Karl Marx or Pope Francis?

This is kinda hard? My (partial) guesses would be:

Pope: 5, 6, 8

Marx: 1, 10

Not sure about others.

Hah, I got 8 out of 10 right. I thought they were all the Pope. None of them sounded like Marx, not even 1 and 3. Well, maybe 3.

Yeah, 1 doesn’t really sound like Marx—I just wasn’t sure what “treaty” Francis could’ve been referring to, so went with Marx.

They are also both leaders of reactionary millenarian cults. Still, at least Pope Francis seems like a nice man besides that.

Harold’s basically right here.

Catholicism, per se, and Marxism, per se, may not be compatible, but it’s certainly possible to come up with synthetic worldviews that combine certain elements from both, and there certainly are points of agreement.

Nick, what was remotely ‘reactionary’ about Marx?

“No (sudden and massive) expropriation of Church property (KEY!!!!)”

Right, but it’s just about expropriation; don’t they have a nice little bank there, allegedly engaged in all kinds of dubious practices? So, is this pope just talking the talk, or is he going to do something about it, and perhaps follow the fate of the unfortunate John Paul I? Ta-da-ta-da-ta-da…

On Marx and Catholic teachings, see Jose Miranda, Enrique Dussel, Hugo Assmann, Franz Hinkelammert.
And http://www.scribd.com/doc/19792338/Loewy-Capitalism-as-Religion-Benjamin-and-Weber

Where’s George Scialabba when you need one?

How many dividends has the Pope?

I see I got the same score as Corey, but with an opposite type of error.

I imagine with an exhaustive trawl you could find similar sentiments expressed on occasion by Benedict, JPII etc. Not an authority, but this looks to be entirely orthodox Catholic doctrine.

But, as people on the left are having fun pointing out, Benedict and JPII catered to “cafeteria Catholics” on the right, who wanted plenty of hellfire and brimstone on abortion and homosexuality, but infrequent and sotto voce mentions of anything Jesus might have said about the poor in unguarded moments.

Assets of the two big churches in Germany are estimated at 500 billion (there are of course no accurate numbers, since the churches are extempt from publication requirements, along with labour laws that allow strikes, or dont allow fireing people for non job related reasons and a lot of other stuff..). If they would practice what they preach on poverty, they would stop hoarding money and start donating it.

“Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism” is classic reactionary cant.

Thomas More in Utopia sure seemed to blend the two, though neither perfectly preserved.

Indeed! As did Plato in the Republic. I mean, if you want to go avant le lettre, let’s go avant le fucking lettre.

Utopia doesn’t really strike me as blending Catholicism with the whole Utopian plan much. I mean, it’s a parody of Erasmus’s humanism.

Pope Francis just might be an accelerationist at heart.

Guesses: 1 m, 2 m, 3 p, 4 m, 5 p, 6 p, 7 m (no concrete feeling), 8 p, 9 p, 10 m
Did better past the first group.
The mention of a “treaty” in #1 was a dead giveaway for me that it had to be Marx. I could have gotten #10 right if I hadn’t zoned out and not looked at it carefully. Hitting a bit better than random chance here, and I haven’t even read Marx (well, only exceedingly little).

The Pope’s words might have a positive effect in legitimizing social democratic projects, particularly if he can push provincial elites within the Church to assist local efforts. That’s my speculation, I’m rather ignorant of what the Church is up to nowadays in say Latin America.

I didn’t know Plato was Catholic! Thanks so much.

John Quiggin is entirely correct. Benedict made no secret of his disdain for capitalism. Shortly before his resignation he wrote this (source):

“It is alarming to see hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism. In addition to the varied forms of terrorism and international crime, peace is also endangered by those forms of fundamentalism and fanaticism which distort the true nature of religion, which is called to foster fellowship and reconciliation among people.

Plato’s work certainly got incorporated into Christianity.

Is it me or did the CT commentariat of a few years back have a better sense of humor? (I mean, fuck, I’m probably bringing the mean down, but still.)

whether they’re compatible with *Catholicism* is a different question, and one only the Pope can answer.

