Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Vatican News presenting Pope Francis’ support for the UN Secretary General’s vision of a global future of sustainable local cooperatives which eliminate the unfairness of Capitalism.
Pope: cooperatives for clean energy against climate change
…
Cooperatives – people-centred development
The aim of the annual celebration is to increase awareness about cooperatives. Being people-centred, not capital-centred, cooperatives distribute wealth in a fairer way. As farms, businesses, or other organizations which are owned and run jointly by members who share the profits or benefits, cooperatives are committed to the sustainable development of their communities, environmentally, socially as well as economically. They support community activities, local sourcing of supplies to benefit the local economy, and decision-making that considers the impact on their communities.
…
In a message for the June 4 International Day of Cooperatives, UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, focused on the role of cooperatives in addressing the challenges caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change and in forging a path towards an inclusive and equitable future for all.
…
Read more: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-07/pope-francis-cooperatives-day-climate-renewable-energy-justice.html
Laudato Si‘, Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical, also mentions the positive role of Cooperatives;
…
112. Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral. Liberation from the dominant technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. Or when technology is directed primarily to resolving people’s concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering. Or indeed when the desire to create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who behold it. An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. Will the promise last, in spite of everything, with all that is authentic rising up in stubborn resistance?
…
179. In some places, cooperatives are being developed to exploit renewable sources of energy which ensure local self-sufficiency and even the sale of surplus energy. This simple example shows that, while the existing world order proves powerless to assume its responsibilities, local individuals and groups can make a real difference. They are able to instil a greater sense of responsibility, a strong sense of community, a readiness to protect others, a spirit of creativity and a deep love for the land. They are also concerned about what they will eventually leave to their children and grandchildren. These values are deeply rooted in indigenous peoples. Because the enforcement of laws is at times inadequate due to corruption, public pressure has to be exerted in order to bring about decisive political action. Society, through non-governmental organizations and intermediate groups, must put pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls. Unless citizens control political power – national, regional and municipal – it will not be possible to control damage to the environment. Local legislation can be more effective, too, if agreements exist between neighbouring communities to support the same environmental policies.
…
Read more: Laudato Si’
Pope Francis sadly does not explain why a system in which people work hard but other people receive the benefit is somehow fairer than a system in which people work hard and get to keep the benefit. Of course, if all the fruits of my efforts were redistributed, perhaps I would choose not to work so hard. There is no point trying to work and save up for stuff you want to buy, if you are not allowed to keep what you save.
Perhaps this is what Pope Francis means by “a non-consumerist model of life”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘In a fairer way’.
A lot of leftists use this phrase, and they never mean anything of the kind.
Am I the only one that wants to throw up when the hypocrites go on about sharing wealth when they have most of it and won’t part with a penny?
Eric,
I am not sure you know what a co-operative is. You comment that:
“Pope Francis sadly does not explain why a system in which people work hard but other people receive the benefit is somehow fairer than a system in which people work hard and get to keep the benefit.”
gets it completely backwards. Co-operatives are businesses owned by the employees in which the profits all go back to the workers. Having a company owned by a small number of shareholders who do no work but get all the rewards is certainly less fair as you suggest.
Silly marxist. Why would it be more fair for someone who works at the factory to recieve a share of the profits? Do you have any idea about the millions of dollars invested, the engineers and consultants hired, the years of spending before a single dollor of profit is made? A wage is already a fair deal for someone who just shows up for work.
Izaak,
Perhaps you prefer that workers toil away everyday for only profits and no wages.
Independent contractors who work for commissions do that but they are the masters of their domain, working the schedules they want and as often and as hard as they want. The better they work, the more successful they are, the more money they make. But that is on an individual basis not as a group. Once you get into groups it falls apart do to unequal effort. That’s when resentment starts and the whole thing collapses.
I am not sure, Izaak, whether there is any point in trying to compare cooperatives to capital based systems on a moral basis.
