Catholic Communism.

Vic Biorseth, Monday, April 05, 2010
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Socialism is pure bureaucracy. Mises.

In response to a recent commenter in the dialogue after the Definition Of Marxism page, I responded in part with a quote from a book by the famous Austrian economist, Ludwig Von Mises. Upon further reflection on the words of Mises, I decided that they deserved a separate page on this website, particularly in this time when so many people seem to be just becoming aware of the true nature of Marxism, in all it’s variations. It attempts to shoe-horn people into boxes beneath a hierarchical structure so that the details of the living of their lives may be “correctly” directed from above, in defiance of human nature.

Such pure bureaucracy works for the Church, but not for the social order outside the Church, and the reasons are fairly obvious. Without further elaboration about it by me, here is what Von Mises said about it.

Plato’s ideal of elite rule has been converted into fact by the Catholic Church. The Roman Church, under the Tridentine organization as it emerged from the Counter Reformation, is a perfect bureaucracy. It has successfully solved the most delicate problem of every non-Democratic government, the selection of the top executives. To every boy access to the highest dignities of the Church is virtually open. The local priest is anxious to smooth the way to education of the most intelligent youths of his parish; they are trained in the Bishop’s seminary; once ordained, their further career depends entirely upon their character, their zeal, and their intellect. There are among the prelates many scions of noble and wealthy families. But they do not owe their office to their ancestry. They have to compete, on almost equal terms, with the sons of poor peasants, workers and serfs. The princes of the Catholic Church, the abbots and teachers of the theological universities, are a body of eminent men. Even in the most advanced countries they are worthy rivals of the most brilliant scholars, philosophers, scientists, and statesmen.

It is to this marvelous instance that the authors of modern socialist utopias refer as an example. The case is manifest with two forerunners of present-day socialism: Count Henri de Saint Simon and August Comte. But it was essentially the same with most other socialist authors, although for obvious reasons they did not point to the Church as a model. No precedent of a perfect hierarchy could be found other than that presented by Catholicism.

However, the reference to the Church is fallacious. The realm of Christianity which the Pope and the other Bishops administer is not subject to any change. It is built upon a perennial and immutable doctrine. The creed is fixed forever. There is no progress and not evolution. There is only obedience to law and the dogma. The methods of selection adopted by the Church are very efficient in the government of a body clinging to an undisputed, unchangeable set of rules and regulation. They are perfect in the choice of the guardians of an eternal treasure of doctrine.

But the case of human society and civil government is different. It is the most precious privilege of man to strive ceaselessly for improvement and to fight by improved methods against the obstacles that nature opposes to his life and welfare. This innate impulse has transformed the descendants of crude cave dwellers into the somewhat civilized men of our age. But mankind has not yet reached a state of perfection beyond which no further progress is possible. The forces that brought about our present civilization are not dead. If not tied by a rigid system of social organization, they will go on and bring further improvement. The selective principle according to which the Catholic Church chooses its future chiefs is unswerving devotion to the creed and its dogmas. It does not look for innovators and reformers, or for pioneers of new ideas radically opposed to the old ones. But it is precisely this adamant conservatism that makes bureaucratic methods utterly inadequate for the conduct of social and economic affairs.

Bureaucratization is necessarily rigid because it involves the observation of established rules and practices. But in social life rigidity amounts to petrification and death. It is a significant fact that stability and security are the most cherished slogans of present-day “reformers.” If primitive men had adopted the principle of stability, they never would have gained security; they would long since have been wiped out by beasts of prey or microbes.

German Marxians coined the dictum: If socialism is against human nature, then human nature must be changed. They did not realize that if man’s nature is changed, he ceases to be man. In an all-round bureaucratic system neither the bureaucrats nor their subjects would any longer be real human beings. (Bureaucracy; Ludwig Von Mises; pp 101-103)

The problems with Democracy are the obvious ones associated with the “pure Democracy” end of the democratic spectrum. Obviously, we cannot take a vote on every single decision that must be made, so it is far too ponderous and time consuming as a from of government. An example of a pure Democracy might be a lynch mob. Beyond inefficiency, the more serious problem with it is that the majority is not always right, and so pure majoritarian voting is dangerous to justice. There must be something – some unshakable standard agreed to by all – that remains settled, and that we do not have to vote on again and again.

Our unique American Constitutional Republic has come closer to the perfect secular solution than any other government system in world history. It allows the populace the liberty to compete and excel, it allows the free market to expand and operate via the natural laws of supply and demand, it constrains the liberty of the citizenry only in so much as they might do injury to other citizens or the free market, it elects Representative government administrators to oversee government operations, and the elections are done by a fundamentally moral people.

I think we can all see that the current Marxocratic Regime, with Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, presiding, is operating to directly dismantle or negate every element of our Republic enumerated in the paragraph above. Marxism, in any variety at all, simply does not work in the civil order. It is antagonistic to and destructive of human nature. It even seeks to change human nature, which means that those changed would no longer be human. It prepares people for herding; it seeks to change homo sapiens into herd animals, totally dependent upon their handlers.

Every variant of Marxism by every possible description involves the lie of redistribution – redistribution is a lie because the government will simply take it and use it for its own purposes and not redistribute it – ; a centrally planned and government controlled market, and a completely dependent, subservient citizenry. Marxism always, always, involves increased impoverishment of the whole citizenry.

Take a look at the recent USCCB Flip-Flop article submission for yet another example of where some of our Bishops might be taking us.

Pray for America, and join all the rest of us in our biggest rally ever, which will be at the November 2 2010 polling place rally in your neighborhood. Vote ‘em outa here.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Mon Apr 12 23:34:14 2010
From: The Persian
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Mises referred to Socialism not Communism. You seem to not know the difference. Why do you mix references so? It looks like you need to go back to school. For someone who seeks to be recognized expert, you don’t know what you speak of. There is big difference between Socialism and Communism. Why do you not know that?

Date: Tue Apr 13 05:57:13 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Persian:

You’re quite right, of course; there is a difference between Socialism and Communism. As pointed out in the The Great Communist Lie page, both of them are fraudulent movements, along with every other social term described by Karl Marx, one of history’s greatest and most successful frauds. I’m sure we both know that Communism, as Marx described it, has never even existed, is quite impossible and will never exist. However …

Let’s look at the Marxist terms as used by the rulers of the lands supposedly able to be defined by very specific Marxist terms, as your teachers probably taught you.

Russia under Lenin was supposed to be Marxist-Leninist. In actuality, it was a typical Socialist dictatorship. But Lenin referred to himself as a Communist, to his movement as Communist, to his country as Communist, and his political Party was called the Communist Party.

China under Mao was supposed to be Maoist. In actuality, it was a typical Socialist dictatorship. But Mao referred to himself as a Communist, to his movement as Communist, to his country as Communist, and his political Party was called the Communist Party.

Cuba under Castro was supposed to be Fidelista. In actuality, it was a typical Socialist dictatorship. But Castro referred to himself as a Marxist-Leninist, and also as a Communist, to his movement as Communist, to his country as Communist, and his political Party was called the Communist Party.

Our own current glorious leader, Comrade Premier Barack Hussien Obama, peace be upon him, hopes to be the first American President to fulfill the dream of the famous anti anti-Communist Walter Cronkite by yielding up American sovereignty for the greater good of a future Communist world. And all the Democrats will say amen. The drive is toward a U.N. ruled world of social sameness; our Marxocratic Party continues to dream the impossible dream.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.