Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Primer on the Pontiff
As Pope Francis continues making waves across Latin America, hailed as a socialist by the likes of Evo Morales (who recently presented to the Pope a crucifix in the form of a hammer and sickle), it is of the highest importance to understand how Pope Francis gained his world view of capitalism and socialism in his native land of Argentina.
An incident that can help us understand took place at the time of the famous event in Argentina called the Cordobazo in 1969, the same year Bergoglio (Pope Francis) became a priest. The Cordobazo was a watershed event where the free-market based ideas of Krieger Vasena, Finance Minister under the Dictator General Onganía, emerged but ultimately collapsed under immense social pressure. Argentina was slowly undergoing a shift from a protectionist economic state ruled by unions to a more free economy with a smaller public sector workforce. His reforms were various and effective.
Despite the return to economic stability, foreign investment, and lower unemployment, many students, workers, and clergy had a different view from Vasena’s grand free-market vision. They held steadfast to the idea that America was trying to destroy all remnants of their way of life by beating their Argentine competitors and essentially taking over their country. This view stems from the ideology created by one of Argentina’s most famous President, Juan Domingo Perón.
Perón was president of Argentina for almost 10 years, starting at the end of the Second World War; and through immense economic surpluses generated from grain exports, he was able to implement economic, social, and political reforms that made FDR look like an amateur (read Amity Shlaes). Empowering workers by giving them higher wages, protecting native industries, and forming a strong sense of national pride for the country, Perón dominated Argentine politics. What abruptly ended his renaissance was the Marshall Act, which kicked Argentina out of the plan for providing postwar relief to war-torn Europe. The economic unrest that followed led to his exile from the country. His imprint of social, economic, and political change, however, stayed and morphed over the following decades into an array of socialist and marxist interpretations.
This leads us back to Generals Onganía and Vasena, who were attempting to rid the country of Perónist ideology. As mentioned previously, Bergoglio was ordained a priest in 1969, a date that forever stamped into Argentina’s psyche the idea that anything that wasn’t Argentine was essentially against the interests of the Argentine republic. Through a massive coordination among students, workers, priests, and revolutionary individuals who saw America’s expansion into the auto market in the industrial city of Córdoba as an imperial incursion, American factories were vandalized and torched. The military moved in and tried to quell the protests, but only furthered emboldened the rioters, leading to the ouster of Vasena and the return of Perónist influences in economics. A victory culminated in the return of Perón years after, and he presided as President and Dictator for a few years until his unexpected death in 1974.
I believe Pope Francis, having seen all of this, was left with a very strong impression. That impression consists of the view that workers had been suppressed by foreign corporations in the name of capitalism, and that the state had a duty to protect the interests of its people no matter the cost. This thinking, whether you called it socialism, corporatism, or the lingo you prefer to describe his philosophy, eventually influenced his recent encyclical on the environment.
Personally, I think there are several aspects of his teaching that should be taken positively in his recent encyclical, from his favorable views of the ecology of the family and its importance for society to his criticism of the rampant hyper-individualism that has predominated most economic powerhouses. His views on the environment and the economy, however you stand on those issues, should be discussed and understood, among conservatives, Catholics, and libertarians alike, in the context of the immense turmoil that a single ideology created and the way it has mutated into dozens of interpretations, from marxism to light socialism, making the differences between libertarians and core conservatives seem trifling in nature.
Behind the Vatican walls resides a man who has seen poverty at its worst, due to a mistaken notion that captured the imagination of the Argentine Republic. Even though no conservative or classical liberal introduction will change his mind, from the Spanish Scholastics of the 16th and 17th Centuries to Richard Epstein, it is immensely important to understand the Pontiff within the context of the Argentine tragedy.
Published in Foreign Policy, General, Religion & Philosophy
Good article. Thanks for the cite.
Noteworthy that as the American Revolution was successfully defending itself in the war of 1812, the papal envoy to the Congress of Vienna (Ercole Consalvi) was still advocating the divine right of kings. At the same time in Mexico, José María Morelos led the fight against Spanish colonial rule and proclaimed independence from Spain and the abolition of slavery. Naturally, he was excommunicated.
Leo I talking Attila out of sacking Rome and John Paul II dealing the Soviet empire a death blow from within were great diplomatic/geopolitical successes. Most popes, eh, not so much.
I’ve no truck with the Pope. I figure he runs his things and I’ll run mine. And in fact I’ve typically left papal whatnot alone — not my business. Western Civ works because our solution to the tension between church and state lets each manage their affairs.
This guy, like Michelle Obama, is blowing through the boundaries that would normally make him off-limits to most decent folks.
So screw him. I’m not Catholic, and if he doesn’t stop with the Marxist proselytizing, no matter what else he may think, I have no business leaving him alone. How dare I?
Two things:
(1) As we move out of poverty, we gain so much in terms of quality of life – health, education, comfort, access to quality food, access to the arts! So much of life is better. But it’s inevitable that we also have access to meaningless consumer goods, and put too much value on these things. But the Pope seems to see only the bad in it, and none of the good. Wouldn’t it be better, as the spiritual leader of his people, to spend his time helping people turn away from consumerism WITHOUT destroying the good things that relative wealth can bring?
