Liberation Theology is in - should Yi be concerned?

[Jacob]

You're contradicting yourself Jacob.  AFAIK Deng didn't increase a minimum wage, or institute a food stamp program, or subsidized health insurance, or anything that could remotely be considered "not solely relying on the unfettered capitalist something something."  By that earlier definition he did not "address poverty."

I'm 100% confident that Deng's China had a number of redistributive programs in place.

I think you're attempting to read to universal a meaning into my point (coincidentally making it easier to dismiss). I certainly agree that in the context of China that market reforms were key to drastically reducing poverty; coincidentally, that was the opposite of leaving poverty as it was in the local context. My "leaving things as they are" breakdown was aimed at a more local context on this board. The point I take from liberation theology is to look for social and structural changes that can address the needs of the poor, and to place that as very high priority, rather than to agitate for a specific point along the redistribution-vs-free-market scale where you seem to want to pin me down - or, as you put it merely "wish that things were better for the poor" while carrying on as usual.

I think Brazil is striking a reasonable balance between market reforms growing the economy and allowing opportunities for individual wealth accumulation on one hand, and targeted redistributive programs such as Bolsa Familia on the other.

[Sheilbh]

I think Brazil is striking a reasonable balance between market reforms growing the economy and allowing opportunities for individual wealth accumulation on one hand, and targeted redistributive programs such as Bolsa Familia on the other.

Brazil's interesting because their economy has been struggling (for Brazil) recently but the government's still broadly pretty popular. I've read articles suggesting that that's basically because the economy's not doing so well, but there's redistribution that's working. Extreme poverty is being reduced and the middle class are still growing.

Also the impression I get is that for Brazil Dilma's government is not that corrupt.

My "leaving things as they are" breakdown was aimed at a more local context on this board. The point I take from liberation theology is to look for social and structural changes that can address the needs of the poor

Incidentally this was, from the Vatican's perspective, a big problem with liberation theology especially the more extreme type. It talked a lot about 'structural' or 'social sin'. From an orthodox Catholic view sin is individual. You cannot propose that we need to address social sin before it is possible to address individual sinners, or that if you eliminated those 'social sins' you would create a more sinless new man.

For the Church the root of evil isn't social or economic structures but in the freely made choices of men and the solution isn't to overthrow those social sins (though capitalist society is disordered) but to convert the men to love their neighbour.

Not that Ratzinger was indifferent to the origins of liberation theology:

In certain parts of Latin America, the seizure of the vast majority of the wealth by an oligarchy of owners bereft of social consciousness, the practical absence or the shortcomings of a rule of law, military dictators making a mockery of elementary human rights, the corruption of certain powerful officials, the savage practices of some foreign capital interests constitute factors which nourish a passion for revolt among those who thus consider themselves the powerless victims of a new colonialism in the technological, financial, monetary, or economic order. The recognition of injustice is accompanied by a pathos which borrows its language from Marxism, wrongly presented as though it were scientific language.

Because of the Marxist analysis, which is viewed as 'science' the fact of injustice and inequality is less important than class struggle - with all that implies.

[Valmy]

You cannot propose that we need to address social sin before it is possible to address individual sinners, or that if you eliminated those 'social sins' you would create a more sinless new man.

Man you sure hear this view among leftwing types a lot.  That somehow if we removed whatever the bugbear is, the Patriarchy or Neo-Liberalism or whatever, that people would cease to be petty and cruel. 

[Sheilbh]

Man you sure hear this view among leftwing types a lot.  That somehow if we removed whatever the bugbear is, the Patriarchy or Neo-Liberalism or whatever, that people would cease to be petty and cruel.

In this case it was explicitly inspired by Marxism.

But you hear it on the right too, I blame too many people reading Ayn Rand. I suppose the slight difference is the lefty idealist thinks if you create the perfect world everyone would be a bit more like them. On the right people think if they created some minimalist meritocracy they would, inevitably, be one of the meritorious.

[crazy canuck]

But you hear it on the right too, I blame too many people reading Ayn Rand. I suppose the slight difference is the lefty idealist thinks if you create the perfect world everyone would be a bit more like them. On the right people think if they created some minimalist meritocracy they would, inevitably, be one of the meritorious.

Thats a nice way of putting it

[Admiral Yi]

I'm 100% confident that Deng's China had a number of redistributive programs in place.

Excellent use of the passive.  Your language is getting lawyerly in your old age.

I think you're attempting to read to universal a meaning into my point (coincidentally making it easier to dismiss). I certainly agree that in the context of China that market reforms were key to drastically reducing poverty; coincidentally, that was the opposite of leaving poverty as it was in the local context. My "leaving things as they are" breakdown was aimed at a more local context on this board. The point I take from liberation theology is to look for social and structural changes that can address the needs of the poor, and to place that as very high priority, rather than to agitate for a specific point along the redistribution-vs-free-market scale where you seem to want to pin me down - or, as you put it merely "wish that things were better for the poor" while carrying on as usual.

I'm not trying to pin you down on anything.  You explicitly said that letting the market work just doesn't cut it.

[Jacob]

I'm not trying to pin you down on anything.  You explicitly said that letting the market work just doesn't cut it.

You've shifted the just, and substituted a "letting" for a "relying solely on" providing a different meaning.

I think that relying just on the market working doesn't cut it when it comes to addressing poverty. We should definitely let the market work, but for the market to provide the best results regarding poverty it needs good social policy along with it (and a proper regulatory framework, of course).

[Siege]

Why is communism so popular around the world, when all their social experiments have failed?

I don't understand. Why follow a failed ideology?
I mean, wasn't the failure of the Soviet Union enough?
Wasn't the Chinese conversion to State Capitalism under communist leadership the ultimate proof that communism and Marxism don't work?

[Eddie Teach]

Scandinavia hasn't failed.

[Caliga]

Siege, Ed & Cal when trolling, Jacob's impression of Garbon, Seedy's impression of Yi. 

Yes, correct, when trolling.  When not trolling, I think the Church has an obligation to help the poor which it shares with all Christian organizations, Catholic or otherwise.  My grandfather was a Lutheran minister and he and my grandmother spent a great deal of their lives helping the poor through stuff like Meals on Wheels, etc.  I don't see how one can read the Bible and not realize that this is a central message of it.

That said, I definitely do not think the Church should ally itself with political movements, regardless of affiliation.  Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.  My grandfather actually never voted because he felt he should not be involved in politics in any way, shape, or form.

[fhdz]

Yes, Siege, Communism has failed and continues to fail, drastically and with great repercussions for the citizens of those afflicted countries.

Socialism, on the other hand, hasn't failed. As Teach notes, the Scandis seem to have hit on a formula that works well in small, homogeneous nations - a relatively free market by the standards of *any* communist country, funding an enormous safety net and array of public programs.

[Ed Anger]

England has failed me however. What a nanny state shithole.

[fhdz]

England has failed me however. What a nanny state shithole.

The English love to moralize; the Scandinavians don't seem to have quite such a pressure in that regard.

[grumbler]

Prosperity theology is the teaching that wealth is a sign of God's favor; if you're rich, God really loves you.  If you're not, God doesn't love you as much.

Who in the catholic Church has taught that?  Sounds more Anglican than Catholic.

[Valmy]

Why is communism so popular around the world, when all their social experiments have failed?

It is not so much pro-Communism as against the current system they have.