Small-scale, voluntary communism?

[Daniel]

As I understand it, the Church teaches that communism is intrinsically evil, since it's contrary to distributive justice.

But in Acts we read, "And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need." (2:44-45)

What are we to make of this? Unless I'm reading the passage wrong, it sounds a lot like small-scale, voluntary communism (done out of charity). But doesn't the Church teach that all communism is evil, and that we are forbidden from taking part in any of it?

[GloriaPatri]

As I understand it, the Church does not condemn voluntary "communism" where members agree to own some things in common and to distribute other things amongst themselves according to their individual needs. Many monastic communities live like that, where there is little in the way of private property. And what private property there is is not a means of production.

What the Church does condemns is the atheistic, materialistic communism of Marx which seeks to abolish even the State and which seeks to compel individuals to abide by its teachings, even by force if necessary.

But I too would be interested in the views of other posters.

[james03]

The key word is "voluntary".  Communism robs people of their private property and the just return for their labor and thus offends justice.  If you enter into a communist arrangement voluntarily, then justice is not offended.

In reality most hippy communes like that are unjust because the members get on government programs which is the unjust theft of property from the producers for the parasites. 

[Maximilian]

As I understand it, the Church teaches that communism is intrinsically evil, since it's contrary to distributive justice.

The "Communism" that is condemned by the Church is a political philosophy originated by Karl Marx which is based on atheism and hatred of religion. The condemnation has nothing to do with condemning community sharing.

But in Acts we read, "And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need." (2:44-45)

What are we to make of this? Unless I'm reading the passage wrong, it sounds a lot like small-scale, voluntary communism (done out of charity). But doesn't the Church teach that all communism is evil, and that we are forbidden from taking part in any of it?

You are completely mistaking the Church's position on the matter. You need to read Rerum Novarum and/or Quadragesimo Anno. You will see that the Church is praising and even requiring the sharing of goods.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11quadr.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13rerum.htm

[james03]

Missed the point of RR REQUIRING the sharing of goods.  Quote that for me.   This falls under CHARITY, not Justice, as the popes have taught.

[Maximilian]

Missed the point of RR REQUIRING the sharing of goods.

Yes, I guess you did miss it.

Quote that for me.   

Who put you in charge of giving orders?

This falls under CHARITY, not Justice, as the popes have taught.

They have also taught, as in this passage from Rerum Novarum quoted below, that charity is required of Christians, not optional:

But if the question be asked: How must one's possessions be used? — the Church replies without hesitation in he words of the same holy Doctor: "Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need.

Whence the apostle saith, 'Command the rich of this world . . to offer with no stint, to apportion largely'."

True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, "for no one ought to live other than becomingly." But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over.

"Of that which remaineth, give alms." It is duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity — a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving — "It is more blessed to give than to receive"; and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself — "As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me."

[james03]

"Of that which remaineth, give alms." It is duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity — a duty not enforced by human law.

I appreciate your honesty M.

[Prayerful]

Artificial, enforced sharing doesn't work. The defence and rights of private property is a sacred thing.

[Xavier]

1. Communism and socialism resort to enforced state ownership of the means of production. Nobody is truly free in a communist country and the Church has absolutely insisted on the right of private property against communists. But the early Christian community is indeed the model of how to organize the state - neither the socialist model of making everybody worse off by crippling taxes on the rich nor the capitalist model of illusory "growth" at any cost while people die poor is any solution at all. If you think of the economy as a pie, the socialist model is to forcibly divide the model into equal slices until all economic growth stagnates; the capitalist model is to allow a few to capture most of the pie, while the rest are barely enabled to get along. Both are deficient. As an example, The world already produces enough food to feed the world many times over, yet millions die of starvation, malnutrition and hunger. He who thinks this is what Jesus Christ asks of the economy deceives himself. What's wrong? The economy doesn't distribute sufficient purchasing power from the fruits of production. This is what Louis Evan explores in the booklet "Poverty in this Age of Plenty". https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/category/in-this-age-of-plenty

