Karl Marx and Millennials
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 сер 2019
- Today, we discuss a recent article in Teen Vogue titled "Who is Karl Marx?", which shows how many teens and teachers have begun dabbling in Marxism. There have been a slew of other articles noting the rise of millennials supporting socialism. Having done my masters work in philosophy on Karl Marx, I introduce this influential thinker and his main ideas, noting the problems the Catholic Church has with them.
NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a patron and get some great perks for helping, like free books, bonus content, and more. Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners…like you! So be part of this mission, and join us today: / bishopbarron
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm learning more from this Catholic priest than from any political science professor i had in college.
People's Bishop!
@@marypinakat8594 true!
@@johnelmerpechuela3519
☆
@@ragejinraver
It's high time that you guys think up some ways and make Michael Voris a Bishop or someone. (Very poor that yourself don't possess the intelligence and maybe the interest to find out the truth about what Bishop Barron spoke about people in hell.) If Bishop Barron was so much a bad element in the Church and life of the Catholics do you ever think that the Church wouldn't have dealt with the issue. *Why should YOU do something here in the comments section of a UA-cam video?*
BTW what is your understanding of Christian virtues, those that help us get us to Heaven?
@@Scott_LastNameRedacted
In my opinion you ought to simply stay away.
This is a silly comment, but I think this is the first time I've seen Bishop Barron rocking short sleeves.
That's how you know he's getting serious.
Well, not exactly short sleeves, but rolled-up sleeves
Wearing short sleeves and a Roman collar at the same time just feels off.
@@ToxicPea It is Summer and it is hot weather.
This is the most controversial comment in this entire comment section 👀
Love your videos. you and Father Mike Schmitz actually led me back to my Catholic faith. Thank you for these videos!
same here! He and Father Mike!
It’s doing the same for me too!
Little known fact: Karl Marx had a sister who invented the starter pistol. Her name was Anya.
This comment need more likes.
Good joke. Had to double check it.
You should totally do a second part of this! It was so interesting to listen to this message as a young Catholic.
Bishop Barron, I am Cuban born but came to the US in late 1961. I lived 3 years under this philosophy and regime. Not that you need any substantiation on your most illustrious summary, but if anyone still doubts what you speak of, I can add first-hand knowledge. I thank God my parents were brave enough to leave country, family, culture, and everything behind in order to escape that regime. I used to attend a beautiful school of St. Teresa, and we lived across the street. I watched how all the nuns and priests had to leave one day at midnight in order to leave the country. The school quickly became government property and the cross on the roof destroyed. We had to witness the militia come to inventory all the belongings and furniture of our home before we were granted permission to leave the country. We were a family of four and only allowed one piece of luggage, $50 pesos, and a box of Cuban cigars when we left. This is just one minute detail if the many, many atrocities we witnessed. Cuba before Fidel was certainly not perfect but it was The Paris of the Caribbean and there was a time the Cuban peso was valued above the American dollar. I would love to hear a story about us Cubans on this forum and especially the children of the Peter Pan project. Thank you.
*Millenials and the Church: A Conversation with Fr. Daniel Horan*
ua-cam.com/video/DNl9XcMXrZI/v-deo.html
You should tell your story on UA-cam! Spread the word, your story is fascinating and very important for today.
fragwagon Thank you. Many of us went through a lot of trauma having to leave our country.
What a smart, informative, and entertaining video. This had it all. And to better understand Jesus at the end. Bravo! Thank you Bishop Barron and Brandon!
God Bless You, Bishop Barron!
Thank you Bishop Barron, without your direction many of us would be lost
sheeple
21:40 What I've seen is that young people see the material goodness of charity (as in "donations/work") but don't connect that idea with the actual definition of charity, which is love! They'd rather have a faceless, loveless government bureau do their "charity" for them, and they don't realize how counter this is to real charity.
Thank you, Bishop Barron. We need Catholic leaders who are willing to tackle the hard topics and really understand them.Your calm and logical critiques are a blessing in this age of seemingly growing division.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 Eat bread today and you're still poor tomorrow. Better than nothing but it's not enough, and it's not better than crushing the capacity for real charity. I don't know what you mean by effective.
@Elizabeth Kraszewski Problem is that government is not «efficient.» Everything government does is wasteful. Nothing government does tends to just go to fix a problem.
Take feeding the poor. Charities feed the poor, but they don’t tend to have motives other than the benefit of the poor, to include teaching the poor to lift themselves out of poverty. so, they actually do feed the poor.
So, feed the poor, yes! However, government activity doesn’t end there. Government has no limits on its mission of feeding the poor. All sorts of « clients » are also created, when government feeds the poor, who‘s livelihood now depends on government «feeding the poor»: From the bureaucrats who disburse the funding that feeds the poor, to the politician who runs for office promising more government benefits to the poor, besides food. All the poor, and the bureaucrats, and all the others who now depend on the government feeding the poor, have to do is just vote for them.
Somehow, when all is considered, many of the poor do not even get fed. Certainly, very few of the poor ever rise out of poverty, and the only «poor people» who really do well, at the government’s feeding of the poor, are those who administer the programs, provide the wherewithal to feed the poor-and the politicians who get re-elected over, and over-because of their love for the poor.
No! Government is not the most efficient way to feed the poor. Government is thé least efficient way to feed the poor.
@@alevan5714 correction yes it is. Acting as if Charities themselves don't have beaurucracies, you need them sometimes fro proper organisation. The welfare system of the 1950s helped moved so many people out of poverty and the social welfare helped keep so many people out of poverty than any charity ever has. And if you're scared of a state that becomes too powerful and has ulterior motives then keep making sure that it stays democratic and follows the will of the people
@Nick Chris What you are talking about is the era when government gave actual food to «the poor.». I grew up in the fifties, I’m 76 years old, and one of the government contributions to rescuing the poor I remember is men, pulling up to food distribution posts in trucks,and loading cartons of cheese, and bologna and butter into them, and driving away. It was a big joke in my neighborhood.
Nobody was rescued from poverty, by the government, where I lived. Everyone I know, who made it out of the neighborhood either did well in school (I even knew an older kid who got a scholarship to Penn State). Most of my neighbors who went on to college went to Temple University. Everyone else either worked in the local factory (ACF BRILL -until it shut down), or repaired autos, or became carpenters, or stone masons, some even became burglars-and spent as much of their lives in prison as they did on the street. One fellow I grew up with became a maffioso and ended his career wrapped in a rug on a trash pile in the local dump.
All of us went into either the Army or the Marines. I don’t remember anyone joining the Navy. Now, that government activity helped a lot of us.
I know it helped me. I learned to be punctual, and to complete a job. It took a couple of years for the NCOs to knock the street out of me, but they did, and I ended re-enlisting.
.
My view of the poverty situation is, of course, limited to my neighborhood and my personal memories. I don’t remember the government getting anyone out of poverty. Obviously, however, I have a more limited view than you do.
