they dont want socialism but democratic socialism like what they have in norway or sweden. I look to those country's and they seem pretty socialist and very very well off and I would ask you how you would react to that counter point they throw at you?
I think this has more to do with the fact that a lot of Americans don’t really know what socialism and communism are and how they are different from one another.
They both have the same materialistic and flawed roots. So their differences don't matter to anyone outside of that camp.
Remove the root, the tree dies.
Americans seem to be ignorant on this and many other matters.
@@sasi5841 The economic system referred to as 'capitalism' is grounded on usury and private ownership of what is God's creation. Christians would not describe themselves as capitalists or supporters of capitalism if they understood this.
@@henrybn14ar private ownership yes. Usury not necessarily!
Some variations supports usury, others no.
I am pretty sure stealing is considered wrong. I private ownership doesnt exists nothing can be stolen. So, it would be redundant to mention anything about stealing.
Things can be stolen if and only if they previously had an owner.
Consider it says not desire what doesn't belong to you, and definitely not to steal, it indirectly supports the concept of private property.
I am pretty sure plenty of philosophers expanded upon this topic.
Even from a practical perspective, not having private property is a bad idea. Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons.
@Carson Phillips social programs are a bad idea for many reasons. It encourages bad faith actors, disincentivizes people from working, breeds envy, etc. It sets up a mentality of entitlement.
Private charity is better, for all its faults, at least it doesn't encourage any of the aforementioned things, at least not to the same extent. Also, since private charity is selective, it would necessarily encourage better behavior towards their neighbors. Since, those who arent well behaved, don't get help.
For example, pretty much every govt run welfare system supports abortion. Those who are against it, their opinions get ignored. But if people had no such support, they would have care about what others think and avoid being promiscuous.
Damn, you are good Brian :-)
I was born in Poland while it was still a communist country. It was a strange one in that respect, because that ideology was forced on us by Soviets and not something people inherently believed. At the same time we were deeply catholic nation. Needles to say that the ruling class wanted to eradicate religion. They failed. I would dare to say that religion was one of main reasons why they did.
I totaly agree with your analysis that many ideologies are based on trivial assumptions and they disregard human nature.
Another example I've seen recently is the idea of 'Secular Humanism' promoted by some atheists. Same simplistic and false asumptions and believe that we are so perfect that we don't need God for establishing etical system. I wonder how many people would need to die again to prove it wrong...
LOL, like we need an imaginary daddy in the sky for ethics...
I can improve on the ten commandments in 5 seconds..
Drop the first 3 as narcissistic rule and add:
Thou shall not Rape,
Thou shall not Torture
and Thou shall not Enslave.
There, so much suffering avoided !
Easy to have BETTER ethics than "God"
And with rational debate we can adjust the rules as needed. improve them, contrary to " Divine edicts "
Just like Science has tools to revise itself as we are gathering evidences, contrary to 'God''s zealot who ignore new knowledge, and cherry pick new evidences and ignore other to keep the conclusion of 'divinity'
Socialism and capitalism are buzzwords... they vaguely insinuate "more markets" or "more state economy" but it seems like everyone picks one to mean "everything good" and use the opposite as a mere scare word. I have no doubt Jesus was not a proponent of Stalinism, but I doubt he would be comfortable with the idolatry of free markets, even to the detriment of family values, as has been the tendency of recent history. There are self-describedsocialist movements in Latin America that have been more or less friendly to the church,, but I think that the terms are so polemically tainted it's difficult to reason with them in the abstract
We should stand against wealth greed and power. Not cower and vote and support capitalists.
Also Marx didn't want to "distribute wealth equally" but he wanted workers to own the means of production or the means by witch something is produced. And if they produce that thing, that they have a right to sell it or keep it.
I'm a web designer too. I've looked at your site and you do lovely work. Good luck to you and God bless.
You get it, you truly get it. Thank you for uploading this. I have subscribed and shared. I am hoping this video finds fertile ground in the minds of those I have shared it with!
Great video, what about anorcho syndicalism?, Like Catolonia (a state in spain the only place where anarchism has worked in a big scale), 'cause anarchy, mostly ancho syndicalism, adresses all of the crtisism that you make, again great video
Please do a „Why I‘m Not a Capitalist“
Yes
I don't think I have ever met someone who recognized that Thomas Moore's Utopia was satire and an intentional misspelling, though Marx would go on to use the word Utopia. The original Greek Eutopia means "a better place"; Moore's spelling of Utopia was a satirical reorganizing of the affix that translates to "not a place."
The very early church did have a commune like economic model that in some ways resembles proto-communism centred on jesus. Were members gifted their wealth to the church to be shared amongst its members through peter's leadership, for example, Barnabas selling his land and giving the money from its sale to the early church . Also consider Ananias and Sapphira following Barnabas' example who sold their land but secretly withheld a portion of the proceeds and because they did so by lying under oath were struck down by the holy spirit.
