Skip to main content

If I'm A "Socialist," We Are Doomed

I went back and found some old comments on a Facebook post I wrote last year at this time. I rather bluntly said that we shouldn't salute companies giving small raises and citing the tax cut, because if they had the means now, they had it before, in the absence of the law. (Which, to my mind, is utterly uncontroversial.) Wages are due in justice, not charity, and our first goal as citizens and policymakers is to make a just society, as best we can. To give every person what s/he is due. In practical terms, that means paying people working full time enough that public assistance isn't necessary.

Anyway, this guy named Ryan August said something like, "It's good to know there are socialist Catholics here to virtue signal," and I got mad, and deleted both of his year-old comments. As a side-note, there are plenty of people who won't make it across the Tiber, because they'll be d---ed if some pope tells them what to do with their money. Well, quite literally, it's your choice.

I thought socialism was, "A system whereby all the means of production are owned by the State, and the fruits of all labor is held in common, distributed to others, as needed." I'm not that. Here's the definition in the dictionary. I'm not that, either. But I can tell you, I'm not going to sit around in the face of obvious economic injustice, and say, "At least we're not socialist!" Or beg for a few scraps from our corporate overlords.

As long as we're being direct.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un