Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

New blog on the kid : Are Some Conservatives Trying to Tell me "Socialism Doesn't Work"? · I came across Edwin Benson's lampooning of Panera Cares again · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

Michael D. Greaney

shared a link

11th March, 12:57

50. ARE CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIALISM THE SAME?

If you’re tempted to trot out the (alleged) “endorsement” of socialism by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, be advised that is addressed in a future posting, already written. . . .

The Just Third Way : Did C.S. Lewis Approve of Socialism?
https://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2020/03/did-cs-lewis-approve-of-socialism.html

RSCW

Practicing Christians would use tax and spend policies to benefit their priorities if elected into office, non Christians would not.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// “Usury” is not all interest, but interest on a loan of money not used for a productive purpose, i.e., taking a share of profits when no profit is due. //

You have taken this from a Calvinistic redefinition of usury.

To St. Thomas, there is a possibility of getting more back on a loan to a producer as producer - but only if the producer makes a profit. If he makes a deficit, on the same token you actually get less back than you had lent. EITHER you have a fixed sum OR a fixed percentage of the producer's gains or losses.

And C. S. Lewis fully knew this. He knew the Middle Ages better than you do.

As to the socialism condemned by Gregory XVI:

// Before the term socialism was coined in 1832 by the Saint-Simonian Pierre Leroux, socialism was known as “the Democratic Religion.” Various forms went by different names, such as “the New Christianity” (Henri de Saint-Simon) and Neo-Catholicism” (Felicite de Lamennais), but all (as de Tocqueville observed) shared a common principle: the shift of sovereignty from the human person created by God, to some form of the collective created by man. As Fulton Sheen observed in his doctoral thesis in 1925, God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy (1925), this demotes God to being the servant of man, and elevates collective man to the status of God. All of the “new things” (socialism, modernism, and the New Age) were condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 and 1834, //

Not a trace of the main Christian Socialists, namely de la Tour de Pin and Bonald.

Note, there disciples have at times been called Fascists, and the Austrofascists have indeed changed the label from "Christian Socialist" to "Christian Social" because of deference to this usage of the word "Socialism". I think they did so as far back as the founder Karl Lüeger.

Michael D. Greaney

Then Hilaire Belloc is a Calvinist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hilaire Belloc was educated in IIIrd Republic, which owed sth to Calvin.

However, I think you are actually misrepresenting his position, he attributes what I attribute to same Calvin.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// Investment is the last thing that involves usury . . . unless the lender doesn’t assume part of the risk, in which case, yes, it’s usury. Otherwise, it’s a rightful share of the profits.//

Taking part of the risk = accepting less back if the producer loses.

You lend 100 €. Either you are owed 100 € whether the producer wins or loses his venture, or you are owed 90 € if he loses 10% and 110 € if he wins 10 %, or you divide the sum, so you get 95 or 105 (50+45 / 50+55) with same gains or losses.

Taking interest, namely getting more than 100 € and that more decided in advance whether he wins or loses = not taking part of the risk = usury.

Michael D. Greaney

You assume the Currency Principle based on past savings. You omit the Banking Principle based on past and future savings, i.e., both mortgages and bills of exchange.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Assuming the what you call currency principle is what St. Thomas did too.

I don't see how you can base anything on a future, i e not yet extant saving.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 and 1834"

• 2. Cum primum On Civil Obedience 9 June 1832
• 3. Mirari vos On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism 15 August 1832
• 5. Singulari Nos On The Errors Of Lammenais 25 June 1834

Will look up.

For 1832, 3:
Mirari Vos - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm

Seems to be little about property or workers or such ...

Mirari Vos condemns the idea that Liberty of Religion is due, or that liberty of non-Catholic religions is more than a strategy for peace rather than expression of justice.

And Singulari Nos is not much more help in rejecting "Christian Socialism" since it is there to reject a new philosophical system:

Singulari Nos - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16singu.htm

Michael D. Greaney

You need to read more carefully and know the historical context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What exact § mentions property structures?