How to model the economy on a distributist paradigm? This is the great question Christian economists must ask and answer.  Laissez faire capitalism and especially Rothbard style anarcho-capitalism have nothing in common (indeed Mises had scorn for Jesus Christ, as well as for the Church) with the moral and economic doctrine of the divine Founder of Christianity and His Church. It is the idolatry of mammon which has given rise to fractional reserve central banking and the credit crunches and recessions it necessarily engenders. Even Friedman acknowledged the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. And it also caused the Great Recession by its steep and sudden increase of interest rates. The recession subsided only after rates were decreased almost to zero, where they should remain permanently. The first step to move toward a distributist economy is to abolish the central bank (e.g. the Federal Reserve in the United States) and place the control of the money supply in public hands once more.

2. Whenever there is growth in the production of good and the provision of services (as measured, say, by annual GDP increase), a proportionate and equal growth of the money supply (debt-free money issued in a National Credit Office, as proposed by Clifford Douglas, see the Michael Journal articles on this) should automatically take place. This amount should then be distributed equally to all citizens (with the exception, perhaps, of those who choose to opt out in favor of others) in the form of a National Dividend. This Dividend would vary based on the extent to which the real wealth of the nation has increased, so that all are incentivized to promote the collective good no less than their own individual good. This is the genius of social credit. It treats the entire economy like a gigantic corporation, and makes everybody a stakeholder entitled to a dividend from the fruits of production. It makes everybody better off without making anybody worse off, it allows social credit to be actualized to the extent the combined and co-operative effort of all of society makes it possible; with both personal and societal incentives to do so. https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/the-solution-debt-free-money-issued-by-society

There are two ways for nations to grow prosperous, one is for there to be sufficient money to purchase the goods produced, which is currently not the case and would not be the case until the solution above is adopted; the solution is impossible while central banking remains - central banking is a Marxist idea almost identical to central planning; it doesn't appear in the American constitution, and President Lincoln opposed it vehemently; it does, however, occur along with crippling taxation in the foolish tenets of Marx and Engels. The second is for prices to be in continual decline. This is not "deflation" as some think it would be. Deflation, like inflation, "is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" (Friedman). True deflation occurs when growth in the money supply does not keep pace with growth in the production of goods. This is the only real cause of deflation. Decreasing prices is only an effect of deflation; and deflation in the amount of money is not necessarily the sole cause of decreasing prices. Why are mobiles and computers immeasurably less costly than when first produced? Obviously, because of productivity increases. So, prices should only continuously decline in a truly productive economy, and not at all because of monetary factors like inflation. The second solution proposed by Social Credit, a Distributist school developed by a British accountant named Major Clifford Douglas, is a National Discount. It's a little complicated to explain in a brief post, but we will get to it if necessary. Suffice to say, prices will keep declining as productivity and efficiency increases lessen the input costs that go into extracting raw minerals, producing the good, and distributing it via the supply chain - so that people are much wealthier off in real terms, even in terms of what the same unit of currency can buy; and beside that, there will be a much greater supply of money than there is now, distributed to all by means of a National Dividend, in keeping with the true growth of the real wealth of the economy. This is the economics most in accord with the teaching of Jesus Christ and of His Church. The almost remarkable confluence between Social Credit Distributist Economics and the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs since Pope Leo XIII has been noted by many, even non-Catholics. Nobody will grow hungry or lack the money to purchase food and basic necessities in a distributist economy. Much of Christian Europe was modeled on principles similar to distributism when "real want was comparatively unknown". Today, millions die from starvation. The modern economy is not sufficiently capitalist in a true sense, because everybody doesn't have a capital stake in the fruits of production.

"Right now, more than 1 billion people suffer from hunger. This means that 1 in every 6 people on Earth don't get enough food to live a healthy life. This year 36 million of these people will die of hunger"

http://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/global_hunger_statistics/how_many_people_die_from_hunger_each_year

[james03]

How to model the economy on a distributist paradigm?