There's a critical difference. Everyone in that economic situation (100% of the participants) were living that way voluntarily. There was no coercion. No enforcement. No, pay your taxes which will be given to someone else or go to jail. Socialism sounds nice, but it only works if everyone buys in and not everyone will. So what do you do with those who don't want to participate in that type of economic system? You force them... which is an injustice and not something that the Church would ever agree with.
@@BrianHoldsworth I completely agree with that point and I really wasn't inferring otherwise. My family grew up communist country so I fully know the horrors of it.
My point is though the very early church had a collectivist approach in which wealth was shared for the good of the church [and wider community], it didn't matter how much someone came into the church with, like in the case of Barnabas they was expected to be fully used for God's work.
@@BrianHoldsworth
"Socialism sounds nice, but it only works if everyone buys in and not everyone will. "
That's the problem ^^ with literally every human method of grouping or teaming people, not a problem specific to socialism.
You're exhibiting binary thinking. There's just as many problems with capitalism as there are with the (quite actually communist) socialist scenario you are imagining. Bottom line is we all want a fair society where people can make a decent living and where the less fortunate are taken care of. You can call it capitalism with socialist tendencies for the poor (and for medical care) or you can call it socialism with a capitalist economy. Call it whatever you want. You're getting hung up on words. America already is a socialist country. The only argument is over where to draw the line.
We simply cannot go back to early 1900's American capitalism, though. That would be appalling.
@@BrianHoldsworth So you shift the goal post from an argument about sharing and caring to an argument about choice?
@@BrianHoldsworth Church very well forced people to not take part in usury for around 1500 years. As for taxes, it was always used for public welfare for thousands of years since the Roman rule.
1) you can’t equate radical communism and socialism. In Britain we have had some good socialist governments who aren’t about taking all power and wealth and becoming demonic crazed despots like Stalin
2) Russia under Stalin is often used as example of communism being awful but a) without communism is hardly in a good place now. Maybe it’s better now but hardly good. . B) it’s simplistic to use examples like soviet Russia which was an extreme revolution away from a terrible oppressive and unequal monarchy led society that still I think had feudalism etc. It went from one extreme to another, Stalin was just the typical unfortunate dictator type like hitler etc who was able to exploit the turbulent backdrop for his own tyrannical , obsessive ends.
Lumping in leftie politics (which are about more even wealth distribution and a fairer deal for the poorest ) with the extreme and misused forms of communism in unstable and democratically inexperienced regions like russia are as unfair as lumping in all right wing parties ( who are about the freedom and right to keep wealth in certain pockets without government interference) in the world with the extreme right wing experiments in the extreme times (after the catastrophe of WW1) of Germanys fascism.
TFW two kings of Hungary is named along with a saint of a Hungarian royal dynasty (Saint Stephen, Blessed Karl of Austria was also king of Hungary, and Saint Elizabeth from the same dynasty as St. Stephen)
Love the icons in the background!!
Totally off the subject, but sometime I'd like to hear you rock out on those sweet Les Paul's behind you!
The same could be said for runaway capitalism, just go to most cities in the US to see how ‘fair’ capitalism can be. I’m not a ‘socialist’ per sé, however in my part of the world we have free healthcare, free education and the state looks after you from the cradle to the grave, and as much as some people harp on about ‘the evils’ of socialism, there is a healthy balance that can be struck.
Indeed, you’re going to find sin in any society that isn’t the Kingdom of God. Greed is a constant whether in socialism or capitalism. The paradoxical thing about capitalism is that greed becomes a motivator to help the poor: “I want money, so I’ll make something that you want/need to get it.” It is quite evident that the increase of free markets has greatly increased the quality of life all over the planet. Doesn’t mean it is without it’s faults. The big difference between the two systems is that in capitalism, a greedy man is required to continue delivering value to others in voluntary trade; in socialism, greed doesn’t have the same incentive to provide since one just has to be in power to get rich. The logical end of socialism is equality, but it almost invariably ends with equality in poverty.
To draw from symbolism in LOTR, look at the White City of Minas Tirith vs Barad-dur or Orthanc. The former is a healthy pyramidal hierarchy of 7 stages whereas the latter are towers where the one rules from an unattainable height with everyone else on ground level.
But you are breaking God's commandment when the government is funding your "free" education and healthcare. It's wrong to steal from others to "help" others. And those cities sin US are socialist in their policies.
@@johnpglackin345 "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render to God, the things that are God's". Healthcare for all is not about stealing one's money and giving it to someone else, it's a moral obligation of any society as a whole to contribute towards a healthy society, just like it is a moral obligation of society to contribute for the running of the Police/Army.
@@christobabu798 And we help those less fortunate by charity not by government programs. Those who steal from others by using taxation are breaking God's commandment thou shalt not steal. Many "Catholics" are guilty of breaking this Commandment since the 1930's. And we don't need a healthy society, just a moral society. What you propose is evil and against God's will.
@@johnpglackin345 well, your individual efforts at charity, would help only a few people. There is no organisation that can reach out to an entire country than the govt. You bring in a false premise that all taxation is stealing. Any govt has the moral obligation towards the welfare of its citizens. And it's a God-given obligation. You are fine with taxation for police and army, because they specifically serve you. Whereas it's difficult for you to pay taxes to ensure the poor get timely and cheap healthcare, because it doesn't benefit you.