@@alevan5714 I'm glad we agree, no one said that the system was well done or perfect everywhere. I'm talking from general statistics. The safety nets provided as well as reduced public housing benefited a lot of people and helped them from falling into poverty
Marx and Marxism are much more complicated than people think. For one thing, even though he saw communism as an ideal goal, he still saw capitalism as a step in the right direction for human progress. Another is the fact that he saw America as the greatest nation on earth which is why he support the U.S in the Mexican American war and exchanged letters with Abraham Lincoln. Also in his latter writings I did not think violent revolution was as inevitable as he did in the manifesto and even supported social change through democratic means. So he's a complicated figure.
Marx saw the need for a totalitarian government before communism and SOMEHOW these ultimate power governments are going to give it all to the people which never happened....now over 100 million murders have.
@@deusimperator Marx did not know the difference between a financier and an entrepreneur. He is an imbecile who never hung out with the common man he so "cared" about
@@deusimperator No one cares.
@@gorequillnachovidal sounds like a lot of the young philosophers of today.
@@gorequillnachovidal What the hell are you on about? Of course he knew.
"But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness." - Pope Benedict XVI
Monarchy is the Catholic government
There was never a democratic Socialism in Europe. Scandinavia is free market Capitalism with generous welfare programs where poor also pay taxes.
Pope Benedict means usurpation of the real Solution over worldliness is easy to expose in socialists that we really have to Focus on Christ bringing us all Towards Our FATHER:FOCUS Of Adoration of Jesus' Christians
Could you please invite Jordan Peterson? You both a great! A special about GK Chesterton would be great as well! Please and Thank you.
Peterson is garbage
Totally wish I could sit through a lecture by you Bishop!
Possible. Join the wof institute
Hope Bishop makes you more focused in Christ's Our FATHER
Robert Barron makes me want to study philosophy formally. Fascinating.
Bishop Barron, thank you for this, and for all of the videos you've posted.
Bishop Barron impresses me every time i listen to him
*Millenials and the Church: A Conversation with Fr. Daniel Horan*
ua-cam.com/video/DNl9XcMXrZI/v-deo.html
I’m a philosophy major. Expected this to be far worse than it was. This was excellent. Nice synopsis Bishop.
Catholic priests typically study theology, and/or philosophy, at a university level, there is such a misconception that Catholic clergy does not understand academia.
Bishop Barron you should do a video on freemasonry and the church position on it
Boring men's night out. The church doesn't like it.
Thank you. Bishop. This is a very informative video.
Amanda, Bishop Barron gave you the wrong answer. The correct answer is that in Judaism there are three compartments in hell/ Hell proper, purgatory and Sheol (also known as the Bosom of Abraham or Paradise). These are all collectively refereed to as hell sometimes. Jews believe that the righteous departed in Sheol are waiting for the Olam Haba (Age of the Messiah) for the Gates of Heaven to open so that they can enter heaven. Christ entry into hell was into Sheol so that the righteous departed could enter into heaven.
Excellent explanation. His answer was just ridiculous.
I think he is using this to teach his there are no people in hell heresy more than anything else. Now he is says that people in hell can be saved!
Thank you so much for that explanation. I knew something was very wrong with Bishop Barron's explanation but I did not know it,
Just printed off Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus from the Vatican’s website
You should address Henry George. If you are not familiar with him, a great introduction would be his "The Condition of Labor: An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII" written as a direct response to "Rerum Novarum."
This is excellent as usual. I would love to see Bishop Barron’s analysis of Marxism in regard to present social and political struggle.
Very, very good teaching...Thank you very much for sharing!
*Millenials and the Church: A Conversation with Fr. Daniel Horan*
ua-cam.com/video/DNl9XcMXrZI/v-deo.html
Amazing insight, thank you Bishop!
I'm not sure how many have seen the news, but there was an event in Poland. Jacob Baryla is a Polish youth that protested against a gay parade but there has been much backlash on Polish Catholics. I think we should start an novena to Our Lady of Victory up and till October 13. That's Poland's 2019 parliamentary election. We really should aid this country that still has a Catholic soul.
maybe dont protest a gay pride parade like an idiot?
@@theswoletariat3479 ha, too late. He is free to, and he did so with love in his heart and his actions, peacefully.
@@theswoletariat3479 focus is never on "idiotic" pride .... but ... on Dignity of Christ as Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6) then all "government/s" (that usurp/s His Own) will be Perfected Functional From Providence By Our Eternal FATHER
This is THE TRUTH and nothing but the truth...GOD bless father Barron!!!
I have heard there is a much longer video by Bishop Barron on Marxism but cant seem to find it . Perhaps it is under a different title then Marxism .Any advise?
Awesome series!
A most interesting video. As a Protestant Christian, I cannot doubt Barron's sincerity, however it is difficult to support the Roman Catholic Church's belief in private property. Surely, the many people who will never be able to afford to purchase their own home, whether due to poverty, disability or unemployment, should not be told to "know their place" and to respect those who own property?
Brilliant man. What a wealth of knowledge and insight. Such an important topic as not just Teen Vogue but the Church is increasingly pushing this stuff.
The Church does not, unfortunately, some people in Her have been doing so misguidedly.
scp240 Democrat party also pushing it while also using Marx’s strategy of class warfare to foment hate and violence among their citizens
Can anyone share the link of the talks from the Chesterton conference that Brandon referred to pls? Thx🙏🏼
I really appreciate your help. My question is which book did bishop Barron mention besides Manifesto at 21:25?
Centesimus Annus -- the encyclical from John Paul II he discusses in the video.
Would love some more of that 4 hours on Marx you talked about.
I wish my husband, a historian and debater personified, we're alive to hear your talks and to know you, Bishop Barron. He loved to argue. In on of Don's obituaries a colleague said, "He would argue you into a corner until he knew he had you."
This is a superb talk
Thank You bishop Barron. I like how explained the Church's position in regards to Marxism. It's one of the dangers we encounter. I usually say there is a danger of two extremes. You explained the dangers not only of Marxism but also in our own market economy when it comes to greed. You highlight the benefits of a Market economy and at the same time point out the dangers. We should read about the Church's social teaching so we don't get caught up flawed philosophies
.
Bishop Baron, you should debate Richard Wolff on Marxism. He had a great debate with the free-market libertarian Gene Epstein. He seems very open to discussing with those of differing views and makes convincing arguments. I'm sure the two of you could make a very fruitful engaging discussion.
I think it was Irving Berlin that quiped "The world would not be in such a snarl if Marx had been born Groucho instead of Karl".
I love it!!
how do we write the name of the book he reccomended to read instead of marx at minute 21:20?
Holaaa será que hay subtítulos en español. Muchas gracias
Doesn't Rerum Novarum speak against the dehuminization that results from the commoditization of labor.
That is not necessarily against capitalism, moreso against the abusing of people.