The Socialist Idea most vehemently condemned by the Pope was the separation of Church and State, and the second most condemned one was the right to rebellion.

Plus, he was condemning an ideology with its own philosophy which would be the one later crystallised as Marxism, like Engels' view of human society emerging or things like that.

Michael D. Greaney

My upcoming books explain this in detail.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

R i g h t ... I am reminded of how Roger M Pearlman will avoid a question now and then by referring to books in the Moshe Emes series ... instead of giving a straight answer.

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Linked to this post "Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?"]

Michael D. Greaney

Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are attempting to use the same tactic G. B. Shaw used against Chesterton to good effect . . . until Chesterton caught on to him and learned how to handle the chief spokesman for Fabian socialism. Shaw’s tactic (which he also used against W.H. Mallock to dodge Mallock’s critique of georgism — Mallock’s critique being so effective that Henry George himself admitted that it was the only one worth listening to) was to focus on a particular application of principle or even a single word, isolate it, and then create a series of straw man arguments, demolishing them as he raised them, ridiculing his opponent in the process in as condescending a manner as possible for being so stupid as not to agree with Shaw.

After being bested (or so popular opinion supposed) by Shaw a couple of times in this way, Chesterton simply stated his principle(s) in terms as broad as possible, leaving Shaw with nothing specific to attack except Chesterton himself. Chesterton being congenitally jovial and refusing to quarrel, this left Shaw with nothing with which to attack, except to complain that Chesterton was avoiding quarreling and was therefore a liar and a coward. Typically, Shaw would make a few more sallies in as insulting a manner as possible, Chesterton would refuse to rise to the bait, and Shaw would become enraged to the point of incoherence.

For example, take the ending to an informal debate that took place in the summer of 1923 soon after Chesterton’s conversion to Catholicism (which enraged Shaw, as did most everything). As recorded by Hesketh Pearson who was by chance present, and published in Louis Biancolli, ed., The Book of Great Conversations. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948, Shaw accused Chesterton of contradicting himself, of trying to be two halves of a whole at one and the same time —

“You are just like Don Quixote; and though your lunacy on some occasions makes his seem pale by comparison, you yet contrive in some mysterious manner to be your own Sancho Panza.”

Chesterton amiably agreed, treating it as a compliment. As he responded, further infuriating Shaw,

“Exactly; and anybody but you could see that the combination of these two extremes forms the Catholic standpoint. You might almost have been quoting me when you said that the Catholic standpoint is that there is no standpoint. . . . The Catholic is not so pragmatical as the atheist or the Puritan. His Faith is built on Belief, not on Knowledge — falsely so-called. He is consequently able to appreciate and sympathize with every form of human activity. He takes the whole world to his heart.”

Having brought Shaw very nicely to the boil, Chesterton emphasized that unlike socialists and other fantastic creatures, “We Catholics do not pretend to a knowledge we have not got. . . . [Y]ou can hardly expect us to accept your verdict . . . that man was not made to enjoy himself but to read Fabian tracts and listen to University Extension lectures.”

Shaw, however, refused to see the point, or at least pretended he did not — although the latter is unlikely. Having Shaw hooked and landed, Chesterton triumphantly proceeded to gaff him. He agreed with Shaw that he was not making sense, knowing full well he was making perfect sense if Shaw could only have dropped his prejudices and looked beyond his limited, materialistic worldview.

Having been tried past endurance, Shaw accused Chesterton of wanting to have his cake and eat it, too, attacking an opponent and running away from him at the same time. As he fulminated, “I see. Heads you win, tails he loses, all the way.”

CHESTERTON: Precisely.

SHAW: Thank you. I am wasting my time. Good evening.

(Rapid exit of Shaw.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you are attempting to use the same tactic G. B. Shaw used against Chesterton"

Would you mind citing what I said which you take as a straw man or absurd application of a principle reduced to verbatim statement rather than thought?

Claiming I paralleled Shaw doesn't make me a parallel to him.

As Chesterton called him a Calvinist, and he conceded, as CSL denounced him as a life force worshipper, I am not very happy about being compared to George Bernard.

