#Capitalism ii free free

In fact, the sharpest slap the Pope can think to swing at socialism is to call it “State capitalism”: (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 15)Ĭommunism is bad because it leads to a situation in which persons do not own, order, or decide in regards to the means of production, but remain subservient to a bureaucratic apparatus - just like in capitalism. It should be noted that in today's world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed…In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only 'ordering' and 'decision-making' body - if not also the 'owner'- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. He critiques the suppression of initiative typical of socialist regimes in just this manner: In fact, John Paul is anti-communist precisely insofar as communism leads to the same results as capitalism.

#Capitalism ii free free

But is this not the prototypically capitalist solution to any social problem-to let the market work? It’s odd, then, that the Pope would be called a champion of the free market by virtue of his anti-Communism. greedily) is an evil and ineffective way to deal with poverty. The blind trust of market forces (which act as “forces” only in and through human beings choosing to act by the open-ended desire for profit, i.e. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. The Pope made it clear, as often as he was able, that the repudiation of Communism did not mean a valorizing of capitalism: A certain amount of innocence and honesty is necessary to shake the idea of a pro-capitalist Pope: If I were to tell anyone, “I work within an economic sector circumscribed by a strong juridical framework which places my economic activity at the service of all of humanity’s freedom to be good and holy,” no one in their right mind would say, “Ah, you are speaking, of course, about capitalism.” The Pope advocates that economic activity be strongly regulated, and orientated, by political power (by a “juridical framework”), towards service. If you ask what “capitalism” means, its cheerleaders inevitably say something like: “it means free markets,“ or, more earnestly, “it means the government doesn’t get to interfere with business.” But this is precisely the kind of capitalism that the Pope opposes:īut if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. This hesitation makes sense: “Capitalism” reduced to recognition of business, markets, personal creativity, and the responsible use of private property is a reduction of what capitalism usually means to the good things that one rather hopes from capitalist societies.

These are the kindest words John Paul ever grants capitalism, and they are couched within a hesitation that a “capitalism” so kindly described should really be called something else. It is true that the holy Saint nuanced his opposition by describing an “acceptable” capitalism:Īn it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy,” “market economy” or simply “free economy.” (Centesimus Annus 42)

On this, the feast of Saint John Paul II, we recall his opposition to the economic system we call “capitalism.” This opposition is often denied, usually in order to fit the Pope into the character of an anti-communist (which he was) who merely critiqued the “excesses” of capitalism, easing the consciences of Catholics who live in capitalist states.