The majority of businesses in the developed world tend not to be cooperatives, for several reasons , one of them being the ability,or lack of it, to grow . As you say, in cooperatives the profits go to the workers. Fine , but suppose there are low , or no, profits, how can the business grow ? In the capital based businesses , the business can grow by the selling of part of the ownership and the share holders are not necessarily parasites as you seem to be suggesting . The money they put in has to come from somewhere. In most cases it comes from people working, not ncessarily in the business where their spare money or pension funds are invested, but in some activity. Is that work therefore morally inferior to the work of the people engaged in cooperatives ? And , as all ads for investment warn you , the shareholders can lose as well as gain . It means that in capital based businesses the people working there are maintained in their employment by the money that is effectively entrusted to them by others, not by the money put in by themselves , as in cooperatives . Is that really an immoral situation? Some might consider it more moral, because it demonstrates a faith in the goodwill of workers to use the cash supplied to them for everyone’s benefit.
In the “minds” of people like Izaak, if I start a business and spend 20 years working long hours, weekends and holidays growing that business, should I decide to hire someone to help me.
It’s only fair that I give that person half the profits of the business.
Izaak:
Are you sure you do?
That’s a little naive. By their own admission, proponents of cooperative models acknowledge they have a capital problem. Since they don’t have the option of outside wealth for investment purposes, where are they going to get the filthy lucre to start and continue operating their business? As such common sense suggests their business models require self-capitalization, meaning a percentage of profits must be held back as investment capital into the cooperative for growth, R&D, etc. Some countries require this reinvestment by law as a function of organizing a cooperative. Take for example, Italy (emphasis added):
https://tinyurl.com/y8gra5p5
But even if not state required, the profits of cooperatives can NOT “all go back to the workers.” That’s a recipe for failure, and failure contradicts the reason for the cooperative to exist at all.
Go here for a primer on the largest cooperative poster-child (so-called anyway, turns it really isn’t a pure cooperative at all) in the world:
https://tinyurl.com/yaoxmld6
And in other news, AOC talks to the press about her aspirations after politics:
“When asked what they were going to do with their lives, Democrats’ answers varied. ‘I’m going to open a store where everything is free,’ said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thoughtfully. ‘Like, a lot of stores charge money, but it seems like that would make you have less customers. The law of supplies and demanding, as discovered by economist Milton Keynes, says that the more free stuff you have, the more customers you have. It’s a great business idea. But capitalists are too greedy to do it.'”
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrat-legislators-retire-in-peace-since-supreme-court-doing-their-job-for-them/
Isn’t the Babylon Bee a satire site?
MarkW:
What, you don’t think AOC could truly be quoted as having said such a thing?
So the people who provide the money to start up the company don’t deserve even their own money back?
What’s fair about that?
Why should anyone be paid more than their labor is worth?
Izaak the beauty of capitalism is it includes the freedom to start a coop. Or to work for someone else and let someone else take the burden of figuring out how to keep the money flowing. Or start your own business.
Where I have a problem is when people advocate removing the option of being a capitalist, either through law or social pressure.
Izaak, Eric is of course is talking about co-operatives in the same sense as the Pope does — in marxist terms, not business terms. Play dumb much?
“… renewable sources of energy which ensure local self-sufficiency and even the sale of surplus energy….”
The man is completely ignorant about economics and engineering and power.
“They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work” (Soviet joke)
https://tinyurl.com/ydgo53q9
All I know for certain is if there is Heaven and I get there, I will not meet the present Pope there. That pope will be were most do not want to go, that is if there is a Hell.
People are free to create or join co-operatives if they so wish. Yet co-operatives are rare in today’s society. A few companies which are employee owned, some religion-based farming communes, and not much else.
Why is that? Could it be that the most people do not find them inviting?
Brings to mind the old Soviet Union joke: “they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”.
Inevitably this is what always happens. Case in point, the Pilgrims first Thanksgiving. The Plymouth Plantation was initially based on a “coop” system, where everyone farmed, and the food that resulted was divided equally. Weaker members of the Colony literally starved to death, and everyone went hungry.