Also, I'd like to have the reference for the piece of biography ...

Let's take one idea some US Conservatives are denouncing as "Socialism". Minimal wages.

Rerum Novarum § 20 has:

// Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this — that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers . . . which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.”[6] Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. //

Rerum Novarum §§ 37 and 39 are:

// 37. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.
...
39. When work people have recourse to a strike and become voluntarily idle, it is frequently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave inconvenience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial measures; for such paralyzing of labor not only affects the masters and their work people alike, but is extremely injurious to trade and to the general interests of the public; moreover, on such occasions, violence and disorder are generally not far distant, and thus it frequently happens that the public peace is imperiled. The laws should forestall and prevent such troubles from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts between employers and employed. //

E R G O, Leo XIII has specifically said that Government has a licit stake in guaranteeing wage earners get just wages.

King St. Louis IX considered he also had a licit stake in protecting borrowers from usury.

One thing is considered "Socialist" and the other "Anticapitalist".

But neither is uncatholic.

Now, this is how I meant you should illustrate how Gregory XVI condemned Socialist ideas about economy.

Source for quotes:

Rerum Novarum - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13rerum.htm

Michael D. Greaney

Thank you for that absolutely PERFECT example of Shaw's tactics. Have you ever considered the stage? You and Chuck Chalberg together would be a hoot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd take a debate with him if you'll introduce us, but over internet.

Supposing our views are sufficiently different for a debate.

On stage wouldn't do, people like you misrepresenting me as Shavian, Materialist etc have denied me a livelihood as Novus Gilbert Keith Chesterton (the essayist) for so long, my teeth have gone bad over the life in the street. When you have slept little in too little warmth, you do tend to gobble sugar and not care about (or have possibility to) brush your teeth just after.

This excludes stage, school, priesthood from possible livelihoods.

I see you comparing me gratuitously to Shaw again, but I still see no real tertium comparationis.

I very much see none between yourself and Chesterton, since he would have been witty instead of making me weary with an evasiveness that is really evasive : giving an allegation and refusing to back it up.

Plus, you are still behind on the info where exactly this piece of biography comes from.

"After being bested (or so popular opinion supposed) by Shaw a couple of times in this way, Chesterton simply stated his principle(s) in terms as broad as possible, leaving Shaw with nothing specific to attack except Chesterton himself."

I am not sure Chesterton would have agreed.

I am sure your comparing me to Shaw without backing it up is what is here attributed to Shaw.

Michael D. Greaney

Damn, but you're good. All you need is a long white beard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We are both good, if you look up the link.

[new link to:]
Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

[the old I doubled with a new for the update, so here is on the new link.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, I found a post by you, where you are giving these summaries from "Biancolli, Great Conversations" How did Biancolli get his assessment?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// At the prospect of a clash between England’s most famous — or at least most popular — literary figures, the group gathered ’round like idlers in the street anticipating a cat and dog fight, as actor, director, and writer Edward Hesketh Gibbons Pearson (1887-1964), who was present, described it. //

What if Edward's assessment of Chesterton's behaviour was wrong?

Chesterton and Shaw: The Lost Debate
https://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2019/05/chesterton-and-shaw-lost-debate.html

Michael D. Greaney

[posted a little earlier

but here's where I saw it:]

You're going to love my book . . . if only to supply pipe lights, unless like Shaw you abstain from tobacco. And alcohol, meat, and other insufficiently Puritanical practices.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Michael D. Greaney I suppose your book may be lovely.

What I disagree with is your refusing to give the argument outside the book.

I no longer smoke, since it damages my voice.

If you had the goodness to publish a few essays of mine and send me money, I might have the pleasure to drink to your health without getting overly bothered by Muslims providing sugar to "cure me of alcoholism" ...

Michael D. Greaney

But I love your imitation of Shaw! You have his technique down to a T!😘

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sure, continue to impoverish me so you can continue enjoying it.

Lying about my character and making sure to deprive me of Catholic and Chestertonian readers may still do the trick!