… and here I was, thinking “catholic” meant “universal”.

“The doctrine remains the same, unfortunately but necessarily, which makes the emphasis all-important.”

It’s the same old same old, I fear. But perhaps this Pope has a better feel for the Zeitgeist than his Germanic predecessor.

“That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvellous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy.
In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class (…). Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself. ” Rerum Novarum, pope Leo XIII, 1891.
I don’t know that any pope since then has strayed from Leo’s position. The catholic church has been condemning both capitalism and socialism for over a century; what’s new is that Francis is the first pope who no longer has to worry about socialism (by far the greater evil in the eye of the church). I don’t know if that’s good news.

“Hector knows women better than actual women, and Watson knows Catholicism better than the actual pope.”

Don’t forget that Mao knows Judaism better than actual Jews!

/These last couple threads have just been surreal.

In [the exhortation], he reiterated earlier statements that the church cannot ordain women or accept abortion. The male-only priesthood, he said, “is not a question open to discussion” but women must have more influence in church leadership.

It’s a shame he doesn’t seem able to apply his analysis of inequality to inequalities between men and women. Or recognise that most of the poor are women and girls, and a lot of them are poor because of the way they are treated as women and girls.

To QS: succintly put, the catholic church holds that the destruction of the feudal order has led to the disaster of capitalism, which itself breeds (or used to breed) the even worse danger of communism / socialism. Or as Pius XI put it in the 30’s:
“By pretending to desire only the betterment of the condition of the working classes, by urging the removal of the very real abuses chargeable to the liberalistic economic order, and by demanding a more equitable distribution of this world’s goods (objectives entirely and undoubtedly legitimate), the Communist takes advantage of the present world-wide economic crisis to draw into the sphere of his influence even those sections of the populace which on principle reject all forms of materialism and terrorism.”
The church’s condemnation of capitalism is reactionary at its core. Its socio-economic doctrine, for over a century, has rested on a paternalistic, corporatist, organicist view of society. The cardinal sin, in its view, was the destruction of the guilds and corporations by the French revolution. In its rhetoric, the church may sometimes sound close to the left, if you select carefully. Thus for example, the church has been a strong advocate of the freedom of association – but its model has always been the corporation of old, not the workers union.
The separation of church and state, the expropriation of the catholic church by the Spanish republic led to its condemnation by the church. During the Civil War, the pope never doubted that the danger of communism far outweighed any other consideration (despite early exhortations to “love your enemy”). But then again, Franco was no liberal by any means.

“I certainly do know Judaism better than many actual Jews.”
Do you?

Fuck off, Hector.

(And I apologise if this breaks any CT rules, I just had to say it.)

In any case, I’m sorry for derailing the discussion by responding to Katherine’s remark about feminism.

“I see that the faculty for polite and civilised discussion is not one that feminism encourages, Katherine.”

You responded to her in the most patronizing tone imaginable, essentially calling her a five year old.

You deserve neither politeness nor civilized discussion, you smug prick.

> what we want is often a poor guide to what’s good for us

Coincidentally, so is the Bible!

(Unless you’re allergic to shellfish…)

I have to disagree with Atrios; misogyny, homophobia and authoritarianism are built into the Catholic Church and although there are traditions, factions and individuals within the Church who have different (more humane and sensible) priorities, the misogynistic authoritarian homophobes will always win out (even the best intentions of the odd ‘liberal parish’ notwithstanding)
Of course if you dare make such an obvious point these days you get written of as trading in simplistic caricatures, and are called out as someone who doesnt understand the complexity of the modern Church and the reforms being carried out internally by the ‘liberal wing’. LOL
I’m glad the new Pope has reprioritised from ‘the culture wars’ but it’s only a lipstick on a pig moment. The Catholic Church will never be changed, so good riddance to it.

When thinking of Catholic thought and theory I have to consider the differences between Franciscan, Benedictine, Jesuit, and Augustinian ideas and practices.
If this Pope is not careful he’ll end up in the same boat with Dom Helder Camara and/or the ghost of Sir Thomas More.