@@LostArchivist Capitalism necessitates the latter part of your statement.
Thanks brandon and bp barron informative video
It's a bit concerning that Bishop Barron, when asked why young people today are dabbling in Marxism, doesn't mention the changes in the economy in recent decades like stagnant wages, job insecurity, a exponential rise in wealth inequality and policies crafted to benefit the rich over the middle class. Instead he more or less dismisses it as typical of youth and naivety. Btw I say this as a Catholic and as a fan of Bishop Barron!
Yeah, but you really think those are valid reasons for opting for Marxism!?
Maybe, maybe not. I think some of the ideas have merit, others don't. All I'm saying is they're probably the reasons behind the recent spike in interest in Marx.
Doesn't evil breed evil? Perhaps we need some more legal/moral constraints to deal with rising wealth inequality, for example, as this definitely would lead some people to say that capitalism isn't working and why not give Marxism a try. I personally understand, but don't necessarily agree, how a current American style market economy would create the idea that we need to abandon it. It is horribly unfair and oppressive to millions and has resulted in famine, war, and suffering for decades.
I gotta question the narrative here. Would millenials trade places with people born 40, 50, 60 years ago? If it's so bad now I'd like to hear about it on a platform that didn't even exist 25 yrs ago where we interact on devices that were science fiction 30 years ago and we live in air conditioned comfort that not even kings could find 100 years ago and moving around in cars that last 3 and 4 times as long as any car made in 1970.
How about Venezuela and Cuba? People have food rations there, as well as, North Korea. Wake up
I don't think Marx thought that alienation would lead to revolution. Instead it would be various class antagonisms, like the conflict between wages and surplus value. His writings on alienation was a social aspect arising out of the divisions of labor.
Most of the reforms to capitalism were due mostly in part to militant union strikes that were often violent. So, Marx was not wrong on this front, and social democracy was the synthesis. Since the class antagonisms did not stop there, it makes sense that class conflicts would rise again.
What millennials are seeing is that social democracies around the world are being unraveled, and the only way to end the conflicts between the classes are to transition into an economic system that ends the class divides. Now there are many ways to do this, and a violent revolution is not the only one. Neither, was the USSR indicative of all socialist economic organization, and it's seems odd to try and dispel Marxism using the genetic fallacy. Many Marxists opposed Stalin's regime. In fact, Orwell fought fascists with the POUM, and along side the anarcho-syndicalists.
As for Marx comments on religion, it doesn't seem to be an absolute. After all, Marx himself pulled much from religion in support of his writings, makes sense as he had a Jewish background, however I think he recognized religion could be weaponized against the proletariat. There have been many religious socialist movements, after all.
It also appears to me that Pope Leo seems to have been trying to maintain the status-quo, even Jesus' teachings often included common ownership as opposed to private ownership. So it doesn't seem too hard to synthesize Christianity with Marxism, and seems kind of patronizing to Catholic Marxists by implying they are not "True Catholics". Likewise, I'm sure the Catholics that supported the monarchy or fascism would make the same claim against Catholic Social Liberals.
Labor doesn't need capital, only under capitalism does this seem to be true. All labor needs is access to resources.
Marx is only one leftist thinker, and his contribution as a critic of capitalism is greatly under appreciated. However, there were many critics of Marx's writings as well. Most notably Max Stirner and Mikhail Bakunin.
I appreciate a more honest approach to Marxism than what conservatives would warrant, and I look forward to researching about Catholic Social Teaching. It would be interesting to see what your thoughts on the reemergence of fascism, and your opinion on the political center giving way to extreme polarization.
Very good comments, some disagreements but I'm mostly on board with you.
@Kevin Cobb full of fallacious appeals and not particulatly scriptural interprets of the faith.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Not necessarily an endorsement of bloodshed, but a rejection of appealing to the center/encouraging folding on values and using scripture as the authority for it.
@Kevin Cobb sure, this is only in relation to your first reply. I didn't read the whole exchange with the athiest. "Marx was just a man ... No reason to put so much trust in him." While true, it's a non-sequitur because it's irrelevant and true of literally any human examination/statement. No one has suggested a gospel-like adherence to Marx, especially not Marx himself. Kind of already framing your arguement as against something no one is saying.
Your second paragraph, comparing Marxism to a child seeking justice? It's not so simple, Marxism is a framework within which to analyze the class structure of capitalist society and prescribe a path to socialism. It is a lot more than a simple desire for justice. Many capitalists have that same desire, as well, but the path to justice is what constitutes an ism. Marxism is certainly not "utopian" it is a constant struggle to advance humanity, it is practically defined by it's adherence to struggle and constant reexamination. While Marx uses some poetic language he never denies that socialism is but a stage in development, like capitalism, towards an eventual perfection of human society. I do not know any serious Marxists who envision a utopia for themselves or even their great-grandchildren. Much like Jordan Peterson and his attacks on non-existent "post modern Marxists" (marxism is moral absolutist and dialectical both of which are incompatible with post-modernism) "Utopian" is a commonly cast attack against it by those who either have not studied it from primary sources, or by those who seek to misdefine it and sew confusion. Unsurprisingly, in capitalist society most easily accessible secondary and tertiary sources on socialism seek to miseducate. Don't rely on a declared adversary to honestly inform you on the thing they seek to destroy.
The following segment, is what in particular bothered me. An appeal to the center? Why is the truth in the center? Jesus didn't say that, he explicitly warns against compromise with the unjust and assumptions that "truth" is found in some relation to the masses rather than in Him. He says he did not come to bring unity but a sword. He says to take up your cross, and that it would divide father and son, mother and daughter, brother and sister; that people will hate you but you MUST speak the message and not seek agreement just to appease. Appeals to the center are just intellectually lazy.
The underlying spirits and purposes that cause men to behave unjustly are kind of the bread and butter of a Marxist analysis. They blame very little on the person and attribute nothing to stereotype (you can find many notable exceptions to this, because people are flawed and racism or xenophobia are some of our easiest base urges to engage.) because they see the material conditions of a society as dictating how we are socialized and encouraged to act. For example, many people claim capitalism is "human nature" and that we could never have socialism because of greed. But greed is not inherent to us. Veering back to theology, greed is a sin and thus is us failing to act on our true nature to follow God. It's a *lapse* of our nature. Marx, while an athiest, also sees greed as a lapse of true human nature. It's sad that this is the go-to retort against socialism from my fellow Christians. Pre-capitalist history and allegorical example will often bear this out. We're compelled to generosity our brains reward generosity, our faith rewards generosity, throughout history; including biblical times the unproductive are cared for thru societal organizations that make available the basic resources of the era. I think its Samuel (maybe Ruth? Somewhere around there) where we see that the privileged were *mandated* not advised to leave some of their crop unfilled for the widowed and infirm. But our material conditions are competition for resources and a capitalist society that often punishes generosity (because your generosity robs a capitalist of profit, and they are the ruling class.) Doubt that? Try to organize a shelter for the homeless, or feed the needy without giving most of your resources to some corporate entity because of myriad rules and regs that ban home cooked/grown foods. There are some valid reasons for that sure, but it's easier to SELL than GIVE food for a reason. (I've helped organize many services for the needy, the recently incarcerated, and the addicted.) The reason is that the dominant ideology is Capitalism and capitalism requires a surplus army of labor; people desperate enough for work to always push wages down and the presumption that no one is owed dignity or self-determination just for being a Child of God. The threat of starvation and homelessness must exist for that debasement and desperation. We're told that's our nature, but it hasn't always been. Sure, there's always been struggle there always will be, and socialism will not end struggle; but the full cultural normalization of neglect of responsibility for others and the dogged individual competition of our time are outliers.