(2) What is it about “collectivism” (the various forms of socialism/communism) that people find so appealing? They seem seduced by this (false) idea that you can construct a ‘heaven on earth’ by placing so much control and power in the hands of just a few human beings. These leaders are not angels, they generally end up serving themselves and their cronies at the expense of the average people, certainly at the expense of the poor!
Capitalism has problems, but it’s better than the alternatives. It represents economic freedom. I cannot support enslavement to a collectivist ideal as an antidote to consumerism and poverty. Where God gives freedom and free will, Pope Francis would see free will lessened. The Pope would make us all poorer. Jesus said, the poor will be with us always. Francis says, no, we can fix this ourselves.
I think I can answer the collectivist question wrt to Pope Francis’s outlook. Simply, collectivism is central to Catholicism, but the Church didn’t make it up ex nihilo. “We are one body in Christ” sound familiar?
When one of us sins, its effects are felt throughout the whole Body.
Our sacred liturgy is joined with the heavenly host in “collective” worship, if you will.
However, there’s always an “And” in the Both/And worldview of Catholics. And God has given a universal call to personal holiness to humanity.
In politics and economics, this is what I wish the Pope would emphasize. No political/economic system works optimally unless virtuous people are engaged in it. The best any of us can do is to cooperate with God’s grace to increase our personal holiness, thereby making the world a better place for all (helping to bring about the Kingdom).
The Vatican is a religio-political institution. Hey, it’s a recognized country. Right? This Pope was selected because he’s a South American. The church has been losing customers to Evangelicals and the lapsed. Francis speaks the language of South Americans. Spanish and Socialism. Like there were no Cardinals with as good or better religious credentials as Francis to choose from. As with all political selections they (the Cardinals) weighed the pros and cons. What do we gain and what do we risk losing? I’m assuming there was a consensus on his religious qualifications.
The church has been pro immigration in this country. Some believe it is a function of recruitment to replace a declining number of adherents to the faith. Francis’s socialism will attract the like minded Catholics. The gamble is how many it alienates. Of course he preaches some things that appeal to conservative Catholics. Denouncing greed and extreme individualism are always reliable topics. And who could argue, Catholic or not?
Let me augment what I said above. The Pope may very well understand that capitalism is economically beneficial and leads to the most prosperity. But Catholicism (and frankly all Christianity except this Prosperity Gospel stuff) does not acknowledge that the utility justifies the means. If the devil were to give you a million dollars, or give the world a gazillion dollars and end all poverty, should you or the world take it? No, that’s dirty money and selling your soul for a utility. That’s how I think Pope Francis sees capitalism, and when he sees uneven distribution of wealth, broken family structure, a demise in reproductive rates, abortion, and loss of faith in the wealthy nations, he finds justification for his views.
Now that does not mean he is a socialist. He’s not. Ideal Catholic economic policies rests on what is called Distributism. You can google it. It’s a managed economy similar to a lot of European economies, though not exactly with the same emphasis. European economies over protect large businesses, and distributism does just the opposite. Nonetheless it’s heavy managed economy that tries to prevent large corporations from forming.
Anyway, this is where I think Pope Francis is coming from.
I assume you’re referring to Perón’s return to power in 1973. Perón was an interesting character because of his affinity for both Nazis and hard Leftists like Che Guevara and Allende. This might seem paradoxical to some but makes perfect sense if you read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. Argentina does indeed have a troubled history and, alas, will likely have a troubled future.
I attended Colegio Cardenal Newman, but I think we’ve diverged from topics of general interest.
Great point! Given the history of DDT and its power to reduce some 500,000 malaria related deaths per annum, the goal achieved before the ban was instituted in the 1940s through 1970s, nd now understanding that after much scientific scrutiny , much of the risks that led to its ban have been dis proven, will the Pope call for it being used again? or will ge continue with the ban, concocted from some eugenic population control as stipulated in US Foreign AID criteria? Another words, support the ban or lose US Aid, which goes to corrupt dictators anyway.
He can criticize consumerism, money idolatry all he wants and that’s what the church normally does, but what this Pope really wants to go after is capitalism. He really seems to have a scary, deep-seated hatred for capitalism. What he doesn’t get is that while consumerism and greed for money may exist in capitalism, capitalism is not consumerism and monetary greed. Capitalism is individual liberty, innovation, and the lifting of huge masses of the poor out of poverty.
His alternative seems to be a command-control economy, where a central authority dictates or perhaps strongly determines what’s good for society. His command-control economy may differ from the Marxist version in that the central authority is non-secular and guided perhaps by church values. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” would probably do down well with this Pope.
Somebody said Francis’s liberation economics should be ignored. Trouble is Francis cannot be ignored. Huge bully pulpit, huge influence in the developing world, which desperately does not need liberation theology economics.
Bravo!