Well, anyways, I have long ago understood that it's pointless arguing this with American capitalist Catholics. They think they are holier than the Pope, because the Pope slightly leans on the socialist side😂
Well done Sir. Your comments here only add to the effectiveness of your vid arguments.
It’s interesting that the countries with which Marx had firsthand experience were protestant. IOW, the Catholic influences on those holding wealth had been mostly dismantled.
In nineteenth century Catholic countries, Russia, and Scandinavia, land ownership was concentrated into the hands of an aristocracy. Outside the cities, people were treated like serfs. Russian and Denmark had land reforms later in the nineteenth century. Marx was not a sound economist; he failed to draw on the works of the Physiocrats, Smith and Ricardo. That task was left to Henry George, who came to the same conclusions as the French Physiocrats, though at the time of his earlier writings he had not yet heard of them. Marxist economics is based on a set of confusions and bogus ideas. I have described them elsewhere in these comments.
I drink and I know things.
Jokes aside, I love your work!.I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples and bastards and broken things.
Tyrion Lannister jokes aside. Keep it up
Please consider doing a video on your opinion of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), the Militia Templi, and the Ordo Militaris Catholicus (individually of course).
Blessed Carl of Austria AND Hungary (was their emperor and our king). Thank you for mentioning two other of our greatest saints!
Human nature is guided by our material conditions and not only our instincts to be corrupt.
Yes! Another brilliantly illuminating video from BH!
Great review, Brian. Your focus was on the moral temptation for power, wealth and fame, but there is also the flip side to man’s broken nature which is the temptation to do less than one ought. Acedia and moral sloth are the swamps on which apathetic societies are built. I’d like to hear you do a review of this. You do such a great job and I’m lazy!
I do aggree that Marx and hardline communism or socialism are not the ways to govern the world, but neither is hardline capitalism. The middle road would be the best one to take, in my opinion. Regulated capitalism with decent social security, reasonable taxation that places the heaviest burden on the strongest shoulders, and good, free/cheap public healthcare. This can be done and is being done in most of western europe
Exactly, good response.
I agree completely it doesn’t make sense to call yourself a communist or a socialist and be religious and i am super left but don’t call myself communist for a reason: every communist & socialist govt had to a certain extent repressed religious people & especially religious minorities
I'm not not a socialist either. I'm a registered Democrat, and teach sociology psychology, English as a second language and fine arts. Master's Degree. I don't like labels. They just hurt people. God bless you, Brian! Religious education, honestly likes to label people, too. It's just as hard for us whether Protestant or Catholic. Keep on teaching and preaching! You are going to be interviewing Bishops someday soon!
What's the specific piece of music you use in your videos?
"The glitch in any system is going to be humanity's moral defects." That be true.
true, but um socialism's case it's also economically impossible, even if it was moral(and it isn't).
@@jonathacirilo5745 how is it economically impossible when it has been accomplished and grown countries economy multiple times
@@mobydickriter2641 lol
Rough times can make you change your position. You think you could hold up like Job?
Pretty clear by 4 minutes in that this guy never ever read Marx, or any sociology studies, and really likes Lord of the Rings films.
My exact thoughts. That mathematical thing he tried to do was also completely off. It isn't about equal distribution, but about distribution according to needs. You don't have to do more than read the Marxism wikipedia page to know that.
I'm not quite clear on what people in North America define as socialism. Communism, simple, I think we all get it, and hopefully, many of us see that not only is it evil, but it has never worked and never will work. But the thing is I do see a lot of forms of what I understand to be socialism going around. Countries (like the US) subsidize whole branches of the economy (like agriculture) is a form of socialism. Anything public (like schools, firefighters, hospitals etc...) can be seen as a form of socialism. The Canadian healthcare system is a form of socialism. Nationalizing industrial sectors (like transport, the postal service, or even banks) are forms of socialism, yet De Gaulle did this and he was quite far from being a socialist. Can't one even state that taxes are a form of socialism, since it's taking money form the wealthiest to redistribute it?
So do people in North America only understand socialism as it being the marxist definition? I really don't get it. And every time I see people from North America talk about socialism, I'm quite confused. What is the North American definition of socialism?
The Soviet Union was called "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Clearly, socialism has had a broader application than what some want to limit it to, and it was broader than North America. I'm not so sure that welfare capitalism is really socialism...it seems like more of an in-between option between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism.
You don't have to be a socialist to know that socialism and Marxism started as two different streams of thought. Marxists gradually infiltrated socialist movements, in Europe before WW1, in Britain not until the 1970s. Brian needs to do a lot of reading before he touches this subject again. It is not his strongest area.
@@andrewsheedy4513 If welfare capitalism isn't based on socialism, then what is socialism? It doesn't matter what a country calls itself, what matters is the economical and political application. Otherwise North Korea is a democracy and a republic.
And that's why we need to get rid of government funding of hospitals and schools to minimize socialism.