Disclaimer: not a "Marxist" but I value many marxist/marxian observances/critiques of capitalism. Like that socialism proceding from capitalism is as necessary and inevitable as capitalism proceeding from feudalism. I'm a Catholic who thinks we should make our investigations into history and philosophy and view whatever aligns itself with injustice very skeptically. I observe most (but not all) people, particularly my brother-Christians to buy too easily into the prevailing narrative and ignore that capitalism is motivated by greed when told to by capitalists. I think, given the Gospel, Christians should be amongst the most vocal critics of capitalism's faults and how it pushes individuals into sin and depravity; notably hedonism, decadence, wars of greed and conquest, greed, and disharmony among men. I see that many socialists are hostile to religion because it so quickly sides with the established worldly authority and fails to actually struggle for it's virtues in a meaningful way. They're right to see many of us as hypocrites and we should do better. We offer our crumbs to the needy but rarely live in service, we go to church to offset that and often read gospels that condemn the rich, prohibit hoarding wealth while the poor starve, and yet we go home and support a system that literally runs on and requires that inequality. One that puts individual wealth above our brothers and sisters, and above God. This leaves us as hypocrites tying ourselves to a system that doesn't represent what we claim to uphold while atheists build the future with plans to suppress us for our aligning with the past.
Kyle Brown - One ought guard against comparing the idealism of a particular system with the reality of another. Socialism/Communism has not provided us with any meaningful and successful working models and the less said on what has been attempted the better. One of the obvious failings of Socialism/Communism is that it does not account for the benefits of competition without which many of our great discoveries and inventions would not have been realized. For analogy, think sport, remove its competitiveness and it will soon become dreary and boring if not meaningless.
Edit: not all men or capitalists are driven by greed. Many Capitalists are great philanthropists.
Daniel Paul - My post was actually intended for Kyle Brown but not to disappoint you I will have this final thing to say to you - You have not noted my first bit of advice. Nor have you attempted to address the need for us humans to compete, an evolutionary trait no doubt. When considering inventions/discoveries, think beyond the iPhone or any other fashionable gadget. Also, we should not label ourselves “workers”, we are not bees or ants but rather we are men, men that work. Sport was given as an analogy, not as a necessary activity for man.
After watching this video I wish you had been the one debating Zizek. It would have made for an interesting confrontation.
What was the book on social teaching he mentioned?
Market Economy, I like that phrase now. Thanks Bishop Barron!
True It sounds better.
@GasconyKid why so grumpy?
Also called the free market system as apprised to the government or state controlled market system like Socialist/Communist China and North a Korea have now
"Market Economy" is the correct term. Marx chose to relabel it "Capitalism".
I tried to plow through Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" once but could not get over the impression that his language sounded like he was on LSD.
Great analysis!
I wish I was as smart as Bishop Barron
I'd LOVE to see a discussion between Bishop Barron and Arthur Brooks. Please!
We've already had one: on Arthur's podcast.
@@BishopBarron That makes my day. Thanks! 👍😄
The most important question we should ask is HOW justice is established.
Pax et Gratia Christi Tibi, Pater.
I was wondering if you could do a few videos on The Orthodox Faith?
I second that!
@@m-hayek1985 I'm confused as to your comment. I was merely asking if he could talk about the orthodox church, in my view the true holders of apostolic succession. As to the schism jab, I'd like to point out the Pope was the one who overstepped his power. So I'd say to you, madame, that it is Rome that is the schismatic church
@@m-hayek1985 that's like asking how the council of Nicea is ecumenical.... ecumenical just means in regards to many Christian churches.
@@m-hayek1985 you do know what the council of Nicea is right? It's the council that compiled the bible. How is that binding? Well if you dont think the council is binding you dont have a bible, so to call it anything but ecumenical ie to renounce Scripture. www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine-scripture/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-councils
@@m-hayek1985 but in addition to all this, why the hostility? I merely asked a question for the Bishop.
I am a Marxist, a Groucho Marxist.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” - Groucho Marx
GOD Will Tell you HE is FATHER ... (marx does not know)
Bishop Robert Barron is reminiscent of Cardinal Fulton Sheen and Apostle Paul..... Although my first degree in Catholic Theology, I find myself discovering nuances on both the Social Doctrine of the Church as well as on Systematic Theology.....
I am compelled to comment on what should be and is most important, ultimate ... Eternal
Great video!
Bishop Barron, how does usury play into all this? Wasn't there a time in history where any interest to a loan was considered a grave sin? Why did this go out of control?
I speak with no knowledge ir authority, but perhaps because the system matured to allow for knowledge about normative and fair standards involving loans?
@@LostArchivist Read E Michael Jones' book "Barren Metal"
Bishop Barron made mention of an influence on Marx, can someone poet that persons name or a book about them?
Ludwig Feuerbach and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Bishop Barron I would like one day to translate it into Spanish to be able to share it
I think there is a feature where you can create subtitles for someone else's video if they activate it
El Obispo Barron tiene muy Buenos puntos para reflexionar pidamos que nuestros propios Obispos agan Al parecido ya que somos ignorantes en muchas cosas
great idea, maybe even a group of people willing to translate, across many languages.
Fray Nelson Medina. You want to watch Fray Nelson Medina's video on Fatima. He elegantly destroys marxism. I think Fray Nelson and Bishop Barron should have a beer... or a cup of coffee.
Interesting, thank you
Thank you guys for this high quality discussions i really appreciate it when you clear out issues like these. Pls pray for me
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote a book called Apricot Jam, Millennials need to read this. Millennials may want to reconsider Socialism.
Only Sacred Scripture will make you understand ... Eternal LIFE:LOVE
Is it about commies kiled billions of indian people in 19th century? Oh, I forgot, it were british imperialists. Sorry...
Economics changes our lives for better or worse just as surely as medicine or law. Thanks you for this!
Very interesting. But what do you think about non-marxisti visions of communism in tradition of early Christians ideology (Thomas More, J. V. Andreae) and utopian socialists inspired by Christianism, especially Saint-Simon, Étienne Cabet and Wilhlem Weitling? There are no atheistic (Feurbach) parts in this teachings...
