The Pope Isn't A Communist?

[3DOP 2,930]

 

Could one imagine an image of a smiling Pius VII receiving a "crucifix" on a small guillotine? Or a smiling Pius XII receiving a "crucifix" on a Swastika?

[David13 30]

I was convinced before this.

But yes, there is the proof. 

And after what he said about gun manufacturers, he's public enemy number 1, or in the top 100,000 or so to me.

dc

[halconero 3,533]

From the BBC:

"Some reports say the Pope was embarrassed, telling Mr Morales: This isn't good"."

[halconero 3,533]

Also, his initial reaction:

[Storm Rider 6,177]

It is a disturbing event.  What bothered me more is that the cross with hammer & sickle was a replica of a carving created by a Spanish Jesuit priest, Luis Espinal Camp.  What in the heck was a priest carving such a thing? 

 

I seem to recall that Jesuits have had a problem in the political thinking in South America that got them in hot water in the recent past. 

 

This was not for Pope Francis. 

[thesometimesaint 4,962]

While I'm not a fan of Picasso if someone wants to give me his "Guernica" I won't turn it down.

[Spammer 572]

Anyone who has read Marx knows that Communism is defined as ownership of the means of production and control of the state by the workers.  The world has yet to see a communist state in operation.  To my knowledge, although the Pope calls for gun control and greater regard and concern for the poor, he has not advocated that.  Pope Francis is not a communist, by definition. What most people think communism is, is actually socialism - defined as ownership of the means of production and organization of society by the state. 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Spammer

[Avatar4321 3,918]

I'd rather know what conversation was occurring before making a determination on anything.

[Storm Rider 6,177]

Well, to begin with, I think Evo Morales is not a politician that demands a great deal of respect.  He was the one that chose such a gift when he met the Pope Francis and it obviously has not gone over well.  Maybe a trip to Venezuela is in order to observe how a socialist government can work both efficiently and well. 

[ERayR 5,897]

Well, to begin with, I think Evo Morales is not a politician that demands a great deal of respect.  He was the one that chose such a gift when he met the Pope Francis and it obviously has not gone over well.  Maybe a trip to Venezuela is in order to observe how a socialist government can work both efficiently and well. 

 

Or maybe not so well.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/17/venezuela-shortages-explained_n_7298426.html

[halconero 3,533]

It is a disturbing event.  What bothered me more is that the cross with hammer & sickle was a replica of a carving created by a Spanish Jesuit priest, Luis Espinal Camp.  What in the heck was a priest carving such a thing? 

 

I seem to recall that Jesuits have had a problem in the political thinking in South America that got them in hot water in the recent past. 

 

This was not for Pope Francis. 

 

Liberation theology, a combination of Marxist political positions with Catholic theology. Many of the leaders were priests. My dad's family was involved with it, and so had to leave Chile when Pinochet overthrew Allende.

 

To give you an idea, they had a picture of Christ's casting out the money changers from the temple alongside a lithograph of Vladimir Lenin.

[The Nehor 24,914]

I was once given a book about by Scientology as a gift from a Scientologist. I accepted it graciously and even read some of it.

 

Guess that makes me a Scientologist. Praise XENU!!!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram 1,395]

Anyone who has read Marx knows that Communism is defined as ownership of the means of production and control of the state by the workers.  The world has yet to see a communist state in operation. 

Is that not a bit of a contradiction? Think about it. And I don't mean this in a rude or snarky tone.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[The Nehor 24,914]

Is that not a bit of a contradiction? Think about it. And I don't mean this in a rude or snarky tone.

 

Not really, you could call any company owned by employees communist in a sense. The doctor organizations I work with where the doctors buy into the company are in some sense communist though also elitist unless they let the receptionist buy in. I imagine a better example would be a factory where the workers all have part-ownership of the company. It wouldn't be state-mandated communism but the workers would own the capital as well as their labor. There is a lot to be said for such an organization in an age where employees are feeling increasingly disconnected from their jobs and productivity is on the decline.

 

I have yet to see anticommunists raving against stock options but they are a kind of communism.

Edited July 22, 2015 by The Nehor

[thesometimesaint 4,962]

Not really, you could call any company owned by employees communist in a sense. The doctor organizations I work with where the doctors buy into the company are in some sense communist though also elitist unless they let the receptionist buy in. I imagine a better example would be a factory where the workers all have part-ownership of the company. It wouldn't be state-mandated communism but the workers would own the capital as well as their labor. There is a lot to be said for such an organization in an age where employees are feeling increasingly disconnected from their jobs and productivity is on the decline.

 

I have yet to see anticommunists raving against stock options but they are a kind of communism.

 

Productivity on the decline. Where?

[The Nehor 24,914]

Productivity on the decline. Where?