I prefer the subsidiarity paradigm.  You realize subsidiarity is the opposite of distributism, don't you? Under subsidiarity a farmer can sell his produce at a farmer's market.  Under distributism this would be illegal unless the farmers' soviet approved it.

It is the idolatry of mammon which has given rise to fractional reserve central banking and the credit crunches and recessions it necessarily engenders.

We agree, but you have a problem.  See next point.

The first step to move toward a distributist economy is to abolish the central bank (e.g. the Federal Reserve in the United States) and place the control of the money supply in public hands once more.

That would be moving AWAY from a distributist economy as organizing banks into a banking guild is exactly the distributist system.  I think you mean subsidiarist economy.  An example of subsidiarity in banking, i.e. moving control of money away from the banking guild and into private hands are the cryptocurrencies.  No banks are needed, though eventually you will need a bank-like structure to sindicate loans from savers, however they would have no control over the money supply.

This amount should then be distributed equally to all citizens

This results in hyperinflation.  Ask the Venezuelans.  Chavez started printing B's and handing them out to the citizens, and now the B is actually worth less than toilet paper.  In this system you have printed money given to non-producers and producers equally.  The producers realize the game quickly since their production is not buying an equal amount of goods from others (the non-producers crowd it out), and so they raise their prices.  This shows up as an "increase" in GDP and you end up with more money being printed.  Congratulations you have entered into the hyperinflation spiral.

"Right now, more than 1 billion people suffer from hunger. This means that 1 in every 6 people on Earth don't get enough food to live a healthy life. This year 36 million of these people will die of hunger"

And ALL of them are located in some communist / socialist / fascist / distributist economy.  So draw the proper conclusion.

[Xavier]

Under subsidiarity a farmer can sell his produce at a farmer's market.  Under distributism this would be illegal unless the farmers' soviet approved it.

The farmer's what, James? Did you mean guild, or are you comparing distributism to socialism. Let's define terms properly. Evreryone will be free to buy or sell whatever he likes under distributism. But a farmer in a distributist economy would also receive a dividend boosting his personal income based on the collective growth of the farming industry. Think of it like the variable pay or bonus in a company that incentivises everyone to put in extra colloborative effort for the team's sake so that everyone is better off. This would also help individual farmers who have a bad year every now and then. Are you familiar with Douglas A+B theorem that proves mathematically the need of such a dividend, to equate total purchasing power and final prices, at any given time. I would advise you to read Professor Heydorn's book on this if you're interested. https://www.amazon.com/Social-Credit-Economics-Oliver-Heydorn/dp/1493529765

No banks are needed

What are you proposing, exactly? Rothbardian style free market currencies competing with one another? Or money supposedly backed by gold? Money only needs to be backed by goods, nothing else. Money should be issued debt free in a National Credit office. If the true wealth of all goods and services in the economy is 20 trillion, there should be 20 trillion dollars in circulation. When wealth increases or decreases (say decreases by a natural disaster burning away a bridge), the money supply should either be increased by the same amount (or, in rare cases like a disaster, should be decreased by the same).

As for Venezuala, it has not abolished its central banks, and the warning signs were present long ago https://www.ft.com/content/bf9250d6-b35a-11e5-b147-e5e5bba42e51 but when we both abolish the central bank and make the changes suggested by Douglas in the goods market, prices will not rise indefinitely; social credit economics rejects the pretense of Say's opinion that supply creates its own demand; it also rejects the opinion that prices can fluctuate indefinitely between any range whatsoever; the true price of a good is what it costs (fixed+variable unit cost - a range is permissible) plus a predetermined profit premium (which will not be exceeded); taxation will be very minimal in a distributist economy but that doesn't mean producers will be permitted to charge whatever they like, without reference to the true cost, and a reasonable profit premium ; therefore, no one will be allowed to charge 100 dollars for goods that cost 10 dollars; and he will go out of businesses due to competition with other producers who will be incentivised to keep prices reasonably low anyway; the economy is to keep a 1 to 1 parity between the final prices of all goods produced, so there will not be inflation; inflation as a factor will be taken out, because all money is backed by real wealth i.e. real goods at fair prices related to their cost; there will be declining prices as productivity increases.