Great interview, could warrant a part two!
Perhaps it might be worthwile to create a video that dissects the differences between socialism vs. democratic socialism vs. social democracy? Your Excellency, while you did preface by saying it might sound a bit patronizing, I was still a bit taken aback by reminding us that communism was an atrocious system. I don't think (at least I hope not) many in the younger generation who dabble with Marx and socialism are in favour of a Soviet style government controlling the entire means of production, but more so social democracy or democratic socialism. I would call myself a social democrat, and I think such a system fits well with what the Church would prescribe in terms of a just system (very similar to those reforms you describe at 19:10).
Can I also just say you've helped me so much in terms of navigating not only the faith in general, but also this particular aspect of the market and how the Church analyzes such a situation.
It is also traditionally held by the Church that Christ went to Sheol to bring the faithful of the Old Testament into Heaven, as the gates were not opened for sinners until His sacrifice. There is a name for the level, though I am not certain as to what it was. If anything that I said was inaccurate, someone please do correct me.
Hades not Gehenna.
@@christophersnedeker2065 Sheol would be a better term yes? Hades is a Greek approximate term. Thank you for catching this old mistake. God bless you, through Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! Amen.
@@christophersnedeker2065 I just realized my reply may have come across as snarky. That was not my intention I am sorry if it offended you. I was wondering if you thought Sheol would work better or not?
@@LostArchivist it would.
@@christophersnedeker2065 Thank you.
Worker cooperatives anyone?
There's nothing stopping people from organizing them here in the states.
Some exist already.
It's when people use the state to enforce them, and the abolition of private property, the marketplace, free movement, etc... then you get problems.
Very true. I don’t want the state involved in forcing this. I just prefer a free market of worker owned businesses with personal property rights upheld. That’s all.
"Right to first refusal" seems to be a decent economic policy being pushed by soft socialists. One of the problems cooperatives face is start up capital, and most banks do not loan to them. A state run bank could establish a loan program for them, and tax policies could favor them. After all, once established they last much longer than traditional enterprises.
Thanks Your Excellency. I just wonder how many lives would be saved if das capital was never written. By the way. Have you ever a movie review on "No country for old men"?
Ryan G yep
How many people died before Das capital was written? This is a silly conjecture. The French revolution happened before Marx. The poor being tired of the fat greey and rich shitting on them would have happened regardless of Marx. Anyone who supports capitalism is not Christian. The greed and avarice that capitalism supports is anti Christian.
You should really talk about Chesterton and Belloc Distributism and another distributist philosophy called Scottish Social Credit
Great and necessary speech. Now I am 45 yrs old and I lived my first 15 yrs under comunism in Romania. I was practicly a kid but I still remember the monstrous system, the "gray air" you have to breath and live in everyday, and the killings of inocent people during the end of 1989...I do not have enough space here but let me give you an example of the sistem (might sound funny but it wasn't)
One year if you wanted to buy a book from the storebook, you also had to buy frozen fish...weird? Yeah, sure, but why you might ask? Because in that year the Comunist Party decided that the country had to fish a lot, and by the end of that year was a huge amount of fish not sold...so, the fish should be sold somehow.
You have to understand that in comunism the Party decides everything, everytime, in every area no matter how intimate or not.
TELL EVERYONE..MARXISM IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE BRINGING!
I am telling everyone...marxism is what Godless people are bringing
They have to be Godless...because GOD CLEARLY WILLS FREE WILL...AND THEY WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY! That alone is anti-God!
That's scary. Won't thrive and survive even for a day in a communist state. I'd surely fight for my freedom.
Cristi Halalau Hi we have seen the results and read about the communist regime under Mao. A lot of Chinese people displaced, hunger, poverty, no initiative (why would I work? Who would I work for? ) No private property, no heating in cold winters, no light at night, up to two families living in one little room, no sanitary conditions. Religious persecution. No education. I could go on and on. Those are the results of communist thinking. We should all be interested in history and politics, so we can make appropriate choices. No system is perfect, but I would prefer the free market system over any system. It is up to us make changes for improvements, but we don’t need necessarily throw a fundamentally good system away, just because there are some things we don’t like. Really liked the interview. It is important we speak about those topics. Thank you.
I think modern China should remind us that the system of practices and assumptions that we call Capitalism has no political allegiance and no morality. To the first, we can already see multinational corporations positioning themselves to benefit from China's growing number of consumers. To the second, it's a system built on debt and credit, which seems at odds with the God who teaches us to forgive our debtors as we have been forgiven. This admonition in the Lord's prayer obviously has a spiritual dimension, but it has a here and now, flesh and blood aspect as well. It's a system in which endless acquisition is a "moral" imperative. After 9/11 one of the president's admonitions was to go shopping. Jesus is incessantly telling people to give up what they have in service of God and neighbor. Capitalism may be a necessary evil in the present age, but it is not Christian in any way that I can see.
To anyone who has doubts about the real fruits of Marxism, I would suggest reading some works by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, In the First Circle, and especially the Gulag Archipelago, among many other works I haven't read, all are sharp critiques of Soviet Marxism.
Young people want financial help with education and healthcare. That does not make them cimmunists. Listen to them.
Seizing the means is not really any different from a capitalist monopoly type overlord, except that it’s the government so they can legislate their own rules as well.
A market economy which answers to democratically appointed government which serves the people’s well-being
The workers control the means, not the government. The only difference between socialism and what we have now is that the excess profits created by businesses would go to the workers rather than owners and shareholders. Do your research
Bishop Sheen talks about communism. Please check those videos on UA-cam. They are so good..
very good
Not sure if this will make it up the pipeline but thought I'd comment anyway. Question for Bishop Barron: You say that the formenting of a class struggle is to be avoided, but Marx asserts that the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat are already and always in a class struggle - in the sense that value comes from surplus labor value - thus exploiting the working class. Therefore to avoid engaging in class struggle in a Marxist framework is to be complicit or a victim of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (the fact that the state represents the bourgeoisie along with the super and substructure). Also, as a disclaimer I am a Catholic Revolutionary Marxist.