Seriously, if Chesterton did not do what you did, if either Edward Hesketh misrepresented him or you misrepresent his representation, even if I were to a T as you put it doing the exact same material response as Shaw, it wouldn't be the same formal one, since not to the same provocation.

But in fact, the clarification Shaw insisted on was "are you A or B" when Chesterton had clearly said "neither" and the clarification I would like is, where do you pin me down to that behaviour?

Time for some real Chesterton, from his own pen, not from Edward Hesketh's:

For such reasons, among others, Dickens was angry with America. But if America was angry with Dickens, there were also reasons for it. I do not think that the rage against his copyright speeches was, as he supposed, merely national insolence and self-satisfaction. America is a mystery to any good Englishman; but I think Dickens managed somehow to touch it on a queer nerve. There is one thing, at any rate, that must strike all Englishmen who have the good fortune to have American friends; that is, that while there is no materialism so crude or so material as American materialism, there is also no idealism so crude or so ideal as American idealism. America will always affect an Englishman as being soft in the wrong place and hard in the wrong place; coarse exactly where all civilised men are delicate, delicate exactly where all grown-up men are coarse. Some beautiful ideal runs through this people, but it runs aslant. The only existing picture in which the thing I mean has been embodied is in Stevenson's "Wrecker," in the blundering delicacy of Jim Pinkerton. America has a new delicacy, a coarse, rank refinement. But there is another way of embodying the idea, and that is to say this -- that nothing is more likely than that the Americans thought it very shocking in Dickens, the divine author, to talk about being done out of money. Nothing would be more American than to expect a genius to be too high-toned for trade. It is certain that they deplored his selfishness in the matter; it is probable that they deplored his indelicacy. A beautiful young dreamer, with flowing brown hair, ought not to be even conscious of his copyrights. For it is quite unjust to say that the Americans worship the dollar. They really do worship intellect -- another of the passing superstitions of our time.

If America had then this Pinkertonian propriety, this new, raw sensibility, Dickens was the man to rasp it. He was its precise opposite in every way. The decencies he did respect were old-fashioned and fundamental. On top of these he had that lounging liberty and comfort which can only be had on the basis of very old conventions, like the carelessness of gentlemen and the deliberation of rustics. He had no fancy for being strung up to that taut and quivering ideality demanded by American patriots and public speakers. And there was something else also, connected especially with the question of copyright and his own pecuniary claims. Dickens was not in the least desirous of being thought too "high-souled" to want his wages, nor was he in the least ashamed of asking for them. Deep in him (whether the modern reader likes the quality or no) was a sense very strong in the old Radicals -- very strong especially in the old English Radical -- a sense of personal rights, one's own rights included, as something not merely useful but sacred. He did not think a claim any less just and solemn because it happened to be selfish; he did not divide claims into selfish and unselfish, but into right and wrong. It is significant that when he asked for his money, he never asked for it with that shamefaced cynicism, that sort of embarrassed brutality, with which the modern man of the world mutters something about business being business or looking after number one. He asked for his money in a valiant and ringing voice, like a man asking for his honour. While his American critics were moaning and sneering at his interested motives as a disqualification, he brandished his interested motives like a banner. "It is nothing to them," he cries in astonishment, "that, of all men living, I am the greatest loser by it" (the Copyright Law). "It is nothing that I have a claim to speak and be heard." The thing they set up as a barrier he actually presents as a passport. They think that he, of all men, ought not to speak because he is interested. He thinks that he, of all men, ought to speak because he is wronged.

Let me repeat the last sentences:

The thing they set up as a barrier he actually presents as a passport. They think that he, of all men, ought not to speak because he is interested. He thinks that he, of all men, ought to speak because he is wronged.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton : Charles Dickens
CHAPTER VI DICKENS AND AMERICA
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/CD-1.html#VI

And before he goes off claiming I wrong his copyright by copying the debate, here is how I see copyright questions on posts with shared copyright since shared authorship:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/p/copyright-issues-on-blogposts-with.html