Fearing the total demise of the Colony, the system was changed, so that everyone worked their own plot of land, and kept what they produced. And guess what, when people worked for themselves, they worked much harder then they would when they worked for everyone else. Resulting in an abundance of food that not only kept them from starving, but produced an excess that could be used for the original Thanksgiving Feast.
A lesson from 400 years ago, that so few, including this Pope, have failed to learn from.
Community cooperatives, the pope is a bit old to be a hippy isn’t he ?
Actually, the Pope hopes no one who hears this will actually think thru the implications. The Vatican is one of the most hierarchal, and richest, private organizations in the world. One of the estimates I’ve seen is a net worth of $30 Billion, while others value it at $50 Billion.
So yes, let’s make it a Coop, and give each church member an equal vote in it’s operation. That would be far more far then just letting the Pope do whatever he pleases. Let’s have a vote on selling the priceless artworks in the Vatican Museum, and giving the proceeds to the poor. I’m sure St Francis would heartily approve. LOL
In Christianity there are two forms of church governance: self governing local congregations, and the hierarchal model with top-down control. Evangelical churches typically choose their own pastors and control their own church properties. However they generally do participate in cooperative denominational programs to support seminaries, foreign missions, etc. In other words, they are following the model that Frances recommends.
In contrast, Frances leads a very hierarchical example of the other form.
You see here why the Swiss are reluctant to pull the plug on their secret banking system to the world.
How many people did Catholicism lift out of poverty since 1990? I have no idea. But…
How many people did Capitalism lift out of poverty since 1990? 1.25Billion! [From https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty ]
Pope Francis, you’d better start selling all the art, chalices, jeweled crosses, buildings, land-holdings, etc. and get busy handing the proceeds out to the poor! You have some catching up to do.
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences holds a membership roster of the most respected names in 20th century science, including such Nobel laureates as Ernest Rutherford, Max Planck, Otto Hahn, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger. Current membership is listed by Wikipedia, with the longest serving member a Nobel prize laureate Swiss microbiologist Werner Arber.
And your point is?…
Captitalism – people-centred development
The aim of the annual celebration is to increase awareness about capitalism. Being people-centred, not socialist-centred, capitalists distribute wealth in a fairer way. As farms, businesses, or other organizations which are owned and run singly or jointly by citizens who share the profits or benefits, capitalists are committed to the sustainable development of their communities, environmentally, socially as well as economically. They support community activities, local sourcing of supplies to benefit the local economy, and decision-making that considers the impact on their communities.
There, I fixed that paragraph. It actually makes more sense than the socialist/communist message these people are attempting to foist on the world.
Socialists fail to address a fundamental aspect of humanity, and that’s competition. If you put two people in a room, eventually, some sort of competition will occur between them. This is the very nature of humanity. If you remove all normal outlets for competition, new outlets will be created. If you place people in a completely socialist/communist society, the most industrious and motivated people will still attempt to get ahead of the people around them while the rest become mired in morass of nihilistic depression and a complete lack of motivation.
Socialists/communists present themselves as a more fair system of wealth distribution. That might be true if you consider that the overwhelming majority of people will be on the lowest financial and social rung in society. We can see this wherever socialism/communism is implemented. Because it doesn’t address human nature, it will always fail. The accumulated cost in human lives, alone, should send people running from the idea.
Per St. Paul to the Thessalonians:
6Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from any brother who leads an undisciplined life that is not in keeping with the tradition you receivedb from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not undisciplined among you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. Instead, in labor and toil, we worked night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9Not that we lack this right, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10For even while we were with you, we gave you this command: “If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat.”
Distributism has been a long-standing economic theory in the Catholic Church since before WW1.
The Mondragon Co-operative in the Basque region is often cited as a successful example of distributism in practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
I’m not an advocate, I’m just putting the Pope’s views in context.