I was thinking the same thing... I think ultimately it derives from the fact that Jesus came to this earth to save men's souls, not to foment social revolution. Jesus did not say stop slavery, he said "treat your slaves well". The is simply because under fallen man's leadership, it is impossible for us to create a truly equal society where some do not have more wealth, prestige and power than others. If only because some people are born with higher intelligence and fewer physical disabilities than other, so they will always have a natural advantage and we can never fully adjust for this. So in your revolution, you'll end up overthrowing one exploitative dictatorship only to replace it with another one, which is exactly what has happened historically with Communism of course. See the thing is, man does not NEED wealth to be happy or spiritual... in fact the pursuit of wealth, even the pursuit of "equity" and "justice" often directly detracts from both. The bible tells us the poor have a special place in heaven. If one truly believes in their religion, then they shouldn't be encouraging anyone to chase wealth because it only corrupts. We should be praying for the wretched souls of the capitalists, because every dollar they make is pricing them out of heaven. On this earth those of us with less need to be patient, humble, at peace and always thankful for what we do have. That's the authentic Christian/Catholic way to model Jesus Christ, such that we become as close as possible to becoming Him. And when we do this, we ourselves become a form of God and the capitalists are the sad, powerless and hopeless ones to be truly pitied. We don't need a revolution to kill them here on earth. They are killing themselves in the afterlife, which is what actually matters.
well class struggle aways exist because of skill differential. this leads to inequality plus not all jobs are equal in hardness. in Capitalism Bourgeoisie has the hardest job because he manage the whole company that competes with another. He has manage lots of people. The problem is shortage of Bourgeoisie. another problem is shortage of capital to proletariat to have equal opportunity. also the risk of becoming an Bourgeoisie is high because you have risk wealth to create company which may go bankrupt. We call this people want to take the job of bourgeoisie an entrepreneur. also funneling wealth to produce more wealth is better than consumption. Because increasing production increase living standards of others.
@@spark300c I don't think your comment is persuasive:
1. Class struggle doesn't exist due to "skill differential," but (as the name suggests) because of classes. For example, being a slave and being a slaveowner required quite different skills, but the fact a successful slaveowner is good at, say, profitably exporting cotton isn't the reason the slave would be struggling against him.
2. Even if being a bourgeoisie was the "hardest job," that doesn't alter the fact that the interests of the bourgeoisie and those of the proletariat are fundamentally antagonistic.
3. Marx and his followers argue that capitalism's increasing productivity (and thus ability to "produce more wealth") unwittingly creates the material preconditions for socialism, and that capitalism will share the same fate as slavery and feudalism: these systems, productive in their time, became antiquated and were overthrown by rival classes.
@@IsmailofeRegime the problem before Feudalism you has capitalism. ancient capitalism to precise. The Last stage of Roman Empire imposed socialism to ensure enough resources for their armies. This lead to decline. When empire fell the non land owners need protection. So feudalism came to be. Feudalism decline when mid-evil Europe social economic development was high enough. The reason why class struggle is base on skill and difficulty. Marx veiw there are owners and labors. It very simplistic because ignore why different labors get paired differently. Marx ignores the concepts of job difficulty and difference in pay. The class struggle is all about the labors get fair pay and ensuring that top does not get over payed. When labor markets get really tight workers at bottom more likely to get a fair wage.
The way he portrays his opinions...
In a world where rolemodels to young people are "musicians", models, sportsmen... My rolemodel is bishop Barron.
The major problem is without capitalism, there is no good way to measure the economy and find out how to plan it. The rich like it because, then no one can see how much wealth they have.
Of course without religion and morals, and helping your fellow man everything collapses. Why help others according to their needs, grab as much as you can. Why work hard let others work for you.
Hello Bishop Barron, here in Brazil we have the political movement called Integralism, developed by Plínio Salgado, a Strong Catholic, based on the Social Doctrine of the Church. So what you spoke here goes much in harmony with Integralism.
We tried that in Ireland. Many young women were sent to workhouses if they fell pregnant and many cases of abuse of power took place where young people were sexually molested.
@@meatman446 That would have nothing to do with Integralism nor Social DOctrine of the Church.
@@rjltrevisan The Catholic Church was The Irish state. They had that much power they became unaccountable. Similar to Saudi Arabia chopping peoples hands-off, mixing religion with Government is rarely a god idea
@@meatman446 The Catholic Church shouldn't be the government, but the people in government should be devout Catholics, or even Protestants.
@@rjltrevisan Thats the same thing. I get where u are coming from but in reality, it would not work. Not everyone is Christian.
Appreciate Amanda's question and Thank You Bishop Barron for the convincing answer about Jesus 'descending to hell'.
@Ncyim
Oh yeah, that could certainly be our own role as one of WOUNDED HEALERS which we always are. Thank you.
Jesus however was the SAVIOR KING who outlived all wounds and death even. He was into claiming ALL for himself rather than ministering to any.
@@eyu5812
The topic of 'hell' in particular has not been discussed exclusively at any point in this video. Your comment is off the point herein. Thank you.
@@eyu5812
The questioner has been answered to satisfactorily. The clause doesn't indicate at all that 'hell' was the subject matter.
pls spanish subtitles :) anyways amazing content! thanksssssssssssss
Awsome. Hope JK Chesterton conference will be on youtube - for prosperity. Thank you Bishop for your CE.
This guy advocated for atheism the way theologians advocated for Christianity… why aren’t colleges addressing his biases more often?
Much love and respect to Bishop Barron on your thoughtful and nuanced approach to complex topics like this. I'm a former Marxist and re-convert to Catholicism. Politically and economically I am still very much left of center, and would probably consider myself a democratic socialist (the belief that a more just socialist society can be created through peaceful and democratic reforms, rather than violent overthrow). I will agree that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Marxism throughout the 20th century; however, there are a few points in defense of some Marxian ideas that came to my mind while listening:
1) As Catholics, our biggest critique of Marx is often his explicit atheism and view of religion as the "opiate of the masses". I believe along with many other Christians that the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels (especially Luke) are empowering to the poor and oppressed. However, I'd agree that at times religion can and has been used as somewhat of an "opiate" to oppress the poor. Some Christians cherry-picked Bible versus to justify American slavery. You can even look at much of the Christian Right and prosperity gospel folks of today and see how Christianity gets twisted into an idolatry of wealth and hyper-nationalism. Many leftists see these as reasons to throw out religion, whereas I see these as reasons to stand up and affirm more strongly our Christian values of justice and service to the poor.
2) The church teaches that private property is a good thing for the political well being of people. I would agree, and I think Soviet and Chinese policies of forced collectivization were disastrous in that regard. However, what about low-income renters who will never be able to afford to own property, or how about the masses of homeless people in the United States? While capitalism allows for property rights, it does nothing to ensure that property is distributed in just way. Why can't we look toward socialist ideas of agrarian land reform (not collectivization) and housing as a guaranteed human right?
3) You made a good point about the contrast between early capitalism of Marx's time versus the reformed capitalism of today. It is great that we now have child labor laws, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, unionization, etc. However, these reforms were fought and died for via intense working-class struggle: labor agitation, strikes, boycotts, violent state repression, etc. Many of the people leading the call for reform were themselves socialists. Since roughly the 1980's we've seen workers rights slowly erode and real wages remain stagnant and even in decline for many low-income people due to the increased corporate influence in politics. Many European countries have stronger protections for workers like universal healthcare and paid sick leave largely because they have stronger socialist political parties and stronger unions. My point is: class struggle is real even in countries that have not seen violent overthrow of the government. This struggle has led to better outcomes for working people. We can have moments of class conflict and moments of class cooperation. Perhaps the real "Marxist synthesis" that history has shown us is actually a mixed-economy with both capitalist and socialist features. I see nothing wrong, especially in the U.S., with pushing our society in a more socialist direction.