@@nerdanalog1707 welfare capitalism is the result of special intetests lobbying the government for entitlements and privileges. This has always happened since the day after government was created. In a free society these special interest are free to assemble and petition the gov. Socialism is where the state decides who gets the favours, its top down rather than bottom up.
Brian, do you think healthcare is a human right or a commodity to be purchased? And, regardless of your answer, how should a healthcare system be funded?
I'm not Brian, but here's my take:
No, it's not a right. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat people with dignity, respect, and compassion.
@@levisando So...dignity, respect, compassion, blah, blah, blah, but no MRIs for poor people if they cannot afford it?
@@levisando lol, at the end of the day, this is what it comes to. While the arguments you guys give against a socialist state makes sense to a large extent, but then, you also don't want to acknowledge that healthcare is a basic right. Just like a society requires the police/army for the society's best interests, a healthy society is also in the society's best interests.
Hey, I have an idea for you. I'm mexican, and although I respect and admire the Christian values I'm also meztizo (like most Mexicans are). The Indigenous community suffered from the holy Inquisition for a long time in the name of envagelism and that left the country to become mostly catholic. Here you mentioned that saying you are a Christian Socialist is like saying your a Jewish Nazi, wouldn't the same be for people to call themselves Meztizo Christians? The same could be said by anyone who comes from a place where Christianity caused a lot of suffering. Could your address this? Is there a solutions to the irony? I just find it a very interesting topic.
Thanks for the vid though :3
Adrick Entertainment I’m curious as to which countries you’re referring to when saying Christianity caused suffering?
Not picking a fight, genuinely curious.
I would say the contradiction comes from the content of the conflicting beliefs.
Let's take the Nazi/Jewish example. We obviously know that being a Nazi and being Jewish at the same time is ironic. But why is this? We know that Nazis killed millions of Jewish people, but why is it that they did so? Was being okay with the killing Jewish people part of being a Nazi? It seems from what we know that to be a Nazi, you had to be ok with some sort of "ethnic cleansing" targeted at Jewish people. Thus, not only did Nazis kill Jewish people, but they also held to the idea that Jewish people ought to be persecuted, tortured, and killed. It wasn't that some Nazis had an extreme view of Naziism. Instead, the content of the Nazi ideology involved and even required the persecution and murder of Jewish people.
Now, I am no history buff, but I will acknowledge that persecution and murder on a grand scale took place on the indigenous communities in the "New" World (I am only saying I am no history buff because I know some people like to argue around this history, for whatever reason). A lot of the violence was used to justify the cause of, as you said, evangelization and Christianization of indigenous people. However, is this actually a Christian view? Can we imagine Christianity, as an ideology, without the views of those who misused their faith to persecute indigenous peoples? I think that the answer is yes. These views were a perversion of Christian tradition and doctrine. Persecution is a direct contradiction to Christianity, even if some Christians tried to justify its place at some point in history. Those who called themselves Christians and justified murder were bad Christians (they weren't Christian in my opinion).
To sum it up, I guess I would just respond with a question: Is someone a Nazi if they believe that persecuting Jewish people is wrong, or is this an essential view to have if you are a Nazi?
Substitute Christian for Nazi and Indigenous peoples for Jewish people in the question and I think you will answer the question very differently.
So calling yourself a Meztizo Christian is not like calling yourself a Jewish Nazi.
Nic McDonald
That actually makes a lot of sense.
For more on socialism and communism from a traditional Catholic perspective (abandoned by the Vatican II popes) see the first 5 chapters of this very important book, one that is relatively unknown because widely suppressed by the Masters of Discourse, i.e., The Plot Against the Church, holywar.org/txt/pinay/default.htm. You'll learn a great deal from the other chapters as well. As one reviewer wrote:
"Too few people understand how historically significant this book really is. "Maurice Pinay" was the pseudonym of 12 conservative members of the college of cardinals who were opposed to the foreseen planned hijacking of Vatican II. The Plot Against the Church was their attempt to expose the real historical context of Vatican II. In doing so, it tells the tale of history as Europe's native clerical elite has perceived it-- a tale that's been all but lost, which we MUST NOT LOSE.
"Though these cardinals' goals were frustrated, their book is still a fantastic catalog of Lost History. For this reasons alone, The Plot Against the Church is one of the most immensely important books of our time. The scholarship is also quite good, especially since the cited works are usually excellent historical sources written in languages other than English (Spanish, Italian, French, German, Russian) so you don't see them cited much in English-language books dealing with the same subjects."
Amen. Thanks for making this video.
This video has so many nonsequiturs and wrong assumptions that it was hard to watch. Hell, the title is "Why I'm Not a Socialist" and the video is "Why I'm Not a Communist"... Yet I don't think you are engaging in bad faith and you sound really sincere in your beliefs. I would like you to have a debate/discussion with Vaush about socialism and with Rationality Rules about Christianity, I think it would be really fun to have those types of conversations in good faith.
Thank you for putting my vague thoughts into words. I knew I wasn't either capitalist nor socialist but couldn't express the reasons why. God bless you and your ministry.