“They’ve got a list a mile long of specific things that they officially consider bad ideas, but they’re not in the business of proposing alternative good ideas, other than “come to mass”. Hence why they’ll rail against the evils of any system of government you can name, but then turn around and support the Francos of the world.”

I really like this comment. Thank you dn.

“They’ve got a list a mile long of specific things that they officially consider bad ideas, but they’re not in the business of proposing alternative good ideas, other than “come to mass”. Hence why they’ll rail against the evils of any system of government you can name, but then turn around and support the Francos of the world”
You might find that assuming political actors have the same positions they adopted in the 1930s today is a fairly risky methodology – if you assumed, for example, that European social democracy today is basically similar to what it was in that decade, you’d be making a pretty big mistake. And though the Church may be fairly slow to move, there have been such little shifts of position as Vatican II since the 1930s. The Basque hierarchy was firm in its support for the Republic during the Civil War, incidentally, so obviously there is nothing specifically in the Catholic DNA here. I am somewhat baffled by the assumption apparently held by everyone here that the Church’s social teachings are some kind of Delphic mystery – they were embodied precisely by the programme of western European Christian Democracy from the late 1940s through to the 1970s. I for one prefer that programme to neoliberalism, even neoliberalism plus gay marriage.

Far more briefly than the topic deserves:

In the late 19th century, Catholic social thinkers in Austria, Italy, and Spain faced the challenge of industrialization and the combination of a.) disruption of traditional social hierarchies and b.) concentrated mass poverty that this entailed. These thinkers rejected both what they called “Manchester Liberalism” and Marxist socialism. Instead, they developed an arguably reactionary set of doctrines that we can classify as “Corporatism” (At the Papal level, see e.g. Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 Encyclical Letter. Looking backwards, the Church laments the destruction of medieval social organizations and the rise of modern mass society. Looking forwards, the same document prescribes Catholic trades unionism as the foundation for social order and the protection of the interests of the working class.) This tradition of corporatism was either refined or corrupted (as you prefer) into the basic economic theory of fascism. It was technically a reactionary ideology, but it advocated a set of practical policies to deal with the social disruption and economic instability of capitalism that were anti-market and in some cases converged with the policies advocated by Marxists.

History in the English-speaking world has blotted out this entire corporatist tradition for a variety of reasons (e.g. the poison left by its legacy of fascism, the work of Marxist historians and theorists condemning corporatism as simply a manifestation of state capitalism in which capital is directly backed by state coercive power under the guise of “corporate” institutions, etc.), but it is that tradition from which Francis is very clearly speaking, and it is a longstanding and well grounded tradition in Catholic thought. It would be foolishly ahistorical to claim that these statements by Francis are Marxist, even while it might be worthwhile to point out that they are anti-capitalist and anti-(classical) liberal.

John Quiggin @ #16:
I do not think papal encyclicals constitute “infrequent and sotto voce mentions of anything Jesus might have said about the poor in unguarded moments.”

JPII: Laborem Exercens, 1981
Text: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html

Summary: http://www.cacatholic.org/index.php/resources/catholic-social-teaching/social-encyclicals/35-laborem-exercens-on-human-work

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987
Text: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html

Summary: http://www.cacatholic.org/index.php/resources/catholic-social-teaching/social-encyclicals/34-sollicitudo-rei-socialis-the-concern-of-the-church-for-the-social-order

Centesimus Annus, 1991
Text: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

Summary: http://www.cacatholic.org/index.php/resources/catholic-social-teaching/social-encyclicals/33-centesimus-annus

Benedict XVI
Caritas in Veritate, 2009 Text:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Summary: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/vatican-summary-of-caritas-in-veritate

This is not a matter of an “exhaustive trawl” through minor works and interviews. These are among the most important documents issued by Benedict XVI and JPII.

I have a book somewhere by Michael Novak from the old days when he was defending Catholic social teaching against capitalism, before he got mugged by reality, I guess. I wonder if you could make a quiz like this using quotes from him.

There is a strong, humane reformist tradition in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, they usually seem to get clobbered by their fanatical extremist opponents on the right — from the Council of Trent on, and maybe before.