U.S. Workers used to produce more "wealth" per hour then any other country. We have been passed by the Germans and the French last time I checked. Employee satisfaction in the United States is dipping as well.

So we are more unhappy and produce less. Not a good trend. While not serious yet it should be addressed.

[thesometimesaint 4,962]

We still produce a lot of wealth on a per worker basis.

SEE http://small-business.ezinemark.com/countries-with-highest-productivity-7736ec8fd8ec.html

 

Small changes in relative position don't make a decline.

 

I think we have a level of economic dissatisfaction that is unsupportable for much longer.

[Stone holm 820]

Anyone who has read Marx knows that Communism is defined as ownership of the means of production and control of the state by the workers.  The world has yet to see a communist state in operation.  To my knowledge, although the Pope calls for gun control and greater regard and concern for the poor, he has not advocated that.  Pope Francis is not a communist, by definition. What most people think communism is, is actually socialism - defined as ownership of the means of production and organization of society by the state. 

 My understanding is the he is a Distributist which is in alignment with Catholic economic thought, as well as early Mormon thought

[ERayR 5,897]

Anyone who has read Marx knows that Communism is defined as ownership of the means of production and control of the state by the workers.  The world has yet to see a communist state in operation.  To my knowledge, although the Pope calls for gun control and greater regard and concern for the poor, he has not advocated that.  Pope Francis is not a communist, by definition. What most people think communism is, is actually socialism - defined as ownership of the means of production and organization of society by the state. 

 

They have all failed

[thesometimesaint 4,962]

FDR saved Capitalism from itself.

[ERayR 5,897]

FDR saved Capitalism from itself.

 

 

Not from my pov.

[Storm Rider 6,177]

Agreed.  Not in a million years did FDR save Capitalism.  We are getting off topic, but suffice it to say that his policies have resulted in far more damage to our country than any good he accomplished.  He certainly is not one of my favorite presidents and don't like the fact there is a giant monument to him in D.C.  That always has left a sour taste in my mouth.  Did not like his policies and did not like his actions in WWII. 

Edited August 2, 2015 by Storm Rider

[thesometimesaint 4,962]

Agreed.  Not in a million years did FDR save Capitalism.  We are getting off topic, but suffice it to say that his policies have resulted in far more damage to our country than the any good he accomplished.  He is certainly not one of my favorite presidents and don't like the fact there is a giant monument to him in D.C.  That always has left a sour taste in my mouth.  Did not like his policies and did not like his actions in WWII. 

 

The Hoover Institute is hardly my idea of a liberal group, but here they are agreeing that FDR saved Capitalism,

SEE http://www.hoover.org/research/how-fdr-saved-capitalism

[Storm Rider 6,177]

I agree that the Hoover Institute has a slight conservative leaning only because its vision statement includes support of private enterprise.  Regardless, the article you cited is unconvincing.  FDR had no deep, abiding commitment to capitalism; rather he had an abiding commitment to remaining in power and successfully coopted the platforms of the socialist movements that were gaining strength throughout the western world including the USA.   More importantly, the fact that Democrats and Republicans have consistently conspired to squelch third party movements in order to maintain their duel power bases remains a powerful influence on minimizing all third parties. 

 

FDR was not waving the flag of capitalism; however, as the article states,

 

"And though many leftists recognized that Roosevelt was trying to save capitalism, they could not afford to risk his defeat by supporting a national third party."

 

It was those within the socialist and communists movements that viewed Roosevelt as saving capitalism; not Roosevelt himself. 

 

I get their points, I just think it is a stretch and I don't buy their logic or argument. 

[Stone holm 820]

FDR's pre-war policies did not pull us out of the depression, they did, however, give the common people hope and restored their dignity. Had there not have been an intervention similar to his America might well have gone communistic...historians refer to the 30's as the Red decade for a reason. Ultimately, it took the massive economic intervention of WWII to bring us out of the depression. That is the problem with the free market argument that the New Deal didn't bring us out of the depression WWII did scenario. It proves too much, the New Deal didn't go far enough with government intervention, but the war rectified that. I had a cousin who argued that the Vietnam War was a failure insofar as making the Pacific Rim safe for democracy, but a success for making it safe for Capitalism. Unfortunately, Americans equate capitalism with democracy, that is not the case. You can have a democracy and a semi socialist economy as Western Europe has established. What is not clear is whether you can maintain a capitalist free market economy and retain a democracy. It is being strongly suggested that when SCOTUS rendered the Citizens United decision we finally moved from a democratic (Republic) to an oligarchy. FDR, I believe with his reforms breathed another half century into the democratic capitalism experiment, but that experiment appears to have finally run its course with an over concentration of wealth, which is what is concerning the Pope and other populist activists. The Pope has become the speaker representative for a more Christian economic system