4) Going off my last point, there is a reason that Millennial and GenZ specifically have embraced socialist ideas more than the Boomers and GenXers before us. We've come of age during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and now we could be entering a new depression. We weren't around for the glory days of American capitalism in the 1950's-60's, and it doesn't seem to be coming back any time soon. We've seen massive wealth inequality, generations of deindustrialization, mass incarceration, skyrocketing healthcare and education costs, endless wars, drug epidemics, and now a billionaire president who panders to racism, bigotry, and division. There is a general feeling that things can't go on like this, and large scale systemic change is necessary. We must reshape our priorities in a way that is more just, and I don't think that belief contradicts the Catholic Church's teaching.
You might like distributionism. Seek out GK Chesterton's essays and works on it. Chesterton, the greatest Catholic thinker of the 20th century, was very much against the rampant capitalism and exploitation we see in our society today.
Tell me how our system isn’t a failure when those who work the hardest make the least and those who do the least make the most...That third generation coal miner in West Virginia, has all the sweat and toil of those who labored before him gotten him anywhere? What does he have to show for it, in the end? We are expected to work until our deaths and are told we are lazy if we don’t, while there are those who do nothing, living off of third and fourth generation wealth. We tell the poor to “get a job” while the oppressors live off of stock options and dividends, never working a day in their lives. We act like this is altruism. We act like this is America. Millennials are sick of working for nothing, while a capitalist makes 5x more money, simply off of their labor. The system has left a majority of Americans one step from homeless. This is indefensible, unless of course, you are one of those who do the least and benefit the most, like this preacher. Jesus started as a carpenter. How about you?
Speaking as someone who is in the category of one who works very hard for my living, I have no problem with people living off of wealth from former generations. You say that like it's a bad thing, but if I could work every day of my life and my kids wouldn't have to then I would go for that. Anyone would. I would hope they wouldn't be lazy with it, but you get the point without getting lost in the weeds. Also realize that a lot of people did work very hard to get to where they are. They deserve to enjoy what they've earned, at least to some extent, right?
I agree, Bishop, on what you are saying to the young people on here concerning the romanticism of socialism. I say this to my adult children about what I have been seeing in our culture developing in the past few decades little by little. For me, and others I know from my age group, it is a bit scary. We grew up during the Cold War; our parents even more so. There is nothing romantic about the mass murders of hundreds of million of people in the light of moving forward socialist/communist thinking and oppression. In my lifetime, I have met and known several people who survived the oppressive forces in their homeland countries where these political systems rose up. Some were removed as young people from their family, forced on marches into "re-training" camps, and submitted to horrible conditions while they were being brainwashed with Socialist/Communist thinking. Some saw family members murdered while sleeping in their beds. When they finally were able to escape to America, they told me they loved their country, but hated their country's government system. These horror stories from those I've known over the years have remained with me in my heart and soul. It is not something we ever want to see for the United States or any country for that matter! I pray it never goes that far!
很有意思的主題, 可是不太懂, 需要好好研究一下.
Quite enlightening. I have come to understand better the social doctrine. Marxism has no common good as basic. Thank you so much, bishop.
There's a reason why using the term "market economy" instead of capitalism is inaccurate. Marx didn't really criticise the existence of markets as such (they've existed since long before capitalism) but of the ownership of capital in the hands of one particular class. He saw this as an abomination because those who created the capital didn't then control it. Many leftists take this criticism and advocate cooperative enterprise as an alternative to capitalism. Cooperatives can exist in a market economy and it is arguable that they are closest to socialism definitionally.
Well, he did indeed want a "classless" society, not one in which distinctive social classes cooperate creatively (the Catholic social teaching option). And isn't it naive and unfair to say that workers alone "create" capital? It is precisely the willingness of owners and entrepreneurs to risk their money that makes business and employment and eventually profit-making possible.
But it isn't the only possibility. Many Catholics have recognised that workers themselves can become their own investors and run enterprise democratically. I believe Mondragon, one of the largest cooperatives in the world, was set up by a priest. Distributism, based on catholic social teaching, is not too far off what I describe.
Seán Rainford Sure, I like distributism too. Catholic social teaching wants a morally disciplined and legally constrained market.
22:40 ... the pandemic certainly flushed this whole love affair Bish Barron has with market economy down the drain.
transitions ... should Focus On Christ's Kingdom OWNER and FOCUS Being Our FATHER
I always liked the Calvin & Hobbes joke at Marx's expense. "It says here religion is the opiate of the masses. What does that mean?" And the TV says, "It means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet."
Atreus21 if i were not a believer i may think that too being an intellectual however, I am a believer and that is nonesense.
So is Baron saying people in hell can be saved or redeemed?
I think there are a few points that ought to be corrected. For one he didn't say that property was theft. That was Proudhon (who Marx critiqued and even ridiculed). Secondly, I think one ought to make a distinction between religion as a social institution/technology and the Catholic Church to get at the critique of religion Marx is proposing. For one, he had rather savage critiques of his contemporaries who thought that social critique was totally encapsulated in the critique of religion, and that all social ills would be solved by demystifying people's desires and social relations to each other. Considering the context, if you live among mostly Protestant Christians, lots of people will think that changing one's belief will produce different behaviors almost as if by magic.
One should also keep in mind that the capitalism develops unevenly in countries where they might be a different variety of Christian with less of the seriousness attached to the institution as the Catholic Church has (I mean, one can debate this, but the Anglican communion is as much a political institution as it is a religious institution, even though it carries next to no political force any more in the UK, particularly after Catholics became tolerated and fully integrated into social life; other examples abound). Finally, and perhaps more importantly, even if the Church (or other religions for that matter) don't conceive of themselves as 'opiates' of the common people, that doesn't prevent political institutions from abusing the religion for those sorts of purposes. Napoleon certainly thought that he could create social peace by harnessing the Catholic Church in France towards calming down things (particularly areas that had been in open insurrection for large parts of the the Revolution). Similarly, one reason why China has always (even as far back as the 16th-17th centuries) been very cagey about letting Christianity (particularly the Church) into the country, since it didn't think it could control the institution and the beliefs in a way that would enhance its own power. While the latter is perhaps a sign that religion really can exist as something more than a mere tool for creating social order, it also shows that states do prefer a religion that they can control (and I think it's safe to say that the Church has examples of being a force for good and others where it failed in those responsibilities).
I tend to go to Alasdair MacIntyre's characterization of Marxism for a more sympathetic and a perhaps more useful characterization, while still recognizing the failures in it (MacIntyre famously converted to Catholicism because he thought it contained all of the best insights of Marx, but surpassed them). I think the one thing that speaks for reading Marx more than anything else is that it is a rigorous critique of capitalism from within the assumptions of capitalism. For me, it helped a lot to get over many of the orthodoxies of the modern world, including the individualism and the relativism. It's far from perfect, but to my mind, it's much better than a lot of the economic theories you get even now.
