(no subject)
Many conservatives are taking issue with the Pope Francis' latest statement Evangelii Gaudium/ Specifically, they take issue with the following excerpt:
While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule... With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.
Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses...We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.
I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots - and not simply the appearances - of the evils in our world! Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good.[174] We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”. I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare...
... Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve. If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few.
This particular section has given rise to the accusation that Pope Francis is engaging in liberation theology. This is incorrect; his exhortation is no different from Popes in recent times:
“The present pope, Benedict XVI, and his Vatican system teach that private property is not personal as such, but belongs to all people. His predecessor, Pope John Paul II stated, “Private property, in fact, is under a ‘social mortgage,’ which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.” The principle of “the universal destination of goods” is clearly observed in what the present pope endorses in the second part of his encyclical entitled “God is Love.” Benedict wholly sanctions the principle of the universal ownership of all goods embalmed in the writings of popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. The phrase, “all goods,” includes not only the goods found in nature but manufactured goods as well. As John Paul II stated, “The vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of nature and manufactured goods.’’Another Vatican Council II document upholds the same principle of the “universal ownership of all goods” and emphatically teaches, “If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.”
--Papal Economics, by R. Bennett & Robert J. Nicholson
Popes Benedict and John Paul II cannot hardly be called liberation theologists; this is an old stance by the Church, which has advocated Christian corporatism from the first, declaring it to be the economic system mandated by Christ. (It should be noted that this goes back to the mid-1850s.) It stems from the following statement by Saint John Chrysostom:
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again.
Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first-and then they will joyfully share their wealth.
--"On Living Simply XLIII", St. John Chrysostom
But we digress. Back to the Evangelii Gaudium:
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
Since this stands contrary to libertarian and conservative promotion of the absoluteness of the free market in its ability to solve whatever problems exists in the world, the natural reaction of these political factions is revulsion. What conservative and libertarian thought in this case fails to realize is this: as a society, we are facing a serious problem: employees are not needed anymore. A thousand years ago every able worker could find work because the human labor was not very productive. If all you can do is manually plant seeds, the farmer needs hundreds and hundreds of workers to do *anything* on his land. He would pay very little for this work, since he, in turn, would also gain very little from this work.
Today the farmer does not need to hire crowds of workers. (At least, not in a modern, industrialized society.) Today one person can work a huge field; he is very efficient. In the cities, robots assemble cars, computers, and other products. Most of what we see around us is assembled by robots. Some products cannot even be assembled by hand (electronic components, as an example). We do not need millions of ditch diggers anymore. We need scientists, engineers, programmers, technologists, doctors, writers, etc. But those avenues are closed to many people. It takes effort and some talent to study complex math; it takes very good memory to remember all the bones and all the muscles and all the nerves in the human body; it takes fertile imagination to write an interesting book or to produce an entertaining movie. It is hard enough to learn when you are young; it is ten times as hard when you are 50 years old and have bills to pay. This transition is not just difficult; it's plain impossible for most of the populace.
This means that automation and ever-growing efficiency of manufacturing are eliminating the need for simple manual labor. 50 years ago, a worker would be making a crude gear on a lathe or on a specialized milling machine, and he'd spend a day doing it. Today one worker only monitors ten computer-controlled machining centers, and his only job is to load materials and tools, and remove finished parts. To make things worse, this machining cannot be done by hand anymore. Nine machinists are looking for a job now. Will they find it? Only if they become MasterCAM programmers, or mechanical engineers, or technologists, or designers. Even then we'd be wondering if we need so many engineers: 100 developers at Apple made 100 million iPhones happen. This is a huge step outside of a "cell phone makers' guild," where each master would need a month to make one phone.
If someone doesn’t have natural abilities - and many do not - then what do they do in a modern society? What do unskilled laborers do in a society that has no need for unskilled laborers? Pope Francis recognizes that this is a problem. It is also one that is not easily solved, as the simple answers are also harsh and horrifying ones.
While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule... With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.
Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses...We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.
I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots - and not simply the appearances - of the evils in our world! Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good.[174] We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”. I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare...
... Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve. If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few.
This particular section has given rise to the accusation that Pope Francis is engaging in liberation theology. This is incorrect; his exhortation is no different from Popes in recent times:
“The present pope, Benedict XVI, and his Vatican system teach that private property is not personal as such, but belongs to all people. His predecessor, Pope John Paul II stated, “Private property, in fact, is under a ‘social mortgage,’ which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.” The principle of “the universal destination of goods” is clearly observed in what the present pope endorses in the second part of his encyclical entitled “God is Love.” Benedict wholly sanctions the principle of the universal ownership of all goods embalmed in the writings of popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. The phrase, “all goods,” includes not only the goods found in nature but manufactured goods as well. As John Paul II stated, “The vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of nature and manufactured goods.’’Another Vatican Council II document upholds the same principle of the “universal ownership of all goods” and emphatically teaches, “If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.”
--Papal Economics, by R. Bennett & Robert J. Nicholson
Popes Benedict and John Paul II cannot hardly be called liberation theologists; this is an old stance by the Church, which has advocated Christian corporatism from the first, declaring it to be the economic system mandated by Christ. (It should be noted that this goes back to the mid-1850s.) It stems from the following statement by Saint John Chrysostom:
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again.
Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first-and then they will joyfully share their wealth.
--"On Living Simply XLIII", St. John Chrysostom
But we digress. Back to the Evangelii Gaudium:
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
Since this stands contrary to libertarian and conservative promotion of the absoluteness of the free market in its ability to solve whatever problems exists in the world, the natural reaction of these political factions is revulsion. What conservative and libertarian thought in this case fails to realize is this: as a society, we are facing a serious problem: employees are not needed anymore. A thousand years ago every able worker could find work because the human labor was not very productive. If all you can do is manually plant seeds, the farmer needs hundreds and hundreds of workers to do *anything* on his land. He would pay very little for this work, since he, in turn, would also gain very little from this work.
Today the farmer does not need to hire crowds of workers. (At least, not in a modern, industrialized society.) Today one person can work a huge field; he is very efficient. In the cities, robots assemble cars, computers, and other products. Most of what we see around us is assembled by robots. Some products cannot even be assembled by hand (electronic components, as an example). We do not need millions of ditch diggers anymore. We need scientists, engineers, programmers, technologists, doctors, writers, etc. But those avenues are closed to many people. It takes effort and some talent to study complex math; it takes very good memory to remember all the bones and all the muscles and all the nerves in the human body; it takes fertile imagination to write an interesting book or to produce an entertaining movie. It is hard enough to learn when you are young; it is ten times as hard when you are 50 years old and have bills to pay. This transition is not just difficult; it's plain impossible for most of the populace.
This means that automation and ever-growing efficiency of manufacturing are eliminating the need for simple manual labor. 50 years ago, a worker would be making a crude gear on a lathe or on a specialized milling machine, and he'd spend a day doing it. Today one worker only monitors ten computer-controlled machining centers, and his only job is to load materials and tools, and remove finished parts. To make things worse, this machining cannot be done by hand anymore. Nine machinists are looking for a job now. Will they find it? Only if they become MasterCAM programmers, or mechanical engineers, or technologists, or designers. Even then we'd be wondering if we need so many engineers: 100 developers at Apple made 100 million iPhones happen. This is a huge step outside of a "cell phone makers' guild," where each master would need a month to make one phone.
If someone doesn’t have natural abilities - and many do not - then what do they do in a modern society? What do unskilled laborers do in a society that has no need for unskilled laborers? Pope Francis recognizes that this is a problem. It is also one that is not easily solved, as the simple answers are also harsh and horrifying ones.