Answers to the meaning of life form centre of his work

Cardinal George Pell wrote that Pope John Paul II let Answers to the meaning of life form centre of his work. The Capitalist media is making most of the pope's alleged role in the collapse of commumism in Eastern Europe. Strangely enough, they have not explained why communism still survives in Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. Or why socialism is emerging in Venezuela. Here, the good cardinal is writing as an apologist for capitalism:

The collapse of communism and the triumph of the market created a new situation to be evaluated. In Centesimus Annus (1991), the Pope reflected on the new challenges, analysing the anthropological errors that led to socialism's failure and cautiously endorsing democratic capitalism. But the Pope also reminded his readers that some of the most important human needs find no place in the market.

Yet, we find, in article 3 of this encyclical,

Among the things which become "old" as a result of being incorporated into Tradition, and which offer opportunities and material for enriching both Tradition and the life of faith, there is the fruitful activity of many millions of people, who, spurred on by the social Magisterium, have sought to make that teaching the inspiration for their involvement in the world. Acting either as individuals or joined together in various groups, associations and organizations, these people represent a great movement for the defence of the human person and the safeguarding of human dignity. Amid changing historical circumstances, this movement has contributed to the building up of a more just society or at least to the curbing of injustice.

[Emphasis in original]

This capitalist society is in the process of locking up people in inhumane circumstances without a trial, destroying unions, removing access to legal aid, undercutting the minimum wage, locking up unionists, closing down women's shelters, denying medical aid to the poor, denying education to the poor, forcing people to work in unsafe conditions, denying access to the physically disabled, closing down alternative media, throwing people out onto the street because they cannot pay the rent or the mortgage, invading third world countries to seize their resources, etc. Where is the human dignity in all of this?

Is this what the good cardinal considers to be the triumph of the market? I know that the good cardinal has spoken against many of these things, but does he not know that by supporting the ideology of the market, then these things must follow. That is the irrestible nature of the market. If you accept the existence of the capitalist market, then you must allow people to make a profit. The one that makes the largest profit wins. Nice people definitely finish a very distant last in this sort of environment.

In article 4, we find a papal interpretation of the Marxist description of Capitalism:

In the sphere of economics, in which scientific discoveries and their practical application come together, new structures for the production of consumer goods had progressively taken shape. A new form of property had appeared — capital; and a new form of labour — labour for wages, characterized by high rates of production which lacked due regard for sex, age or family situation, and were determined solely by efficiency, with a view to increasing profits.

In this way labour became a commodity to be freely bought and sold on the market, its price determined by the law of supply and demand, without taking into account the bare minimum required for the support of the individual and his family. Moreover, the worker was not even sure of being able to sell "his own commodity", continually threatened as he was by unemployment, which, in the absence of any kind of social security, meant the spectre of death by starvation.

The result of this transformation was a society "divided into two classes, separated by a deep chasm".⁶ This situation was linked to the marked change taking place in the political order already mentioned. Thus the prevailing political theory of the time sought to promote total economic freedom by appropriate laws, or, conversely, by a deliberate lack of any intervention. At the same time, another conception of property and economic life was beginning to appear in an organized and often violent form, one which implied a new political and social structure.

[Emphasis in original]

(The last sentence is an allusion to the rise of socialism of which Marxism was one of the many competing strands of thought at the time.) This is similar to what new communists are taught today. Here the pope is expounding the class nature of the Capitalist society.

Article 5 further states that:

5. The "new things" to which the Pope devoted his attention were anything but positive. The first paragraph of the Encyclical describes in strong terms the "new things" (rerum novarum) which gave it its name: "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 related sphere of practical economics is not surprising. Progress in industry, the development of new trades, the changing relationship between employers and workers, the enormous wealth of a few as opposed to the poverty of the many, the increasing self-reliance of the workers and their closer association with each other, as well as a notable decline in morality: all these elements have led to the conflict now taking place".⁸

The Pope and the Church with him were confronted, as was the civil community, by a society which was torn by a conflict all the more harsh and inhumane because it knew no rule or regulation. It was the conflict between capital and labour, or — as the Encyclical puts it — the worker question. It is precisely about this conflict, in the very pointed terms in which it then appeared, that the Pope did not hesitate to speak.

[Emphasis in original]

Here we have the pope recognising that class warfare is going on between the workers and the Capitalists.

The pope further recognises that the decline in morality is due to this new mode of production. That is, Capitalism causes a decline in morality because it sets people against each other. The basis for morality is respect for other people and when that respect is thrown away in the pursuit of profit, all morality is also thrown away. You cannot be a moral Capitalist. The Capitalist system rewards and encourages immorality.

Article 5 continues:

... The Pope's intention was certainly to restore peace, and the present-day reader cannot fail to note his severe condemnation, in no uncertain terms, of the class struggle.¹⁰ However, the Pope was very much aware that peace is built on the foundation of justice: what was essential to the Encyclical was precisely its proclamation of the fundamental conditions for justice in the economic and social situation of the time.¹¹

[Emphasis in original]

It is at this point that I believe the good cardinal is wrong. You cannot have any form of Capitalism without a class struggle. As long as there is more than one class in society, then there must follow a class struggle. Class warfare can only be eliminated with the destruction of all other classes. If the Capitalists win, then there are no workers and society collapses. If the workers win, then we have, by definition, a classless and therefore a Communist society.

I will address the anthropological flaw in Socialism in a latter post.