I agree with all that. I’ve been calling for an intervention with Fr. Sirico of The Acton Institute since Pope Francis was installed. He really needs to get his head out of the clouds regarding command-control economies. The lesson from Bolivia taught in The Commanding Heights series would be a good place to start.
A Sirico intervention is a good idea but I wonder if Sirico could get through. If memory serves me right, I recall reading a while back (in The American Interest) that Francis is close to or friendly with or allied with some well-known liberation theology priests within the church. If I should be wrong on that, I am open to being corrected.
Cardinal Maradiaga gives me major heartburn.
Yeah, double bravo!
I think it’s great that Fr. Sirico is Tony Sirico’s kid brother. They make an interesting pair.
That Commanding Heights series is excellent. Thanks for pointing me to it a while back.
De nada. ;-)
I didn’t know that about them being brothers. Huh. I wouldn’t have guessed.
Noted Vatican reporter, John Allen reports the following comments from Pope Francis on his flight back to Rome from his recent Apostolic Journey:
Allen points out however that Pope Francis wasn’t
Please pray with the fervent passion with which you criticize the Holy Father that his mind might be opened to your charitable arguments.
You might enjoy this:
Too influenced by leftism.
As I said at comment #36, Pope Francis is not a socialist and definitely not a Marxist or liberation theology. Our economic framework characterizes economics in a polarity: Free market vs. Socialism. That’s just a characterization. There are other approaches. Yes he is anticapitalist, but he supports a Catholic developed approach called distributism. For the record, I’m don’t support that; I support the free market.
That was great!
What is distributism? It sounds like command-control. In fact it can’t be other than some form of command-control, is my educated guess. You can’t distribute by diktat without command-control, a disaster for all.
Here’s what wikipedia says about Distributism. There’s a lot more on the internet if you want to look around. The way I understand it is that it supports private businesses but tries to prevent large corporations. Their ideal is a small town business environment where everyone in theory has a private business. That’s the ideal, but the ideal is not practical, so they have a heavy control of large corporations. In theory it’s free market but anti big business. I don’t think it’s practical, but ideally it tries to support individuals and what the supporters argue is an undignified approach to laborers, where workers are just small potatoes in a large corporate entity.
It might start that way but would end up as Dekulakization.
Once the state encroaches on freedom of association it’s a race to the bottom for liberty. Misery and death are the inevitable consequences.
Of course it is: command and control with a smiley face and ecclesiastical vestments.
Right. I first came across the idea of distributism while reading Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. It was such a disappointment to learn that such a great thinker, so wise and perceptive about the nature of things, could be so wrong on something central to the freedom and well-being of so many.
The proper response is Milton Friedman’s (paraphrased), “Who are these angels who will oversee the ‘proper’ distribution of resources?”
For those replying to me comments, let me make it clear I don’t endorse Distributism but trying to explain where the Pope is coming from.
Just some comments to rebut your replies. No it is not dekulakization or would lead to it. It is a democracy based economy much like the current European economies only with a different emphasis. It would have the same control as a French or German economy, though in theory it would actually have less. In theory it’s supposed to be decentralized, much more so than our US economy, which would appeal to conservatives, but the Distributists never account for how to maintain the decentralization without allowing large businesses to form.
Look, it’s completely impractical. Large corporations give economies stability, even if growth comes from small businesses, which are the types of businesses Distributism would support. Distributism would probably suffer from huge fluctuations in growth, just like the economies in the 19th century, frequently going from boom to bust. It’s not a malicious economic structure, just an impractical one.
We should recall that the Franciscan Order started (circa 1210) with an energetic, voluntary redistribution plan. Donors could give money to a conspicuously honest broker who will not siphon off a big chunk for themselves nor waste it.
By 1296, the order had fractured into heretical sects (see, Fratracelli) some of whom took, shall we say, a more aggressive redistributionist attitude toward “the rich”. The noble sentiment of service and poverty seemed to devolve into leftist guerrilla politics in less than a century.
Once zero-sum thinkers start thinking of poverty itself as a kind of static institution, consumerism as the ultimate sin and productivity a symptom of greed, bad things always happen.
A great quote. It is very apt here. Thanks. This is the fuller quote from the famous Phil Donahue interview:
Do you have a source for the claim that Pope Francis supports distributism?
I agree that there are many more possible economic systems than the simple free market vs. socialism binary choice of American conservative rhetoric. Distributism is one such system promoted by Chesterton, Belloc, and some of their fans in Catholic circles, as an attempt to craft a system in conformity with Catholic Social Doctrine.
That said, I don’t think the Vatican or any popes have ever explicitly endorsed distributism — or capitalism, socialism, or any other economic “ism.” Rather they try to lay out broad moral principles that should guide society while saying repeatedly that the specific application of those principles to practical problems should be left up to the laity, to political leaders and voters.
That seems like an vast overstatement. Do you oppose the Sherman Antitrust Act? That restricted freedom of association, did it not? Even if you do, it seems rather absurd to say a constitutional republic cannot put any restrictions on freedom of association (trust busting, or laws prohibiting racial discrimination) without inevitably descending into totalitarianism.