Perhaps one of my favorite Catholic Apologists is Trent Horn. He does an +amazing job at calmly and concisely explaining Catholic doctrines on Faith & +Morals in a very rational manner. He has been fundamental in my formation as a +Catholic, and I pray God will provide him with what he needs to continue his +wonderful work.
+ +All this being said, there is one area where I have a small discrepancy with +Mr. Horn, which lies in his understanding and personal definitions for the terms +Socialism and Capitalism. This is not because I disagree with his +position - that no good Catholic can be a Socialist - but rather that, in +misunderstanding and misrepresenting what Socialism is, we give way for +confusion in what the Church actually teaches. So I'd like to make some +clarifying statements on his definitions, basing myself on a segment from an +interview he did on the channel +Pints with Aquinas.[1]
+ +The best place to start, as it will later help us in defining Capitalism, is +with Mr. Horn's definition of Socialism. He defines Socialism as "give the +government what you have and they will give you what they think you need." I +will concede that Mr. Horn was probably looking for a simplified definition, +this definition oversimplifies it, and not in a manner that it is too broad, but +quite the opposite: it leaves out other forms of Socialism. This is because Mr. +Horn is (understandably) thinking about Planned/Command Economy +Socialism,[2] which is the most common form in +which Socialism has been implemented. However, because of this +oversimplification, his definition fails to include a very real form of +Socialism named Market Socialism.[3] This is also +Socialist, and therefore condemned by the Church, and yet it will not fall under +Mr. Horn's definition of Socialism. Yet, if we're going to understand Socialism, +we should take it from real Socialists. As Marx himself defined it, "the theory +of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private +property."[4] (1) To change +this negative definition into a positive one, what a Communist/Socialist defends +is the collectivization of the means of production. Therefore, although this may +take form of collectivization into a State apparatus, as Mr. Horn is referring +to, it does not necessitate such. This is an important point, since the Church +condemns the very foundation of Socialism, which is Collectivism, meaning that +even these lighter forms of Socialism remain condemned by the Holy +Church.(2)
+ +Perhaps the reason why Mr. Horn creates such a limited definition for +Socialism is because he gives too wide of a definition for Capitalism. In the +video Mr. Horn starts by recognizing that Capitalism is a term coined by +Socialists, and most notably influenced by Karl Marx, and goes on to equivocate +Capitalism with Free Markets, saying that this is what he defends. The issue is +that this definition is actually much too broad, and therefore would actually +end up encompassing forms of Socialism that we have mentioned earlier! What's +more, if this is your definition of Capitalism, then truly Capitalism has +existed since the very beginnings of human trade & commerce. Yet, if Mr. +Horn acknowledges that the term is of Socialist origin, would it not make sense +to use its Socialist meaning, especially when trying to explain it in relation +to Socialism?
+ +