Socialism is not the act of redistributing wealth. A socialist society isn’t one of heavy taxation and welfare programs. It is one in which (necessary) industries are publicly owned and the fruits of these industries are not produced for profit, but for the good of everyone. In the current model of capitalism, houses are primarily built in the prospect of turning a profit. It it didnt turn a profit no private company would build housing. In socialism, houses will be built for the purpose of housing.
This is what I have always thought. I am glad to hear it succinctly stated. God bless.
In America if we create a system where people are paid to not work or less-skilled employees are promoted above more-skilled employees (such as with DEI or fem equity) then a rational argument forms in the minds of the skilled workforce that socialism/communism is the lesser of the two evils in the near term, because then at least they are paid as much as the substandard population. We are at a culturally precarious moment and it reeks of top-down strategy.
What are your thoughts about Distributism?
Distributism was a movement which never addressed the need to set out the concrete legal and fiscal framework to put their principles into practice. When it was pointed out to the leading members of the movement at the time that the ideas of Henry George were precisely what was needed, the message never sank in. One of the problems was that the main guidance from the church at the time was _Rerum Novarum,_ which is confused about what it misleadingly refers to as 'property'; like 'assets, it is a weasel word which includes many different categories of thing.
Let's not forget that most of the problems he presents also apply to capitalism (or any other economic system for that matter).
No, capitalism gives people economic sovereignty. Socialism enslaves people for the preeminent wants of the state
@@suem6004 agreeing with the video, poverty and other social problems do not disappear just by having the "good" economic system. In capitalism you also have selfishness, greed, desire to dominate others etc. Denying this is just disingenuous.
@@suem6004 Yea. sovereignty to lead people into wars. The consequences of which many of us are facing now, while the actual ones who ffcaused it had their coffers full.
Brian is right. For a detailed explanation of WHY he is right read the classic economic treatise "The Road to Serfdom" by Frederick Hayek.
Glad you included Karl I in your list of examples.
If you’ve read Marx, or just any classical political economist, you’ll know the equation for capital is M-C-M’ or Money invests in a good, worked upon through human labor, to increase its value to produce more money, or M’. Marx states that M’ (M prime) is theoretically infinite, and so the quest for profit is unquenchable. What social and spiritual effects it has the subject of investigation for Marx. If you don’t believe me, read the Philosophical and Economic Manuscripts of 1844, Capital Vol. I for starters. As much I love Brian’s channel, I think he’s misinformed about Marxist theory.
Marxist economic theory is based on at least three fundamental flaws.
1) Land is conflated with capital, which itself is never precisely defined. Land and capital have different attributes, have different origins and have different price-setting mechanisms.
2) Marx's Labour Theory of Value. Marx correctly observes that value comes from labour, but fails to observe that not all value comes from labour. He also, incorrectly, argues that the value of an object is derived from the amount of labour that went into its production. The second of these errors led to a great deal of mischief, as its obvious absurdity gave rise to a widespread view that denies that there is any connection at all between labour and value.
3) Having myself studied classical economics, the M-C-M notion is not something I would think a classical economist would even recognise. 'Money' is merely a medium of exchange. Credit is used for the purchase of physical capital (buildings, machines, etc), which are placed in favourable locations for production. Labour is applied to this physical capital to add value and produce goods. These goods are then worth more than the raw materials that went into them. The produce is then sold and the receipts for the sale are then distributed. The recipients are the providers of the credit and raw materials, the workers, paid at the going wage rate, and the government, though taxation. Any surplus is collected as rent by the land owner. This is the standard economic analysis developed by the French Physiocrats, Smith, Ricardo and George.
'Profits' is another uselessly vague term which can mean reward for labour, payment for credit, or rent of land; it is a book-keeper's measure which has no place in serious economics theory.
Universal basic income now!
Instead of taxes get the money from big tech.
Excellent reflection Thank you, Brian.
I had read that “utopia” was derived from Greek “eutopia” meaning “good place”, but you got me to verify, and I got schooled: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia#Etymology
👍🏻
It’s the Institution of state government (men) vs institution of God (The Church). Christians didn’t give up all their things to the government of the country, but to the Church. They trusted the Church that much, but to the state government that’s instituted by men- no, they just gave “to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.”
Are you advocating the abolition of government?
Hi Brian. Maybe one day you can do a vid. on *"Re-distributionism"*. I believe a product of the church, long ago. Thanks & stay safe!
@@mechawisp I'm sorry, you're right. I think it would be interesting. Evidently, it worked well in Europe. Thanks for the correction.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 Distributism did not work. Its proponents never formulated the political, economic, fiscal and legislative framework which were necessary to lift it from being a mere theory. They were hampered by being stuck with the muddled concepts in _Rerum Novarum._
the Seventh Commandement "You shall not steal" implies that God expected people to have private property, therefore communism goes against God.
but in a Capitist world we violate the First Commandemnt " because we idolize as gods our material world"
Communism and socialism are fully materialist world views with some tendencies to idealism. Christianity is fully idealistic. Christianity: building better world with better people (saints) on their way to Paradise. Communism: building paradise on Earth with sinful people. You can't build a paradise for mortal sinners, it ceases to be Paradise in a second. That's why we, sinners have to complete the journey and become better before getting to paradise.