I didn’t know that about infant baptism and original sin. I’m learning new things on this comment thread.

Its important to remember that a number of 19th and 20th century Popes -I think Leo XIII was one of the few exceptions- came from the Italian aristocracy and upper middle class, and their attitudes towards socialism and communism were what you would expect from people with that background.

I see that the faculty for polite and civilised discussion is not one that feminism encourages, Katherine.

At the heart of politeness is respect, Hector.

[pointless, I know.]

Sorry, wrong thread.

“At the heart of politeness is respect, Hector.

[pointless, I know.]”

Hector doesn’t have respect for women on the internet because he doesn’t think they should be expressing opinions or contradicting men. He doesn’t see women as rational actors or as real people.

“the homophobes will always win out”

That would involve selfdefeat for a large part of the church hierarchy. The catholic church keeps up with a lot of things on an invididual level (some more, some less or not at all considered bad by mainstream society) , as long as its not done as an official chalenge to church doctrine.

lupita @89 – indeed, the decentralization issue is huge – not only with respect to Latin America, but also with respect to ecumenism. If decentralizing reforms follow, watch how the Eastern Orthodox react; any move toward a less ultramontane Church is also an incremental step in the direction of East-West unity, which is something of a holy grail to the post-VII papacy.

From Kieran’s quiz, it’s interesting that “limitless possibilities for consumption and distraction” and “man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption” may read today as Marxist, but are in fact standard tropes of 19th-century romantic anticapitalism.

So true. 90% of the population of the internet insist on believing that Marx advocated the slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

Whereas what he actually said about it was, “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly — only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

…

“Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.”

Let’s face it. In popular misconception, 19th century romantic anti-capitalism has won hands down.

This belongs here: “From each …”, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

One might say that the Enlightenment is the grandmother of Marx, and that Christianity is the grandmother of the Enlightenment, and that Judaism (along with Plato and the Roman Stoics) were the grandmother of Christianity, and that Zoroastrianism is the grandmother of Judaism (along with ancient Egypt and Ur). One might say all that and not be reactionary.

***
Also, the Church may not be fond of democracy, but it does have councils which elect the Pope, deliberate on reform, and theoretically can remove a bad pope, and so provide a template of a majority rule organization — even if hardliners seem to usually carry the day.

To pile on unnecessarily onto what is above, Catholicism opposes abortion rights, the cornerstone of Marxist feminism, has an ideal image of society as neofeudal fiefdoms bound together by customary relations rather than the expanding force of reason, privileges one religion above all others. Even post-Vatican II the church is not a force for freedom and democracy.

In the history of the social democratic project, Catholicism was often a sticking point, from the Special Schools debate in the Netherlands during the 1960’s to the tacit support for Franco and Salazar.

@floopmeister: Add Max Weber to that list, and you will see how simply that circle is squared. Hard work is virtuous, while enjoyment of its fruits is not in Protestantism. Ideologies do not need to be true to their names or founders.

That should be “The Catholic Church did not ….”

See this is what happens because sometimes I hit “submit” accidentally.

” It’s fair to say that the Pope and Karl Marx differ significantly on numerous points of theory as well as on what people asking questions at job talks refer to as the policy implications of their views.”

Indeed. I can’t imagine Marx (or Engels) echoing Francis’ dark warnings about “female machismo” or hemming and hawing about the role of women with “We must not confuse the function with the dignity.”

@102

Asked his favorite virtue, Marx replied “simplicity.” His favorite virtue in men, he said, was “strength”; in women, “weakness”.

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22asked+his+favorite+virtue+marx%22

Nice comment thread, thanks all.

Lucky me, I believe in separation of Church and State — and I don’t have to get all bent out of shape about Pope Francis’s political views.

I posted a response to John Quiggin (#22) yesterday morning, which has been held for moderation since, probably because it had too many links. So here is a different version without the links (which can easily be found by googling), but with some more explanation. I hope this one will pass and the other can be left unposted.