P.S. On the justice issue: This may be the part that is perhaps least understood by Marx's contemporary followers, in that most detect an inclination towards criticizing social relations in capitalism as unjust or otherwise morally bad, but then can't find any places where Marx unequivocally condemns capitalism on those moral grounds. In fact, most of the going criticisms of capitalism run something like 'the system is unjust because labourers don't get their fair share of profits', to which Marx would just say 'what do you mean 'fair share' of profits? They signed contracts specifying their wages, didn't they?' (it should be pointed out here that Marx was studying law before switching to philosophy, so he is very much marked by that education as well). There is in fact no real moral critique of capitalism, as Marx doesn't believe in abstract moral categories per se (another one of his Hegelian inheritances). This is not to say that he's an absolute moral relativist (although he tends towards it) but he points out that our moral and legal categories are deeply marked by our socio-historical context and that we should refrain from making those sort of moral claims about capitalism. It certainly speaks to a quasi-Christian theme of the whole economic order being in need of a sort of rebirth before we can start applying moral categories (and it's certainly something that 20th century communists tried to develop on their own and failed catastrophically with). In any case, the only real 'moral' critique I detect in Marx is a sort of claim that 'capitalism is so flawed it will destroy itself', which we should read more concretely perhaps as meaning 'capitalist social relations are so flawed that they will destroy human life rather than change the social relations that they are founded on.'
I think your reasoning about Marxism is too complicated. I was forced to live in a "real socialism" country i.e. marxism-based society in Czechoslovakia until the age of 21 (1989), with shortages of basic civic freedoms and basic goods as well. The best description of any Marxist attempts is in the following old communist-era joke: Socialism is the bloody journey from capitalism back to capitalism. 😭
@@TheMkkrr If we only went by the brutishness of various regimes in various places at various times, no intellectual system would survive. As far as evaluating Marx based on real existing socialism, it's trite to point out that something went extremely wrong (my mother left Poland in the 70s, so I grew up on stories of shortages and political repression). However, there's nothing overcomplicated in going into details and facts about what happened to find out how particular principles were applied and what happened in the translation process of putting theory to practice. If we judged capitalism on how good it worked for the Irish in the 19th century, we would criticize it for being the guiding ideology that let millions of people starve to death while grain and beef was being shipped to British markets. One can probably say the same thing for many other places that experienced both capitalism and colonialism/imperialism in some way. Same things can be said about 'freedom' in the United States up until the late 19th/early 20th century (or later depending on the place) because of how unevenly political rights were granted to either racial minorities or women. I would hope that anyone can recognize that being able to offer nuanced criticism and evaluation of a theory and its implementation is a mark of engagement with the issue rather than 'effete oversophistication'.
Furthermore, while Eastern Europe was languishing from scarcity and political repression, Western Europe developed social democratic institutions often as capitalism tempered by demands for social justice that communist/socialist countries could only emptily claim. The institution of the 'soziale Marktwirtschaft' in Germany, as an example, is very much influenced by ideas from both Catholic social teaching and social democratic demands to respond to issues of justice and fairness in the marketplace. Thus, it seems social democracy worked the best when there was real competition from a system that, while it failed miserably to live up to those values, still tried to proclaim that they stood for those values.
Given the way that the world has turned nastier since the fall of the Iron Curtain, I have no confidence that an unreformed system as what we have now can survive. Young people have less opportunities now than the last generation, we are facing an ecological catastrophe, and the civil liberties that underpin the social fabric are less relevant now than they were when I was younger. It seems even more important now to look hard at what the socialist tradition got right and to figure out what the political leaders in Eastern Europe got wrong after WW II (apart from the obvious problems linked to economic inefficiency and oppressive coercion).
Reading Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement has been really influential to me in giving me a real Christian Radicalism. Vehemently orthodox Catholic, lover of the poor, devoted to the Mass and Prophet of the 20th Century.
Bishop Barron, your Excellency, are you aware or have you studied the works of Soren Kierkegaard? He attended lectures by Hegel along with Marx in the same hall, presumably. It is fascinating their trajectory, as both claimed that they were not Hegelians and sought to distance themselves from Hegel. It was Martin Heidegger, however, in his lecture, "Hegel and the Greeks," who made the point that indeed, despite their better wishes, Marx and Kierkegaard are the greatest Hegelians. I feel that Kierkegaard, like St. John Henry Newman, sought to reacue his countrymen in Denmark, as Newman saved his countrymen, from the great and powerful "liberalization" of the church. I believe that Catholic welcoming and study of Kierkegaard is sorely lacking and with his wealth of treasures, as perhaps the greatest thinker in the 19th century, so said Wittgenstein, his incorporation by the church should be a great mission as he is a powerful Evangelizer who ushered me to Christianity.
Thank you, Bishop, for reinvorgating the intellectual side of our Catholic brains!
I second this, would love to hear Bishop Barron talk about Kierkegaard.
I haven't read Heidegger's lecture, but am going to look it up. I assume (in SK's case) he would be talking about a dialectical view of the self? As far as I am aware, Kierkegaard was a very reactionary figure to Hegel's philosophy, as it demeaned the importance of the individual. Kierkegaard's focus on the self and the individual is so predominant throughout his work, that it might be a point of disconnect between him and Catholics. Not that the Church doesn't like the individual, but it's not an either/or situation, it's a both/and as Chesterton pointed out.
Ex: Monks and Nuns are individuals who lead an intense inner-life dedicated to contemplation and prayer, and at the same time live in a community of brothers/sisters bound by a Rule and vows who are also working on the same thing.
@ Epileptic
From what I have read, Kierkegaard's contemporaries were incredibly enamored with Hegel and imitated and adored him without full understanding. At first, Kierkegaard was one of those, but gradually became disillusioned with that interpretation of Hegel. It has now been postulated that most of Kierkegaard's critique is in fact leveled at Hegel's imitators, and that, in fact, Kierkegaard grew in his appreciated of the depth of Hegel's thought in later years.
But to your point of Kierkegaard's individualism, I would say this is a good question. I was just baptized into the RC church this past Easter, and, as Kierkegaard was essentially the writer to awaken the truth of Christianity to me, I tried to reconcile the author of Fear and Trembling, who showed that Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was a willful act of faith that severed his ethical belonging to the community, with the RC church. In other words, faith is something deeply subjective to such an extant that it does sever our relationships to the Other others (i.e. our brothers and sister in Christ).
So Kierkegaard is indeed an intensely challenging figure when it comes to Christianity.
I have the "Prayers of Kierkegaard" that I bring to the pews every Sunday. Before mass today, I read in the biographical account of Kierkegaard's life in this book, that Kierkegaard believed his role was to "wound from behind." I can think of no greater descriptor for one who is calling us to Christ.