Just one comment: The subject heading is not in anyway misleading. You are making it clear that you are giving us your opinion. Other subjects are also clearly you opinion, but often the heading seems to imply that you are supplying a more authoritative view.
Why The Youth Want Tradition, Sexuality is a Choice, How to Dress for Church, The Valitidy of Vatican II (Vatican II Valid?), The Idolatry of Modern Art (How Modern Art Leads to Idolatry), The Reason the Youth Leave the Church and probably the whole 'Ecclesiastical' play list.
I get that this is no simple thing and I have no problem with a headline that draws you in, but IMHO, a lot of these headings suggest a kind of personal authority and rely on lots of contestable assumptions yet are still based, to a large extent, on hunches or unsupported conclusions.
This is fine if you want to build a narrow like-minded audience, aka, preaching to the choir. The danger is that it becomes an ego thing rather than a genuine attempt to 'take the message to the world'.
Hey Brian, thanks for this video, it's a topic I've been struggling with myself. While most of the content currently out there criticize socialism based on concepts such as it's disregard for personal property, I love how you pointed out the fragility of human will to do good and the deficiencies of a materialist only approach. Would you happen to have any recommended readings for this?
The Pope and Church dogma on reproductive freedom make them incompatible with socialism. Male labor can not be free as long as women in labor are chained to their biology.
when the church was a true player in european power games, they played by the same rules as every other monarchy
Better dead than red
You can agree with some parts of an idea and disagree with other parts of an idea
True, but to be honest, one shouldn't take on a label that they don't fully agree with.
@@markpugner9716 that is a good point to
All the problems you talk about regarding socialism and it’s incompatibility with Christianity are also true for Christianity and capitalism. Christianity is not political, capitalism fails when people are depraved and socialism fails when people are depraved. This is why religion is necessary and separate from politics
This is undoubtedly true.
You are wrong on the definition of socialism. You're going off based on tropes. Your description of a system where a small amount of people accumulate all the wealth and share it with their friends is an apt description of capitalism.
Socialism is not Statr ownership of property - it is collective ownership of property, communist regimes of the past believed that this could be done through the state acting as a representative of working class interests.
Socialism doesn't have to be brutal or oppressive. Bob Moore voluntarily gave ownership of his company to his employees before passing away a few days ago. If you look at the model his company, Bob's Red Mill, as well as other worker owned cooperatives which are quite successful and offer an alternative to shareholder driven interest model of capitalism that originates in the United States.
Socialism is an answer to the cultural decay that is happening all over the world because of capitalism. The glorification of drug use, atheism, sex, and other forms of negative behavior are an outcome of the system we live in. Denying this is illogical and in opposition to common sense.
If you studied Marxism as a theory though, you will find that as a model is fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism due to its material mode of analysis. Alternate forms of socialism compatible with Christianity are possible however, and I would argue that distrubutism is one step away from socialism.
I needed this video! Thanks!
Redistribution???
Hopefully a helpful criticism; Marxism the sociological science behind communism and socalism is Materialistic. That being it looks at the material conditions that affect how society and people are formed.
In socalist countries, or former socalist countries, Christianity was seen as part of the ruling class or part of a colonial power forced upon a population.
The Russian revolution saw the wide prosecution of Orthodoxy as the Russians, Stalin himself formerly being a devout Christian (almost joining the Orthodox Church) saw the Church ignoring the needs of the peasantry, ingratiating themselves with nobility and hoarding unbelievable wealth that could have been used for socail goods.
When the revolution started, the people of Russia had little sympathy for the church that had so neglected them and in a violent war, the mob saw fit that they were not spared.
This is a tragic tale, it lead to state atheism (inspired by Marx) but it was only possible because of the material conditions of the russian people.
China for its part saw Christianity as a cancer forced onto them by colonialists such as France, England and Portugal. Which was not an incorrect belief. So when the cultural revolution occurred, a tragic time that the modern Chinse government has admitted, it saw Christianity and Colonial powers prosecuted.
Since then however China has rebuilt church's and even declared many as a heritage site.
I make no apology for the awful atrocities committed in these revolutions, but to denounce socalism based off of this is silly.
Akin to decrying catholisim for the sacking of Constantinople and persecution of other Christians.
We are subject to our material conditions and without faith to guide us we fall into barbarity. If we can guide socalist principles, of charity, unity and cooperation then I think it could be the greatest system the world will ever see.
Anyway God be with you ❤
BRILLIANT......AGAIN.....GOD BLESS YOU
This is not even accurate historically, and I belong to a church where many suffered under Marxist regimes. A am as opposed to Marxism as Brian but this is not one of his better efforts.
There is a reason why the poor are poor and the rich are rich.
Maybe cos im British...but i see the NHS as a very Christian response in order to help others. Not all Socialism is a bad idea.
The NHS isn't socialism.