John Quiggin notes that Pope Francis’s teaching on poverty “looks to be entirely orthodox Catholic doctrine;” but “Benedict and JPII catered to “cafeteria Catholics” on the right” with “plenty of hellfire and brimstone on abortion and homosexuality, but infrequent and sotto voce mentions of anything Jesus might have said about the poor in unguarded moments” — although “with an exhaustive trawl you could find similar sentiments expressed on occasion by Benedict, JPII etc.”

The problem with this story is that Pope Francis is building on a long tradition of papal encyclicals, including several by his immediate predecessors. Papal encyclicals are not “sotto voce mentions.” They are the most authoritative of papal pronouncements.

In particular:

John Paul II
Laborem Exercens (1981) [7 occurrences of “poor” or “poverty”; 25 occurrences of “justice” or “injustice”; states the principle of “the priority of labour over capital.”]

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) [36 occurrences of “poor” or “poverty”; 21 occurrences of “justice” or “injustice”; advocates for “the option or love of preference for the poor.”]

Centesimus Annus (1991) [40 occurrences of “poor” or “poverty”; 38 occurrences of “justice” or “injustice”; argues that “it cannot be expected that the debts which have been contracted should be paid at the price of unbearable sacrifices.”]

Benedict XVI
Caritas in Veritate (2009) [50 occurrences of “poor” or “poverty”; 53 occurrences of “justice” or “injustice”; “there is urgent need of a true world political authority”]

The quotations given are merely representative and chosen for their interest in the context of the OP, Quiggin’s post, and of some of the other comments above. No exhaustive trawl was needed; any website on Catholic social teaching will direct you to these as key documents.

Why haven’t the moderators banned Hector?

To be fair, much of the impression that John Paul II and Benedict XIV “catered to cafeteria Catholics on the right” is probably due to filtering through the English-speaking media. I’m not sure how Francis is getting around this, and John Paul II, who was notably media-savvy, didn’t.

John Paul II (Wojtyla) was probably more focused on the Soviet Union as the hyperpower threatening the Catholic Church, and Francis (Bergoglio) is more concerned about the United States, for entirely understandable reasons given their backgrounds and the geopolitical situation when they were elected. Once constant in the history of the Papacy is a tendency to gravitate against the perceived strongest secular power of the day, they even tried to undermine Hapsburg Spain when the Spanish Kings were doing their best to extinguish Protestantism and to hold off the Turks. Plus there has always been suspicion that the American Catholic Church, which is a big revenue generator for the Vatican, has been too American and not sufficiently Catholic. So we can expect some break between the Vatican and the Washington Consensus, though they will probably try to be gradual and subtle about it.

Watson – Ok, thanks for the further explication (I see your point).

I’m pretty familiar with the ‘Protestant Ethic’ (both the text and the lived experience – coming from an extremely conservative Protestant upbringing) and I’ve always found the contradictions between doctine and practice pretty glaring…

Suzanne, I admit my googling was lazy, and I’m certainly not defending the pope on this or many other contentious topics, and don’t expect much improvement from the Catholics in my lifetime (which is to say for the next twenty years), nor even from many mainline Protestant denominations. Pollitt’s article was good, as usual, and the pope’s treatment of the Women Religious is something to keep an eye on. I’m inclined to hope that Francis will view their activity with a less jaundiced eye than Benedict, but I have no idea how these things work, how much of this is injured pride, institutional inertia, or what have you.

I like to look at trends, the first and second derivatives. We can probably say at least that Francis isn’t making things worse as rapidly as Benedict was. It may be too early to tell if he’s actually making things better. (Kind of like poor little comet ISON?)

lupita, that’s quite a gloss, but respectfully I actually think it’s already pretty clear what Francis meant. And pointing to the Marian cult as he does in the interview is the kind of bone JP II and Benedict would have been very comfortable tossing to the distaff side. As for the “theology of the woman,” to me it sounded as if Francis meant we’ll just have to dig further to find out what these strange not-male Others are all about.

@122: Francis is a change for the better. No question. It does bother me when I observe liberal opinion seemingly ignoring or glossing over what appears to be the new guy’s little woman problem. He does refer to women having more of a voice and he didn’t bar women, from, say, the diaconate. Early days, baby steps, etc.