I might agree. I think it’s too easy to say “he’s an Argentinian statist” though (just as it’s probably too easy to say “he’s just calling for more charity from all of us, voluntary charity not forced redistribution but voluntary”)
The fact of the matter is, he used the phrase “redistribution by the State”. However he also said in relation, “legitimate” and “economic benefits” (IOW not simply “money”).
So, it seems to me what he is saying is, the state should guarantee that every person has an equal opportunity to earn a decent living, and where inequality exists, such as crony capitalism, this should be abolished by the state.
So in this sense he isn’t a “statist” but he is in the sense that he believes the state has a role to play in guaranteeing opportunity for all. (Although I don’t agree that makes one a statist, I can see where one might think and reasonably argue it does).
Really, what we have here, (again I think), is he is strongly promoting in more concrete terms than prior popes, the idea of “subsidiarity”, which is that the state’s job is to guarantee that nothing interfere with local efforts toward human improvement.
In other words very close to the American experiment but not quite in that it assigns a role to the state the US Constitution does not. But it’s a rather small difference I would argue as the ultimate goal is the same: to rid individuals and families of state control, a control that would and does eventually dehumanize them.
Subsidiarity seeks to primarily protect the individual and small local group (family, etc), even at the cost (if necessary) of “free” enterprise. (Although the proponent of subsidiarity would argue , and I agree, it doesn’t work against capitalism per se, rather against crony capitalism and/or capitalism that seeks exploitation of people as a resource, not as partners in the enterprise, which some, with vested interest in same or simply the selfish, would interpret as opposition to capitalism in total)
The point to return to is his use of the word “redistribution” in the context of the state. This interpretation can’t be avoided. However I would submit this is where his Argentinian background would be properly understood as having an influence.
In other words he is speaking to all the Latin American countries where crony capitalism runs amok, and is urging in all such countries where such oppression is seen, the state should step in to redistribute the economic benefit garnered via human exploitation (which is what crony capitalism is). And this redistribution should not be to take money from the rich and give to the poor, rather it should be a redistribution of economic “benefit”, such that other people, rather than just those who have government friends, can start businesses and earn livings for themselves, through their own hard work. Rather than being enslaved by those in their own government who, by favoritism shown to their employers by the state, enable only some to prosper economically, but not all.
So this isn’t Marxist. I should hope that would be clear. If anything “political” it’s “individualist”.
Your point on subsidiarity is excellent. The pope, however, never makes it.
On the other hand, he does mock what he calls, our “trickle down” economics theory, almost as if he has been indoctrinated with liberation theology, but claims to oppose.
Possibly the most confusing speaker and leader I have ever heard in my lifetime.
Well, Pelosi has come close. :)
I think the problem is that he didn’t make it very clear that the State was the servant of the people, and not their master, who could “redistribute benefits.” What he said came across, to me at least, as very “top down.”
And that’s always the problem with the State, and something you see particularly in Latin America (certainly, Argentina is a prime example!). Individual taxes may not be very high simply because most people don’t have very much money, but huge amounts are extorted from seizures of businesses or extortionate taxes and fees...and yet none of this ever goes into benefits for the average person. It just goes to pay huge salaries to government officials, both elected and civil service, or distributed to other businesses that are friends of the government or generally even ends up invested offshore somewhere, making money for the head of state. It never goes for things like providing clean water to populations, both rural and urban, etc., a modest enough undertaking which most of Latin America, including Mexico, seems to be unable to handle. And the countries where the State is strongest and has seized virtually everything with the supposed goal of “redistributing” it are the worst: Cuba and VZ, both formerly prosperous states where the poor and middle classes now are being subjected to food rationing and don’t have enough to eat. Although I don’t notice Castro or Maduro looking as if they’ve missed any meals...
Reading Pope Francis’ words as a whole, yes, I’m sure he probably had subsidiarity in mind and felt that the whole thing likes with individuals (witness the account of Zacchaeus). But he should never have said the part about redistribution and the State, because the press has seized on that and now makes it sound like he was legitimizing “redistribution” at the hands of this all-powerful, all-wise State. It probably wasn’t his intention, and in fact I think he was trying to be very careful to specify and make a number of other points, and he probably can’t be blamed for what the press is going to do with his words. But I expect to hear Obama (selectively) quoting him any day now, and I also expect to hear the UN citing this in their plan to impose a global 10% tax on wealth.
Well, you have an interesting argument, but his plain words are the redistribution of wealth. He is also talking about the legitimate redistribution; who determines legitimate? Also, it is really hard to justify the coercive actions of the state to take from some to give to others, with the attendant costs and loss of freedom, and call it "individualist."