5:58-6:08
Brian, I loved this, but help me with something:
5:29-5:40
How do we marry the near-monstrous image of God of the OT?
Indeed, socialism has little regard for the individual subject, who is abstracted away in favor of the generic group and objective 'scientific rule'. It is the ideology of the machine, where even moral decisions are made technically. This is where we find ourselves today. Human perceptions and experience are being denied, in favor of the camera, so that real life can become substituted with virtual techno-socialism. Equality will not be reached until we abolish the human being. As you point out, this also makes it blind against human corruption and personal accountability.
Excellent!
There is a huge difference between volontarily give some of your wealth to charity or even better give your TIME to dress the undress or visit the inmates...
And take with force money earned honestly by people FOR YOU to then redistribute according to your good sense.
I don't agree either that it's moral to redistribute money or wealth, I think it's moral to help others. But we can't force people to do what we think it's right, can we?
Calling yourself a Catholic socialist/communist would be no different than calling yourself a Native American US citizen
Erm... Bad analogy. The peoples of the First Nations don't all fall into one category.
It is pointless saying you are or are not a socialist. Some things such as public health need to be socialised and not be the object of private profit. Other things such as the production of consumer goods are best left in the hands of the private sector. The black and white ,one or the other argument is unhelpful and polarising and will never lead to social harmony or a better society.
I very much disagree with you. No one in their right mind would call what occured in the USSR socialist. One of the Primary tenants of socialism is workers control of the means of production. People gesture to failed "socialist" and I always ask. 1. Was the state democratic? 2. Did the workers own/control the means of production? If these two conditions are not met than what you are describing is the Use of Socialist rhetoric to promote a transfer of power. The thing about socialist rhetoric is people love hearing it. It is easy to rile up revolutionaries with socialist vocabulary even if you have no intention of instituting socialism.
Socialism works perfectly, for ants and bees but humans have individual identities and these differences lead to the corruption of the USSR and the Chinese Communist Party
Wait, you disagree with his explanation behind his personal choices, like you know him better than he knows himself?
Earth is a cemetery. Or dont you know that?
This is attacking a Soviet straw man here. Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship and not communist. In communism there’s equal governance-not a dictator. They were on their way to socialism and had moved to the dictatorship of the proletariat but it failed and became state capitalist economy because other revolutions-especially Germany’s-failed and socialism cannot work in isolation without global change.
In essence, what Pius XI denounced is not what socialists mean by socialism. Catholic communism would be something such as, “Communal living among members who share equally in the community’s goods.”
One doesn't have to be a Marxist to be pro-socialism. This false idea about what socialism is is consistent throughout the entire video and it is exactly why discussions of things like Acts 4:32 are dismissed with saying things like, “It’s the same as the difference between voluntarily giving your money to charity and having government seize your income to distribute it as they see fit. Just because the early Christians chose to live communally because they were rejected by most other elements of Jewish and Roman society doesn’t mean they were mandated to give up all their private property (Trent Horn, 2020).” Yeah, and if there is a STATE seizing property, there is NO socialism to be found. Full stop.
Saying that human nature will always prevent the goodness of socialism is de facto absurd vis a vis Christian grace and the ontological change that accompanies it. To say that socialism has only brought murder, starvation, etc. is to ignore successful manifestations of it, its incorporation in mixed economies, welfare states, and first and foremost to continue to name state capitalists and dictators socialist. The same exact horrors that you inscribe to socialism are exactly the products of capitalist economies. Socialism happens when the people uniformly and collectively desire it or when the state withers away because it is no longer necessary. I can name out a ton of very respected Catholics who are socialist leaning. Nearly all our brothers and sisters living monastically are living proof. My favorite go to would be Dorothy Day.
Catholic socialism might be something like life under the rule of St Benedict. But this is voluntary and draws on the grace of God. Communism as it has manifested in communist regimes is inherent in the programme set out by Marx himself. Incidentally, his economics is bogus, which does not help. As regards private property, this is a topic bedevilled by confusions over definition. Neither man nor the state can legitimately own that which is the free gift of God, which rules out both communist and capitalist systems of economic organisation as being anti-Christian. Democratic socialism covers a range of systems. As a Swede, I have to say that our system has left a legacy of problems which we are not dealing with very well.
@@henrybn14ar Communism must be voluntary because there is no state in communism. Any talk of Marx or consequences of his thought is superfluous to my comment.
@@AnthonyThomason14 The fatal allure of Marx and his ideas has not gone away. Russia is inevitably what it leads to. Voluntary communism eg in religious communities, is a separate issue. This is about the organisation of the political economy. We have two false systems competing against each other.
LOTR reference. Amazing
Agree with everything.
Please consider quoting Marx to prove that you’ve read him, because, from what I can tell, you haven’t. I get equally frustrated with atheists that take shots at Pascal without actually citing what he said.
Why should he prove that he's read Marx?
Being French, this is always so weird to me
Yes but any system of organizing humans will be susceptible to human moral failings.. What about socialism makes it more susceptible to greed than capitalism? In capitalism greed is actively incentivized.. I am really looking for good arguments to challenge socialism.
