A lot of confusion in this thread. The Chinese economic system is Fascism, which is a synonym for "Crony Capitalism." It is not Free-Market Capitalism.
Posted on 11/27/2013 7:05:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Radio giant Rush Limbaugh is scorching the leader of the Roman Catholic Church for criticizing unfettered capitalism, saying, “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope.”
“You know the pope, Pope Francis has issued an official papal proclamation, and it’s sad,” Limbaugh said on his national broadcast Wednesday. “It’s actually unbelievable. It’s sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth.”
“I’m not Catholic,” Limbaugh added, “but up until this I admired the man.”
In the 84-page document titled “Evangelii Gaudium,” which was released Tuesday, Pope Francis called upon politicians to provide “dignified work, education and health care” to all citizens.
“The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life,” wrote the pope. “Today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”
Noting that he had visited the Vatican “numerous times,” Limbaugh observed wryly: “Believe me, it wouldn’t exist without tons of money. Somebody has either written this for [the pope] or gotten to him. This is pure Marxism.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I have great reverence for the Pope and I am not misled. And be misled about what? I know many conservative Catholics who love the Pope who follow him on doctrine and religious issues pertaining to the Church, but have their own thoughts on the economy.
Actually Henry was awarded the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope after arguing against Luther. But then Catherine angered him and turned him against the Church when she complained to him about cleaning his weener with the bedroom curtains.
Rush is prone to treat capitalism as an ideology, which, as William Buckley, reminded us, it is not. Rhetorically, the pope seems to be doing the a same thing, of course. In any case, the kind of excesses he is talking about is better identified with plutocracy. Which means that the major capitalists in our country join with the Obama administration in their indifference to the fate of a (big) company like Hobby Lobby whose owners have a moral core.
Oh I don’t doubt at all greed is manifest much more violently in North Korea. Any economic system be it a brand of capitalism which sees the person only as a means of production to produce goods for the owner; be is socialism which sees the person only as a means of production to produce goods for the State is essentially a system of slavery.
Now the advantage that capitalism has is that it can be made to work in such a way that it promotes human freedom and economic liberty. When put to such ends it thrives best under just governments. Socialism on the other hand fears human freedom and economic liberty and thrives best under tyranny.
So if you are living where there is tyrannical rule you can be certain that the economic system that has prominence will most likely not promote liberty and freedom. No matter what name it goes by.
Perhaps if the Pope had used the term crony Capitalism that would have gone down better with people here.
Rush unthinkingly used the term "unfettered" concerning capitalism and I disagree with that extreme.
“Consider that one of the things that triggered the government-fabricated mortgage crisis was the rising price of oil. When consumers were faced with the dilemma of either putting gas in their vehicle or paying their subprime mortgages, many people reluctantly chose to put gas in their vehicles.”
Hogwash. Gas prices rise and fall all the time, and we never had a mortgage crisis when it happened before. People were not defaulting on mortgages because of market fluctuations in gas prices.
Plano... Preston World
Sweatshops? doubtful, people can leave at any time.
“But when the commodity is something like gas that many people have to use on a daily basis to get to work, then why make things more difficult for such people by making their gas more expensive?”
The goal is not to make anything more expensive, it is to make a profit. Without the profit motive, nobody would bother pulling oil out of the ground, refining it, and selling it. Then where would all the people trying to get to work ever day be?
“its a free country, even for those who are biased, or shall I say , bigoted.”
Also for those thin-skinned liberals who can’t debate anything without accusing the other side of being bigots or bashers.
I agree.
There has to be compassion for those less fortunate. Unfortunately, we have so many taking advantage of our system and the ones that are truly needy are grouped in with those people.
Yes, I believe in government having compassion but more should be done through or by churches, non-profit organizations, and individuals.
Did Rush actually use that term? Looked to me like that was an editorial description by WND.
Like I said, there’s no such thing as pure Marxism, and a great many people know that, no doubt including Rush. Which is why no one should take what he’s saying as academic expression. He’s getting at the idea that the Pope’s statement can be properly understood as directly supporting the central premise of Marxism, the compulsory redistribution of wealth to achieve “social justice.” But the Pope really goes further, and accuses those who don’t agree with this assessment of violating God’s law against murder, because economic injustice kills. So no, it isn’t “pure Marxism.” It’s really worse, using religious sentiment to bully dissenters into supporting one of the worst and most ungodly economic ideas ever invented.
BTW, it may interest you to know I had been reading the comments here before Rush ever mentioned it and I was shocked to hear him saying what I had already thought myself. You misread many of us if you think we rely on Rush to do our reading and thinking for us. The words have been written. The ideas expressed stand on their own. You have a problem with the Pope. I am sure he is a fine man in many ways. But he has erred on this and his error will stick and permanently mar his role as a spiritual leader unless he turns from it.
And that’s not Rush’s problem, and simply dumping on Rush as being insignificant or insincere or not academically correct doesn’t address the root of the problem. It’s just attacking the messenger, and that is classic Alinsky. I mean no insult by it. It’s just how I see it.
...which in English may also be called charity, and, it seems, socialism.
And I did not say the choices were fear and greed. They are fear of a negative outcome vs desire for a positive outcome. But many interpret the latter, when judging the motives of others, as greed.
A lot of confusion in this thread. The Chinese economic system is Fascism, which is a synonym for "Crony Capitalism." It is not Free-Market Capitalism.
OK, sure, I guess if you want to call all laws "fetters" or chains, you can. After all, as you point out, even laws that protect your (and my) life, liberty, and property do restrain me (and you) from at least some activities.
But I would not call such laws chains (nor would I feel them to be such). Such laws are not chains, but protections and guarantors of liberty. They are not adopted, fundamentally, out of considerations of efficiency and productivity, but rather as requirements of the very structure of moral, ordered liberty under nature or nature's God envisioned in the Declaration. That is why I prize them. Basic principles of natural law require that I respect the life of another, the fruits of another's labor, and the associations entered into by another. I am not less free, in my view, by respecting in someone else that which I ask all to respect in me.
(Of course laws are only weak guarantors of liberty, relative to religion, custom, culture and morality of society as a whole. If laws are our only restraints, we will hardly have liberty.)
Why does everyone think that "unchained" or "unfettered" capitalism means "lawless capitalism" (which is indeed an oxymoron)? I guess "unfettered" really is a problem word, since it seems to equate to "lawless" in the mind of so many. I guess "free market capitalism" works better.
But since when is "capitalism" such a dirty-word, evil thing that it must be "fettered" or chained even to be acceptable?? I think this is an example of the statist or leftist position winning the debate by emotionalizing or demonizing the very terms of discussion. "Unfettered capitalism" is probably a carefully chosen phrase, useful to push all the right emotional buttons, judging by the reaction here.
I prefer my capitalism--and myself--unfettered.
I'm sorry if I got the wires crossed. I don't know if that was Rush's term. I had questioned if that's what Rush had actually said.
For the reasons I mentioned in the first words of my post; that expressing a desire is a completely different matter than enforcing it which I mentioned as the “implementation”.
I’m reserving my opinion of the Pope’s message until I read a direct translation. I’m not happy with what’s been reported, but initial reports aren’t always reliable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
