3 of 18

Capitalism

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

Dr. Harold Moulton proved in his 1935 monograph, "The Formation of Capital."

Nevertheless, while capitalism distorts the natural right of every human being to become an owner of the means of production, the right is still recognized, however feebly and ineffectually. Socialism, on the other hand, simply abolishes private property in the means of production, and vests it in the collective. This effectively denies the essential nature of human society: an aggregation of individuals who, through the exercise of free will and in accordance with their political nature, design institutions (e.g., customs, laws, traditions, and so on) within which to carry out the business of daily life, and thereby develop more fully as human beings by acquiring and developing virtue.

The collective cannot licitly claim ownership of the means of production by natural right, as socialism demands, because (as one moral authority expressed it) "Only man, the human person, and not society in any form is endowed with reason and a morally free will." (Pope Pius XI, "Divini Redemptoris," Sec. 29.) This is why the Catholic Church condemns socialism as "anti-human": "Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism . . . cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth." ("Quadragesimo Anno," Sec. 117.) This is also why, however much it deprecates the capitalist system and condemns the seemingly inherent abuses in the capitalist arrangement of society, the Catholic Church does not go the whole way and condemn capitalism itself.

This is because capitalism does not, like socialism, deny the natural right to become an owner (although, in many cases, it might just as well). Direct private ownership of the means of production is the chief means by which ordinary people acquire and develop virtue, and so grow as human beings. This is because people acquire and develop virtue by exercising their natural rights, most especially the rights to life, liberty and (the right that vests the individual with effective power to protect life and liberty) access to the means of acquiring and possessing private property in the means of production.

So, while the question presents an unpleasant choice, preference must be expressed for capitalism over socialism, given that those are the only choices. The question, however, should rather be, "Are capitalism and socialism the only possible arrangements of society? And, if not, is there an acceptable alternative?"

A proposal called "Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen," from the book with the same title, offers an alternative to both capitalism and socialism by describing how, without abolishing private property, or confiscating what is owned by the rich, it is possible to restructure society to open up the opportunity for everyone to become an owner of an adequate stake of income-generating assets.

Thus, the answer to the question as to whether capitalism or socialism is preferred is the same as whether you want to be shot or hit with an ax: If it's all the same to you, neither. I'll go somewhere else.

Learn more about this author, Michael Greaney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Capitalism vs. Socialism: Which do you prefer??
We want to hear your view. Write now!