You’re assuming an awful lot about the Pope’s views. To me, they look just like a lot of the other 1960s-issue leftist dogma we’ve seen from him.
FFS, a Pope lecturing on Climate Change whilst Priest’s are still abusing children.
Am I angry?
You bet!
The catholic church is not only one of the original capitalist organisations, they mastered the art of selling products with no intrinsic value, no production costs and no capital outlay. And if you won’t buy salvation, they offer you indulgences. Profit all the way.
The Pope doesn’t know his bible.
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
Another example of the pope’s biblical illiteracy:
Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, …” John 18:36 What does the pope say about the use of force used by communist guerillas to spread their ideology in various South American countries during the past decades?
Let’s distribute and eat all the seed corn. Then we can all be equal in death with nothing left to plant for the future. That’s what this silly marxist is really saying.
Rather than telling everybody that will listen what to do with their money, he might serve his god better by cleaning up his filthy pedophile priest problem.
Problem? I thought it was a requirement for the job.. ?
Who cares how poor they are, so long as they are fair.
I’m guessing that the Pope has never actually dealt with real world “cooperatives”. The reality is that those who run them always end up wealthier than those who work for them.
Like most Marxist, it’s the thought the count, not the number of people who have to die to implement the thought.
Under capitalism, each person is paid based on their contribution.
Under socialism, each person is paid based on how well they can kiss up to the boss.
BTW, what can be fairer than each person being paid based on their contribution?
Why should those who don’t contribute be paid as well?
Yet we accept the Earned Income Credit as a good thing. For those outside the U.S. The EIC is where certain family qualifications allow you to get a tax “refund” even though you did not pay any taxes.
what do you mean we kemosabe?
And technically you are wrong about them not paying any taxes. Those who claim the EIC must have earned some income (IE had a paying job working for someone else), that income is still subject to taxes (payroll taxes such as for SS or unemployment not to mention all the other government fees and taxes those claimants are subject to regardless of their income level, such as sales tax, registration fees, etc). What you really mean is they get an *income* tax “refund” even though they did not pay enough income tax to warrant that refund IE the “refund” is larger than the taxes paid/withheld.
What you say is true but having earned income and owing taxes are not the same. A single mother with kids who has a job may have a small amount of taxes out of her paycheck but her low income would mean she owed no taxes due to exemptions. So she gets all the withholding back (paid no taxes) and she gets the EIC.
Again, you are misspeaking due to there being more than one kind of tax. Getting your income tax withholding back is not the same thing as paying no taxes. Sorry but it isn’t. Your SS, Unemployment, and other payroll taxes are not counted in the income tax withholding. Any sales tax, gas tax, or other fees and taxes you pay are also not counted in income tax withholding. So while it’s true that someone getting the EIC can get more back than was withheld for income tax purposes, that is *not* the same thing as “paid no taxes” (what you really mean was “effectively paid no *income* taxes – though to be entirely strictly speaking it should be “effectively paid no *federal income* taxes as they might still have a state income tax bill to pay). The EIC money would have to be greater than all those other taxes paid as well in order for “paid no taxes” to be true. It isn’t. Not even close in most cases.
The church has allowed itself to be corrupted and should ashamed of itself. Pope Francis is a mess.
Catholics believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Those are permanent; whereas Popes and clergy come and go. Think about it this way. Assume we strive to follow Christ’s teachings as best we can. There are two outcomes:
1. Heavenly reward far, far more wonderful than anything we can possibly imagine.
2. No reward but living a virtuous life and attempting to raise a good family and, hopefully, making a contribution or two to society along the way.
Neither of those sounds so terrible to me. Thus, I do not question my faith.
– – – – – –
WR2 July 6, 2020 at 11:34 am
If I were Catholic I’d be questioning my faith right now.
Appoint a socialist as Pope and socialism is what you will get. Thank God my ancestors were Huguenots and Protestants, f**k the catholic crime family f**ks.