In case you didn't see it, he has another video released around this time called "Why I'm Not a Capitalist."
Maybe he'd agree that socialism is more susceptible to greed than capitalism, but he's not saying that capitalism is, all things considered, better than socialism.
If you asked me, I'd say that socialism and capitalism are both susceptible to greed but in different ways. Greed becomes a problem in socialism when the people in charge start abusing the system, but hopefully there are safety measures in place to address that. Greed becomes a problem in capitalism when people collude to prevent customers from shopping around for the best deal, but again, hopefully there are safety measures in place.
Like you said, any system is susceptible to human failings.
A critique to the beginning of the video, communism/socialism are economic ideologies, while Nazism is not. You CAN be a communist/socialist and Christian, because communism and socialism have nothing to do with religion, only economy, only money. I would say I am a socialist Christian, but I recently converted to buddhism.
> You CAN be a communist/socialist and Christian, because communism and socialism have nothing to do with religion, only economy, only money.
I think a lot of people would say that you can't, because communism and socialism have economic teaching that aren't compatible with Christian teaching.
Hello from the U.S.🇺🇸
This video is so important to understand how devoid socialism is of morality.
Both systems are diabolic. Capitalism is founded on usury and private theft of the gifts of God.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 I was sceptical about Ayn Rand but despite her atheism, she has some useful insights if you take the trouble to listen to what she herself says.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 than don't buy anything from that company. That's how it's supposed to work. Same thing if you work for the company and either don't like the working conditions or you don't think you are getting paid enough you find another job. It's that simple. Don't make it more complicated.
Morality is subjective. You don't like some idea, but stop calling it "immoral".
I find capitalism to be immoral.
Brian,
I liked this video, but you should address the issue with capitalism, which I actually think has become worse in some ways.
Yeah, you didn't read Marx.
l am get to find a Catholic speaker who actually engaged with Marxism.
Your definition of socialism doesn't really adequately explain the idea of a workers state, I don't really think you have a lot of experience in understanding what socialism is outside of the standard red scare talking points. And you point out issues of a centralized state controlled heavily bureaucratic economy which is also heavily criticized by many socialists. Socialism is extremely varied, even within marxist thought and it's fine to criticize it but this is criticizing an inaccurate caricature instead of the actual aspects. This completely ignores the multiple religious socialist movements that disagreed with marx's take on religion which was more based on the idea that organized religions serve to legitimize capitalist oppression. Because if you truly care about people you would see the inherent oppression that is required and encouraged within capitalism.
So a guy makes a video explaining why he doesn't hold certain opinions, and your response is that there's other opinions that could be given the same label, and therefore he doesn't truly care about people? Great comment!
@@markpugner9716 reading comprehension issue
@@dudeonthasopha On my part?
No, you do not present Marx's thought correctly. He did not say that the wealth should be divided equally. This is very widely spread mistaken understanding of Marx. Marx gave us understanding of how social systems in history substitute each other, how inside one system new forces grow and finally become strong to create a new system. For example, how inside feudal system new capitalism grew up. One needs to read real Marx's works and do not listen to interpretations.
God Bless
Smashed the 'like' button immediately at the reference to the Lord of the Rings.
im going to try and be respectful because you seem genuine, but communism nor socialism are focused on simply distributing wealth, furthermore a state is antithetical to communism, and it’s not even inherent to socialism.
communism - a stateless, classless, moneyless, communal society, in which private property does not exist, but personal property does.
socialism - a system in which the workers own, or control the means of production, and private property is abolished, but personal property still exists (your house, car, phone, etc.)
neither of these require an oppressive state to function, the regimes that most often called themselves communist were state socialist regimes, that claimed to have the goal of eventually eroding the state away to achieve communism which has no state. state socialism is contrasted with libertarian socialism which emphasizes a decentralized state where the workers control the means of production, the point is, an oppressive state is not inherent to socialism and its actually antithetical to communism. also there are many variants of socialism and communism that differ from Marx’s ideas, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, and Christian socialism are examples.
what confuses me is that you’re critiquing socialism based on two things, the failures of socialist states, and marx ignoring the moral aspect to the issue as an atheist and, “not considering how man can be corrupted,” but at the beginning of the video you dismiss the idea of catholic and christian socialism, wouldn’t the religious aspect to those ideologies be the missing piece to the puzzle as they would resolve the issue of morality? i mean sure, leftists have historically fought catholics and christians, but the reason for that conflict is often deeper than they just hate religion, the Catholics and Christian’s you’re mentioning often had direct ties and supported the monarchies of those countries, or even the fascist / nationalist regimes like in Spain, socialism doesn’t have to be atheistic, as long as the church teaches love, and isn’t used as a tool to manipulate, divide, and control.
how about you study canada, scandinavia..etc you know, other kind of socialism
I sincerely hope and pray that the democrats and the pope, along with many in the hierarchy, watch this video and take it's messege to heart. Our problems will only be solved when we all come to Christ Jesus! They will not be solved through legislation or through contrived means of justice. In Christ, Andrew