Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Proper Nomenclature

Home
Catholic
Capitalists Should Be Nervous: A Response to Fr. Robert Barron on Laudato Si’

Capitalists Should Be Nervous: A Response to Fr. Robert Barron on Laudato Si’

Last updated on: January 5, 2016 at 8:44 pm by Keith Michael Estrada

Capitalists Should Be Nervous: A Response to Fr. Robert Barron on Laudato Si’ 2016-01-05T20:44:25-07:00 Keith Michael Estrada

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Robert Barron does very little to support the distinction between capitalism, different manifestations of capitalism, and the misuse of capitalism by people. He also fails to give us reason to believe that a market economy and capitalism are the same thing, as he uses capitalism and market economy interchangeably in this article – an art form found in the work of Novak and Sirico, which often leads readers to believe that capitalism is the winner.

The conclusion that the Church supports capitalism does not seem to be grounded. John Paul II goes so far as to suggest a distinction between capital and the means of production in Laborem Exercens. It does not seem to be the case that capitalism is the final option for the Christian.

Inefficiency and the rejection of the right to private property are two main targets in Barron’s gentle rejection of socialism. I am not sure what socialism Barron is referring to.

To begin, the Church does not hold property rights as absolute. Secondly, even Marx and Engels qualified their rejection of private property. We read in the manifesto of the communist party:

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

See the difference?

The socialization of some means of production, given that such socialization maintains its subjective character, is not rejected by the social magisterium – indeed, at times it is suggested. (See laborem exercens).

Also, the magisterium has also distinguished between democratic socialism and real socialism (see centisimus annus, by John Paul II, or “Without Roots” by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), Father Barron does not. (It’s also difficult to find the distinction in Hayek and Mises.) While real socialism is rejected by the Church, certain forms of democratic socialism, that is, socialization of certain means of production with the appropriate respect for the subjective characters of the members of society, are not. (You can see my piece on Laudato si’ for more.)

Lastly, socialism, and we correct Barron’s use of socialism by referring to “real socialism”, is accused of inefficiency. Let it suffice to say that the great capitalism that continues to dominate the world has been wholly inefficient at promoting family life, protecting human and organic life, and supporting economic participation at all levels.

Peace,
Keith Michael Estrada

If you have found the content on Keith Michael Estrada’s “Proper Nomenclature” to be useful, kindly consider supporting the cause with a donation.
Use the button below to donate through PayPal:

Thank you!

Go back

Capitalism

Catholic Social Teaching

Socialism

Capitalism

Catholic Social Teaching

Enrique Dussel

Joseph Ratzinger

Keith Michael Estrada

Previous Post

December 2, 2015

Laudato si' Invites You: An Economy Beyond Capitalism

Next Post

December 4, 2015 #prayershaming: Bridging the gap between profession and action

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Benedict XVI Canada Capital Punishment Capitalism Care for Creation Catholic Committee of Appalachia Catholic News Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Tradition - Art Catholic Worker Catholic Worker Inspirations CST in 140 Characters or Less Diocese of San Diego Faithful Citizenship Father Frank Pavone Chronicles Fathers, Mothers, Saints, and Doctors Francis Guest Posts Gun Violence Humor, Parody, and/or Satire Interfaith Dialogue John Eudes John Paul II Marriage and Family Migration New Evangelization News Not a formal post. Our Lady of Guadalupe Paul VI Popes Pro-Life Racial Justice Releases Religious Freedom Repeat/Repost Saints Socialism Thomas Aquinas Uncategorized

Select a Month March 2020 July 2019 June 2018 May 2018 March 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 April 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Psalm prophesies the coming of the Messiah being rejected?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 51 Psalm 137 Psalm 118 Psalm 1