Prove that all 1 billion people live in socialist or other economies. Even then, it wouldn't be justified to allow them to starve. Modern economics is not founded on the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church and is therefore failing God and failing humanity.

"2
The world's biggest health problem
The number of people suffering from hunger has been growing since the mid 1990s. Well into the 21st century hunger is still the worlds biggest health problem.

3
A growing problem
The number of people who suffer from hunger grew by 75 million in 2007 and by 40 million in 2008. This is partly because food prices have been rising.

4
Children are especially vulnerable
Every 5 seconds a child under 5 dies because of hunger, or of directly related causes."

[mikemac]

This is what Louis Evan explores in the booklet "Poverty in this Age of Plenty". https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/category/in-this-age-of-plenty

I have been trying to get James to read this for a few years now.  Until he does the two of you will be just talking around each other.

[Gardener]

Of sharing goods when need exists --

what responsibility do the poor have? It's unjust to place all responsibility on the backs of the "rich" (which I suppose would include the drowning in debt and/or paycheck to paycheck life of most middle class and even the "rich"). Does the poor man have a responsibility to prove output of effort towards rectifying his situation before anyone could point a finger in accusation at someone with goods supposedly allocated to the poor in charity? what sort of poor are we speaking of here? Someone who, through a materialistic mindset has the inability to buy food because he got a 72" LED powered TV and now the interest charge is killing him? Because some father decided he'd get a degree in theology and now his family suffers because he usurped the place of the clergy in spiritual teaching? Or someone who works hard and despite his best efforts, destiny seems to throw him curve balls every time he wakes up? Define the recipient and situations that act as a boundary (inside and out). Platitudes are useless and merely encourage a communist mindset and class warfare.

Of those starving kids in Fecalstan --

What, pray tell, should one do? How is it not, in some degree, the fault of their .government? How can those .governments be overcome when they are at complete odds with the rest of the world -- despotic, tyrannical, atheistic, threatening military action with (immoral) means, a la nuclear development and war; themselves so corrupt that any aid sent would be used as either a tool to bludgeon the people into further submission or merely given to the relative "haves" in their society, leaving the have nots in no better position? Is the answer regime change and nation building in order to remove the obstacles already mentioned? Platitudes are useless and merely encourage the militaristic mindset and foreign warfare.

[mikemac]

This is what Louis Evan explores in the booklet "Poverty in this Age of Plenty". https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/category/in-this-age-of-plenty

I have been trying to get James to read this for a few years now.  Until he does the two of you will be just talking around each other.

I don't think that it is coincidental that Poland is one of the few countries in Europe that is headed in the right direction and that Bishop Zigniew Jozef Kraszewski, then the Vicar General of the Diocese of Warsaw-Prague had Louis Even's book, "In This Age of Plenty" published in Polish in 1993.  Bishop Kraszewski prefaced "In This Age of Plenty" with these words.

"What Catholics learned in the social doctrine of the Church is the way between socialism and capitalism. For many years, this doctrine has been diffused in Canada, and known as the Social Credit theory. Louis Even's book, In This Age of Plenty, that I introduce to the Polish readers, is an exposition of the Catholic social doctrine that is good not only for the Canadians; this book contains a lot of instructive topics for any person who reads it and who is open to social problems. This book has not been written only for great theoreticians and scholars, but for everybody. That is why this book is precious to the Poles, especially at the time of the second miracle of the Vistula River that we are presently experiencing. (The miracle of the downfall of Communism.)

"Poland miraculously succeeded in gaining its freedom and sovereignty. After the devastation of Communism that had been keeping us captive for so many years, we have the duty to choose the right path of social justice, based on Catholic doctrine. I think this book will largely help in achieving that. I entrust all the readers to the protection of Our Lady Victorious, who reigns in the co-cathedral of Kamionku, in Warsaw."