Question For My Catholic Friends Is Mormonism Inconsistent With Distributism

[The Nehor]

Is that to be done by force? If you say no, then socialism or any from of government we have now is wrong. So it always amazes me that people think that our current government is fit to do these things. And if you say yes, then you do not under stand that laws of the gospel.

No, it is to be done by coercion. Live this law or be cast out of Zion's economic order (and by extension Celestial glory).

[The Nehor]

And there is not much difference in socialism or fascism. They are the same side of the coin with few differences.

So modern Sweden is basically 1930s fascist Italy? Really? I am not sure you know what you are talking about.

[thesometimesaint]

Is that to be done by force? If you say no, then socialism or any from of government we have now is wrong. So it always amazes me that people think that our current government is fit to do these things. And if you say yes, then you do not under stand that laws of the gospel.

 

Humans do have it. It's called Theocracy. Unfortunately;  We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous dominion.

[thesometimesaint]

And there is not much difference in socialism or fascism. They are the same side of the coin with few differences. Neither are compatible with the gospel.

 

Which system currently would allow you to chose what to do with your stewardship? Is that socialism? Is that the free markets?

 

They are polar opposites of each other.

 

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

 

Neither.

[3DOP]

Can only the Catholics lay claim to distributism? Is it only a moral doctrine that Catholics can implement?

 

 

The economic principles of distributism have been proposed by some as teachings of the Catholic Church by which the civil authorities are supposed to take guidance in law making. The Church does not seem to have progressed much beyond Leo's encyclicals as far as definitive teaching on economic principles. In my opinion, good Catholics can disagree about economics. However, assuming the Catholic Church did officially define and promote distributism as having its derivation developed legitimately from Apostolic Tradition, the Church would have the authority to instruct civil authorities, but only the civil authorities would have authority to implement the policies. 

 

So in answer to your question, a Catholic state would implement the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, economics included. However, It would seem to violate modern principles against religion interfering in civil authority. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from officially proclaiming that a particular economic system has been revealed to be true and to inform civil authorities of the obligation of states to obey revealed teaching as it relates to civil authority. But again, at least in the United States, one runs into the repugnancy of Americans (modern) against anything that might savor of theocracy. Right?

 

3DOP

Edited April 15, 2014 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

A fundamental flaw in Distributism is the idea that Capitalism concentrates to capture the State in Socialism. It doesn't, that is Fascism.

Capitalism does concentrate wealth over time if not regulated, and overly concentrated wealth eventually leads either to revolution or oligarchy.

[Stone holm]

The economic principles of distributism have been proposed by some as teachings of the Catholic Church by which the civil authorities are supposed to take guidance in law making. The Church does not seem to have progressed much beyond Leo's encyclicals as far as definitive teaching on economic principles. In my opinion, good Catholics can disagree about economics. However, assuming the Catholic Church did officially define and promote distributism as having its derivation developed legitimately from Apostolic Tradition, the Church would have the authority to instruct civil authorities, but only the civil authorities would have authority to implement the policies. 

 

So in answer to your question, a Catholic state would implement the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, economics included. However, It would seem to violate modern principles against religion interfering in civil authority. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from officially proclaiming that a particular economic system has been revealed to be true and to inform civil authorities of the obligation of states to obey revealed teaching as it relates to civil authority. But again, at least in the United States, one runs into the repugnancy of Americans (modern) against anything that might savor of theocracy. Right?

 

3DOP

Right about theocracy. Although the law of consecration has some aspects of distributism, I think after the Feds made it to dangerous to set up united order colonies, the Church adapted for awhile to something very similar to distributism. Given that belief and given Popes had also developed Distributism, it suggests to me that there is something about Christian thinking that pulls towards distributism as the compromise as good as it gets economic system outside of a theocracy run by Christ Himself.

[thesometimesaint]

Capitalism does concentrate wealth over time if not regulated, and overly concentrated wealth eventually leads either to revolution or oligarchy.

 

The key is well regulated. Revolutions generally aren't very successful, the oligarchs(The names on the checks change) win those every time. The only safeguard is through constant vigilance.

[Stone holm]

And there is not much difference in socialism or fascism. They are the same side of the coin with few differences. Neither are compatible with the gospel.

 

Which system currently would allow you to chose what to do with your stewardship? Is that socialism? Is that the free markets?

 

Actually, distributism utilizes a free market.  The Capitalism that we call capitalism today, is more of an oligarchy especially after wealth becomes concentrated.  Distributism staunchly believes in private property, but requires that it be widespread.  It is very similar to what the First Presidency said in their early statement on economics, which it wouldn't hurt if it was printed off on little print outs like we do with the Proclamation on the Family, given it is probably equally relevant.

[The Nehor]

The key is well regulated. Revolutions generally aren't very successful, the oligarchs(The names on the checks change) win those every time. The only safeguard is through constant vigilance.

The French Revolution disagrees.

[Stone holm]

The French Revolution disagrees.

 

So does the Russian, but neither were particularly successful.  Communism winds up with a ruling elite and a lot peon comrades, Capitalism winds up with a ruling elite and a lot of peon workers.  So some form of middle road is needed which sounds an awful lot like Distributism -- and it fascinates me that both the Catholics and for awhile the Mormons were working on economic systems that looked an awful lot alike (not the initial United Order -- but the local production motif that was in vogue from the period after the Feds put the United Order colonies out of business until say WWI or later).